Author Topic: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for  (Read 15980 times)

AH013

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/miss-payment-good-luck-moving-013333514.html

TLDR:  Lenders install remote kill switches in sub-prime auto loan vehicles.  If you don't pay your auto loan, after trying to reach you by phone for days and having an alert device in your car informing you your vehicle will be disabled in 24 hours if you don't make your payment, they shut down your car when it is parked so you can't keep driving (and thus depreciating) the vehicle you aren't paying for.  Apparently this violates your rights to drive a car you aren't paying for.  Class action lawsuit ensues.

Following article notes
  • Complaints that, while they will restart your car in the event of an emergency for 24 hours of use (without questioning your "emergency") despite you not paying, they only provide you one emergency a month instead of as many as needed.
  • A woman missed payments 3 out of 4 consecutive months, and was frustrated that her car kept not starting when she was "only a few days late".  Apparently the constant disables were less frustrating than ensuring her bill was paid on time.
  • A woman had her truck shut down at the gas station with her 4 kids.  She "missed" a long string of phone calls from her lender that day, presumably while pumping her 5-seater truck full of 20+ gallons of gas, and later found out when she went to restart her car that it wouldn't restart which put her kids in "panic mode".
  • Woman filing a class action lawsuit because they shut down cars after being 4 days late and notifying the borrower countless times.  Her argument is that although the state statute doesn't address disablement, lenders do have to wait 30 days before claiming a loan is in default and repossessing the car, so this 30 day wait should apply to remote disables too.

I'm appreciate of extenuating circumstances and what not, but come on, it isn't like they didn't tell you about this when you got the loan and it isn't like they didn't communicate to you multiple times they'd be deactivating your car.  It used to be back in the day, out of the blue they'd hook deadbeat's cars in the middle of the night and drag it to the impound lot with the person's possessions still in it.  Now it's much more civil and more orderly.  You didn't pay for your car, so why do you feel entitled to use it, and entitled to such a degree you feel you get to sue someone with no real basis for depriving you of using an expensive asset they ultimately own (securitized loan)?  What's next, class action lawsuits against credit card issuers for deactivating your credit card when you're "only a few days late" and you "have an emergency"?

Philociraptor

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
  • Age: 29
  • Location: DFW, TX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
In other news, my wife and I witnessed what we think was a reposession this past weekend.  We saw an odd device on the end of a truck protruding out while driving through a neighborhood.  The truck abruptly stopped, extended some bar, and backed up towards a (fairly new) vehicle parked in a driveway.  It was at that point that we saw "Dallas Recovery" something on the side of the truck. The bar then starts to lift the vehicle and move it towards the truck. Drove off before the end, but the wife suggested we come back with popcorn and watch the soon-to-ensue chaos.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8477
  • Registered member
It used to be back in the day, out of the blue they'd hook deadbeat's cars in the middle of the night and drag it to the impound lot with the person's possessions still in it.  Now it's much more civil and more orderly.

Is it though?

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh8wTWOeSH965eC6kS

;-)

In other news, my wife and I witnessed what we think was a reposession this past weekend.  We saw an odd device on the end of a truck protruding out while driving through a neighborhood.  The truck abruptly stopped, extended some bar, and backed up towards a (fairly new) vehicle parked in a driveway.  It was at that point that we saw "Dallas Recovery" something on the side of the truck. The bar then starts to lift the vehicle and move it towards the truck. Drove off before the end, but the wife suggested we come back with popcorn and watch the soon-to-ensue chaos.

Seemed interesting, so had to find it for myself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu5WHTW1L8Q
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 02:26:38 PM by dragoncar »

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
I read that article earlier today and just shook my head.  What are people in bad financial shape doing buying fairly new vehicles on credit?  It makes absolutely no sense.  Just buy a beater if you are stuck using a car.  Then, when it breaks down and you aren't able to repair it, sell it to a junk yard for scrap.  People care way too much about what their neighbors think about their car.

AJ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Oregon
Hmm...I have to say I agree with the complaints on this list. They really should wait until the 30-day mark before shutting off cars that people are relying on. And really, why wouldn't they want to? If people are consistently paying, but always late to do so, the lender is making bank in fees. And it is pretty shitty to shut off someone's car when they are with their kids away from home. Anyone lending to this demographic knows they are going to get late payments, it shouldn't be a surprise.

It's really easy to say, "Well, these people aren't being responsible, so they deserve what they get!" but I don't think the punishment here fits the crime. Plus it's rather counter-productive: if people can't get to work for lack of their car, they aren't going to be able to catch up on payments.

This mechanism seems like it would be most useful when they are getting ready to repossess the car. Shut it off, get a GPS signal, and go pick up the car.

