Print this page

Consumer Advocates Still Beating the Same Drum

By Nicole F. Munro May 21, 2019

 

In February, the U.S. PIRG Education Fund and the Frontier Group, two public interest groups, published "Driving Into Debt: The Hidden Costs of Risky Auto Loans to Consumers and Our Communities." The paper criticized America's dependence on cars, the absence of alternative transportation options, and the rise of automobile debt since the Great Recession. It also proffered that auto debt-strapped consumers post-recession are financially vulnerable to another economic downturn.

In addition, the paper chastised the auto marketplace for loosening credit standards and engaging in "abusive, predatory, and discriminatory auto sales and lending practices." Although the paper called for expansion of transportation choices for consumers, a majority of the paper focused on regulating auto dealers' and finance sources' alleged unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.

This paper's vague allegations and one-off personal stories were used to lump all dealers and finance sources in with bad actors in the industry. We've all heard these allegations before, but they bear repeating because more and more consumer advocates, regulators, and policymakers seem to be beating the same old drum, and it might be getting louder.

Owning a car is paramount to success in America - the paper calls it the price of admission to the economy and society and states that a car is expensive and drives millions of households to take on debt (so does having children, but that's another story). Blaming post-recession interest rate reductions, lengthened terms of vehicle-secured credit transactions, a belief that car credit is safer than mortgage loans, and the need for a car to produce income, the paper alleges that both creditors and consumers have taken on more risk when it comes to auto debt.

The paper continues with the assertion that characteristics of current car credit leave consumers financially vulnerable in the case of another economic downturn. Citing longer repayment terms, financing of negative equity, and higher rates to less qualified buyers, the paper alleges that more people are paying more money to own a car. The paper also claims that dealers and finance sources, especially those in the subprime market, routinely engage in "predatory, abusive, and discriminatory practices" that contribute to the economic vulnerability of an already vulnerable population.

The paper's authors argue that creditors charge subprime buyers rates that exceed state usury rates, citing New York law. Here, the paper confuses direct and indirect credit transactions. In New York, the generally accepted maximum interest rate for licensed lenders is 25% for loans with a principal amount of $25,000 or less. Dealers are not licensed lenders; they are credit sellers. Regular readers of Spot Delivery know that indirect transactions are credit sales, not loans. A dealer in New York may contract for a credit service charge on an installment contract at the rate agreed to with the buyer. There is no deception here. Usury rates simply don't apply. This confusion is not surprising - we continue to find that some consumer advocates, credit regulators, and even industry lawyers erroneously still refer to credit sales as "loans" and finance sources as "lenders."

The paper argues that creditors provide incomplete or confusing information about credit terms. The paper claims that the use of electronic contracting creates "opportunities for abuse" where "consumers often find it difficult to review in fine print and may not even be confident that the contract they are signing matches the terms of sale agreed to with the dealer." Here, the paper fails to understand how dealers e-contract.

To comply with the Truth in Lending Act and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, dealers must either print copies of documents for buyers to review before obtaining their electronic signatures or comply with ESIGN's really complicated consumer consent disclosures. We are not aware of any dealers, in any part of the country, who provide the consumer consent disclosures. Typically, a consumer contracting electronically receives a printed copy of the contract and would be fully aware of the terms of the contract before signing it. Moreover, it is typical for a dealer, even in states that don't require it, to provide copies of all documents signed by the consumer upon completion of the transaction. In fact, just a few weeks ago, my husband and I financed a car and walked out of a Maryland dealership with copies of all the documents we signed, as required by Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit provisions.

The paper also discusses spot deliveries, referred to by consumer advocates as "yo-yo" sales. For years, consumer advocates have contended that all spot deliveries are unfair and/or deceptive. There are abusive spot delivery practices, and some dealers employ them, but spot deliveries that are neither unfair nor deceptive take place by the thousands every day. Those transactions are ignored because they do not advance the consumer protection agenda. Some states have bought the consumer advocate position and prohibit spot deliveries. Others regulate the practice.

With more and more dealers connected to finance sources electronically and more and more instantaneous credit approvals, spot deliveries may decrease. Further, spot deliveries should be even more infrequent in buy-here, pay-here transactions since the dealership is not shopping the contract among finance sources but is holding the contract or selling it to a related entity. If a dealer engages in spot deliveries, however, we recommend that the dealer consider adopting "best practices" as described in the May 2012 Spot Delivery article, "State AGs Urge Spot Delivery Regulations that Mirror Industry Best Practices."

