Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Veterans

Showing Original Post only (View all)

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Fri Jun 28, 2013, 06:46 AM Jun 2013

Troops allegedly misled by car loan program to get refunds [View all]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/27/195222/troops-allegedly-misled-by-car.html

Troops allegedly misled by car loan program to get refunds
By Lindsay Wise | McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2013

WASHINGTON — U.S. Bank and a Kentucky-based financial services provider agreed to refund $6.5 million to 50,000 military service members after federal regulators accused both companies of misleading borrowers about fees and costs associated with an auto loans program that targeted active-duty troops.

U.S. Bank, headquartered in Minneapolis, along with its partner, Dealers’ Financial Services of Lexington, Ky., violated the law by engaging in deceptive marketing and lending practices, regulators with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleged Thursday.

The auto loan program created by the two companies – the Military Installment Loans and Educational Services program – was designed to appeal to young service members who were new to the car-buying process and had little or no credit history. It required them to make payments on subprime loans through the military’s so-called “discretionary allotment system,” a process that automatically deducts the money from their salaries before the funds are deposited in a bank or credit union.

Regulators said the program neglected to inform the borrowers of all the fees third-parties would charge to process the automatic deductions. It also failed to explain how often payments were due or that the intricacies of the payment schedule meant additional interest charges, according to regulators.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Veterans»Troops allegedly misled b...»Reply #0