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
With gems like this peppered throughout the article it is hard to feel much sympathy, "She needed the pick-up truck for her job delivering pizza."

Unless she is delivering 100 pizzas at the time I don't think a pick-up was "needed"

naloj

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Illinois
Kinda crazy that a subprime loan + late fees + dealing with remote deactivation is still probably cheaper and less aggravating than a legit pay-as-you-go car service like zipcar.com.

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
With gems like this peppered throughout the article it is hard to feel much sympathy, "She needed the pick-up truck for her job delivering pizza."

Unless she is delivering 100 pizzas at the time I don't think a pick-up was "needed"

I could fit 100 pizzas in my Kia...  It cost $1800 and gets 33mpg. 

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
OMG I saw this article too and thought the same thing... I don't understand how this is supposed to be unfair or inappropriate. you aren't paying for your car, you don't get to drive it! duh!

before we moved in together, my boyfriend was pretty terrible with money (granted, he had a few bad things happen, but I think even he would admit that he also just did not plan ahead)... to the point of getting his car repossessed at one point. so stressful and such a pain in the ass, but he didn't bitch about it, because he knew he messed up.

With gems like this peppered throughout the article it is hard to feel much sympathy, "She needed the pick-up truck for her job delivering pizza."

Unless she is delivering 100 pizzas at the time I don't think a pick-up was "needed"

LOL!

Kinda crazy that a subprime loan + late fees + dealing with remote deactivation is still probably cheaper and less aggravating than a legit pay-as-you-go car service like zipcar.com.

unfortunately Zipcar and the like are just not available in many parts of the country... looks like in Oklahoma the only thing we have is TimeCar in OKC/Norman, definitely nothing in the Tulsa area.

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
With gems like this peppered throughout the article it is hard to feel much sympathy, "She needed the pick-up truck for her job delivering pizza."

Unless she is delivering 100 pizzas at the time I don't think a pick-up was "needed"

I could fit 100 pizzas in my Kia...  It cost $1800 and gets 33mpg.

I am bad at tetris :(

fantabulous

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
    • My Crappy Little Blog
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2014, 04:19:34 PM »
With gems like this peppered throughout the article it is hard to feel much sympathy, "She needed the pick-up truck for her job delivering pizza."

Unless she is delivering 100 pizzas at the time I don't think a pick-up was "needed"

I could fit 100 pizzas in my Kia...  It cost $1800 and gets 33mpg.

I am bad at tetris :(

But pizza tetris is like getting all square blocks.

robotclown

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2014, 06:38:46 PM »
The last one may have a point, at least.  If it requires 30 days to repossess, it should probably also take 30 days to disable it.  It's not addressed in the state statute, but it probably should be.

Josiecat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2014, 06:51:05 PM »
These people bought these vehicles with subprime loans.  They knew the consequences of making late payments.  Now we're supposed to feel sorry for them? 

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2014, 07:35:55 PM »
I don't like the idea of subprime loans for new cars - it smells of exploitation and idiocy, hand-in-hand.

With that said, if the state requires 30 days to repossess, she does have a point. In my opinion. Regardless of how stupid she may have been, that's why we have laws.

space

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2014, 09:12:12 PM »
Didn't someone have a car shut down while driving on the highway, though? That's just plainly dangerous - do the brakes even work in that state? (No, I've never tried turning off a car while moving and hitting the brakes afterwards - and I don't intend to try...)

robotclown

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2014, 09:47:54 PM »
Didn't someone have a car shut down while driving on the highway, though? That's just plainly dangerous - do the brakes even work in that state? (No, I've never tried turning off a car while moving and hitting the brakes afterwards - and I don't intend to try...)

The brakes should work.  If the car is off and in neutral, the brakes work.  They're mechanical systems, so they shouldn't need any power.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2014, 10:06:59 PM »
1 - Brakes work, unless you have brakes by wire, which I don't think  any production cars do, because it'd be a terrible fucking idea. I've had my car shut off at 80 mph. Scary as fuck but I made it.

2 - These systems prevent a car from turning on; they should never, ever ever ever, turn it off. It should be as simple as an authentication device during ignition or a mechanical linkage during ignition. It is possible to set the OFF signal in the ignition module in a similar and simple way but doing it should, and probably would, have you paying for wrongful death.

tofuchampion

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
    • MadeByMarilynM
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2014, 10:09:49 PM »
I don't like the idea of subprime loans for new cars - it smells of exploitation and idiocy, hand-in-hand.