The paper argues that dealers extend credit to consumers without the ability to repay. Here, the paper equates "no document" mortgage lending with auto finance. The paper further alleges that because one company verified only 8% of buyer income in a securitized portfolio, the industry is engaged in credit transactions without determining the ability to pay for a financed vehicle. That may be true for some dealers and finance companies, but it certainly is not an industrywide practice.

Furthermore, finance sources may not have policies to verify all income but may have accurate statistics on defaults and complaints that should lead them pretty quickly to dealers engaging in application fraud. Finally, many buy-here, pay-here dealers not only get pay stubs and bank statements, but they also make other attempts to verify income.

The paper argues that dealers engage in discrimination related to dealer participation. Proponents of this argument, which dates back to the early 2000s, claim that dealers are violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act under a disparate impact theory. It remains unclear whether disparate impact is a viable legal claim and whether anyone can really show disparate impact using the statistical analyses preferred by plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer advocates. Disparate treatment, however, is actionable under the ECOA, and creditors should take great care to make credit, servicing, and collection decisions based on objective credit criteria.

The paper argues that dealers also charge bogus fees and push expensive add-on products. Many fees charged by dealers are regulated by law in many states. Documentary fees, for example, should be charged equally in cash and credit transactions, are often limited in amount, and carry disclosure warnings to the consumer that they are fees paid to the dealer for services related to the sale. Sales of ancillary products, such as service contracts, credit insurance, and GAP, are also heavily regulated under state law. Although dealers should make sure they do not engage in high-pressure sales tactics or incentivize such practices, the sales of these products are legally permissible if optional, compliant with state law, and disclosed properly in the retail installment contract.

The paper argues that creditors engage in abusive collection and repossession tactics. Upon default, a creditor has the right to repossess the vehicle securing the transaction and collect the outstanding amounts owed. Yes, there are bad actors who engage in collection practices and repossess vehicles in violation of the law. Many, however, have servicing and collection policies designed to ensure compliance with federal and state laws concerning debt collection and vehicle recovery, train their staff on such policies, and mitigate the risk of UDAAP violations through legal compliance.

In response to the alleged abuses above and to protect vulnerable consumers, the paper suggests that policymakers close excessive rate loopholes, enforce existing fraud protections, prohibit discriminatory dealer participation, require creditors to determine ability to repay, address "inherent conflicts of interest present in indirect lending," and expand responsible lending options for low-income Americans. The paper also contains an appendix, "Consumer Tips for Avoiding Auto Loan Tricks and Traps," that continues the vague allegations of UDAAPs against dealers and calls for consumers to:

  • avoid buy-here, pay-here dealerships by exploring credit options before they buy;
  • limit "yo-yo" financing by buying "less car" or get preapproved financing from a bank, credit union, or online lender;
  • be particularly careful when trading in a car with negative equity and try to "avoid trading it in";
  • avoid focusing on monthly payment but look instead to the total cost of the "loan"; and
  • avoid buying any add-on products, many of which are "either unnecessary or can be found far cheaper elsewhere."

Although exploring credit options, keeping the amount of credit extended within a consumer's limits, and looking at the total cost of credit are good advice, avoiding-buy here, pay-here dealers, not trading in vehicles with negative equity, and obtaining bank loans are just not readily feasible alternatives for subprime, and even many prime, buyers. Further, telling buyers to avoid all add-on products neglects the real consumer benefits of some of the products.

The paper beats the drum of consumer advocates, misunderstands (perhaps intentionally) the structure of indirect credit, misleads the reader into thinking that there are no laws against the practices alleged to be engaged in by creditors, uses one-off anecdotes to make global allegations against the entire auto industry, and, frankly, paints such a broad brush picture against car ownership that it is difficult to take it seriously.

That said, because the credit practices alleged in the paper to be predatory do exist and consumer advocates have long alleged them to be abusive, creditors should make efforts to mitigate risks by ensuring that customers adequately understand the terms of the transaction, understand that the purchase of add-ons is optional, risk-base the price of credit on verifiable application information, avoid spot delivery abuses, and ensure compliance with federal and state laws relating to application, origination, servicing, and collection of vehicle installment contracts.

Nicole F. Munro is a partner in the Maryland office of Hudson Cook LLP.

©CounselorLibrary.com 2019, all rights reserved. Based on an article from Spot Delivery. Single print publication rights only to Used Car News.

Rate this item
(0 votes)
Last modified on Tuesday, 11 June 2019 22:32

Related items