TFA Response to the New Chase Bank Contract

Editorial

 

“We have been talking with many TFA members and insurance providers who are in receipt of the most recent Chase contact, and we must advise that, as an organization, we cannot support the terms of this contract.

Some of the elements in the Master Contract include:

“At its sole cost and expense, Supplier will repair any damage to any Vehicle, including replacement of lost or damaged parts, which occurs while in the custody or control of Supplier, its agents, or employees. This includes satisfying the balance of the Account, or fair market value of the Vehicle, whichever is greater, if the Vehicle is stolen or deemed a total loss while in the custody of Supplier.”

The higher number will always be the balance on the account. It would reflect the good or bad underwriting at the time of the loan, or Chase’s own collection efforts, none of which are within the purview of the repossessor. In addition, we are hearing from industry insurers that their carriers will not cover the loss to this extent.

“If Supplier offers more favorable pricing to any other similarly situated customer than are offered to JPMC under any Schedule, then Supplier will concurrently extend that pricing to JPMC, and this Agreement and/or any Schedule, at JPMC’s option, will be deemed amended to provide that pricing to JPMC.”

“In addition to JPMC’s other audit rights under this Agreement, JPMC will have the right to audit Supplier’s records with respect to compliance with this Most Favored Customer provision.”

“Any amounts charged to JPMC in excess of prices offered by Supplier to any other similarly situated customer for goods and services will promptly be refunded or credited to JPMC by Supplier at JPMC’s option.

We cannot fix prices. There are a number of reasons that a repossession agency may choose to extend different prices to different customers. The quality of information being provided by the assignor is one; others might be agencies that participate in a cooperative, or work cooperatively with other association members.

In general, the repossessor should have the right to bill other clients more, or less. at their discretion. The potential of an audit resulting in a demand for a refund or credit seems unjust and intrusive.

We also understand that elements of the Hold Harmless have been adjusted in favor of Chase. Regardless of the contract, case law has clearly established that the creditor is responsible for the acts of their repossessor.

Chase has long been viewed as a good client for the repossession industry, and it is with this perspective that we ask you to reconsider these elements of the contract. “



J. Patrick Altes
Time Finance Adjusters
728 Fentress Boulevard
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114

Print Friendly

3 Responses to "TFA Response to the New Chase Bank Contract"

  • Profile photo of Ron Brown
    Ron Brown says:
  • Profile photo of
    TBONE2012 says:
Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

56 visitors online now
45 guests, 11 bots, 0 members
Max visitors today: 82 at 01:06 am UTC
This month: 138 at 08-04-2017 10:22 am UTC
This year: 138 at 08-04-2017 10:22 am UTC
All time: 307 at 07-02-2014 03:18 pm UTC
Skip to toolbar