Philadelphia Federal Credit Union Hit with Class Action Over Allegedly Improper Vehicle Repossession Notices – Cook et al. v. Philadelphia Federal Credit Union – FILED: OCTOBER 18, 2023 ◆§ 231001870
A recent class action lawsuit filed against Philadelphia Federal Credit Union (PFCU) alleges that redemption fees, sometimes known as gate fees, are improper and inflate the amount needed for borrowers to reclaim the property and misrepresent consumers’ redemption rights under state law.
Within the 11-page lawsuit, it is claimed that PFCU, when in the process of repossessing defaulted auto loans, violates the state’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) by providing inadequate notices of intent to repossess (NOI) to borrowers by charging unwarranted added fees to redeem or reinstate their auto loans.
One Philadelphia resident named as a plaintiff, financed a 2021 Nissan Versa through PFCU in June of this year and by September had defaulted and the vehicle was repossessed.
According to the lawsuit filing, state law requires that a post-repossession notice must contain specific information to the borrower including; informing the borrower of the vehicle’s repossession, how the car will be sold and how long the debtor has to redeem the property, in addition to other things.
In the repossession notice provided the plaintiff named as the borrower of the 2021 Nissan that they received in September, PFCU stated that they had 15 days from the date of the notice to redeem the vehicle, according to the lawsuit. However, the suit claims that the notice was misleading since state law actually allows a borrower to redeem a repossessed vehicle at any time until it is sold.
In addition to this alleged deficiency, the plaintiff also claims that the notice sent advised that to reclaim the car, they must pay a $425 repossession fee, $20 per day for storage costs, daily interest charges, a $75 “redemption fee” and “additional fees” of $75.
The complaint alleges that the two $75 fees unjustifiably inflated the amount needed for the borrower to redeem the property. They allege that the charges are not derived from any actual cost incurred by the defendant and have “no basis in law or contract.”
The plaintiff’s filing alleges that PFCU’s practices are “commercially unreasonable,” and they believe that the credit union has sent similarly deficient and improper repossession notices to consumers across the state.
The lawsuit seeking to represent anyone in Pennsylvania who entered into a finance agreement with PFCU that pledged a purchased motor vehicle as collateral that has had their vehicle repossessed by PFCU pursuant to the finance agreement within the last six years.
Source: Classaction.org
Class Action Lawsuit Claims Repossession Redemption Fees Overinflate Borrower Costs to Redeem – Class Action Lawsuit Claims Repossession Redemption Fees Overinflate Borrower Costs to Redeem – Class Action Lawsuit Claims Repossession Redemption Fees Overinflate Borrower Costs to Redeem
Class Action Lawsuit Claims Repossession Redemption Fees Overinflate Borrower Costs to Redeem – Repossession – Lawsuit – Credit Union Collections – Credit Union Collectors
Facebook Comments