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
And…I just do not understand where and when the BACKBONE of the leaders in the recovery industry turned to jello. I follow the blogs and the conversations and it still seems that there are those who are still going begging to Chase for their business. Please take out this and please take out that and then we will kowtow to the rest of your ludicrious demands. WHERE IS THE SIMPLE NO! NO! we refuse to work for slave wages, NO! we refuse to pay your loans off if insurance does not. NO! we will not sign your contract. Why is there not someone out there who will say…”YOU NEED US MORE THAN WE NEED YOU!” The large banks whom we had to bail out, the forwarding companies who give away the things that are not theirs to give and any entity which attempts to set prices and dictate terms should be ostracized for this unacceptable behavior. There are those in the recovery industry who have spoken to Chase and tried to negotiate acceptable terms, to work out a compromise contract only to be rebuffed by Chase representatives. WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE? WHERE IS YOUR COURAGE? Have I put my case too strongly…maybe, but I am passionate for RIGHT but I assure you that in a world of compromise some men and women don’t. The members of Eagle Group XX only want fairness for all. The members of Eagle Group XX will live and maybe die by the simple creedo, “RIGHT IS RIGHT, WRONG IS WRONG AND THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN…”
Isn’t Apple being sued for this very same type of tactic, attempting to set the market price for other free enterprise competitors ? Who in their right mind would sign something like this. I feel like a giant 4th grader wrote this contract , “Give me a head start in the race or i wont play, and if i lose you still have to give me the first place ribbon.” Maybe that was a bad example but you get my point.
Tezt