It wasn't a brand-new car, but my husband has a sub-prime loan for an '09 VW Tiguan. The lender refused to do a $3-5K loan for an older car, which is what he wanted; he was told that had to get something nicer, so that if he defaulted, it would have better resale value and they'd get more of their money back if they repossessed & sold it.

Of course, that means higher payments, and more expensive insurance, so higher chance of default to begin with. I wanted him to bike to work for a while and save up the cash for a beater, but he doesn't listen. That was a year ago, and now he admits it was dumb and wants to sell it.

Moral of the story:  Listen to your wife.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2014, 05:39:48 AM by tofuchampion »

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
  • Location: MA
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2014, 05:06:43 AM »
Car loans like this shouldn't exist, period.  Somehow, people were able to survive before being able to buy a 12 year old car at $350 a month.  Save that much money for three months and buy a beater.  Drive the beater for a year while saving the $350 a month and then use the $4000 to buy a better car etc....   I think it is crazy that someone would sign one of these loans.  Obviously, we as a society haven't learned anything from the sub-prime mortgage crisis, because we are continuing to offer financial products like this that lock people into a continuing cycle of poverty.         

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Age: 1818
  • Location: CO
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2014, 05:37:56 AM »
How hard would it be to disable the device? It's just an electronic switch right? Should be able to remove it entirely.

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2014, 06:30:37 AM »
1 - Brakes work, unless you have brakes by wire, which I don't think  any production cars do, because it'd be a terrible fucking idea. I've had my car shut off at 80 mph. Scary as fuck but I made it.

2 - These systems prevent a car from turning on; they should never, ever ever ever, turn it off. It should be as simple as an authentication device during ignition or a mechanical linkage during ignition. It is possible to set the OFF signal in the ignition module in a similar and simple way but doing it should, and probably would, have you paying for wrongful death.

I believe most brakes use a vacuum booster.  Meaning you will likely get one or two assisted presses of the pedal before losing the assist.  After that stopping the car becomes much harder.  Try it next time you get in your car.  Press the brakes a few times and see the difference in feel. 

larmando

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • Location: Germany
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2014, 06:40:56 AM »
That would probably be a breach of contract though and the car might be repossessed, then, so maybe not worth the risk. w.r.t. the other arguments, I guess the device helps getting in more payments, and having less defaults and repossessions, so it makes (financial) sense to block the car before repossessing to "encourage" people to pay. Whether this is lawful or not, it's not for me to determine, of course.

And indeed, while it's crazy that a car could stop while driving or in the middle of nowhere, it's probably a defect with the technology, and it's unavoidable that some technology has some defects. Usually though one is more annoyed if it also doesn't have *any* benefit for the impacted person. (e.g. my computer can break more easily than a paper notepad, but I'm not as annoyed as the computer has also advantages for me directly, rather than just for a third party)

Finally I'm surprised that insurance companies and auto producers allow the devices, if they might impact the safety of the vehicle, but I guess they still haven't determined if there's a widespread problem with them.

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2014, 07:18:25 AM »
I don't like the idea of subprime loans for new cars - it smells of exploitation and idiocy, hand-in-hand.

Car loans like this shouldn't exist, period.  Somehow, people were able to survive before being able to buy a 12 year old car at $350 a month.  Save that much money for three months and buy a beater.  Drive the beater for a year while saving the $350 a month and then use the $4000 to buy a better car etc....   I think it is crazy that someone would sign one of these loans.  Obviously, we as a society haven't learned anything from the sub-prime mortgage crisis, because we are continuing to offer financial products like this that lock people into a continuing cycle of poverty.       

yeah, agreed.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3078
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2014, 07:56:55 AM »
It sounds like the devices don't *stop* the car, but rather interrupt the *starter*.  So it has no effect on the car if it's already running, but once you turn off the engine, it won't start back up.  That way, there are no safety issues.

nyxst

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
    • AgainstAllOdds
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2014, 08:50:56 AM »
A woman I work with had this device... she paid $650 per month for a crappy rusty suv with a bad transmission... and she couldn't get to work at least 2 times per month because "they shut it off on her again..." and she would get a ride from someone and show up a couple of hours late and then get on the phone and scream at some poor woman and cry and all kinds of drama. 

Then, when the car was paid off, I asked her what she was going to do with the extra $650 per month now... she said she was going to have her electric turned back on... she told her kids they had to skip Christmas last year until tax return time... then she got a bunch of donations from local churches in March and gave her kids those... in the meantime, she is out partying every weekend, always has a new boyfriend, new boots, new sneakers... she makes slightly less than what I make, we each have 3 kids and we are both single... but somehow I have a 50% savings rate (depending on calculations) and no debt...  I think she gets sympathy from the rest of the world because of her "situation"... no one feels bad for me! Haha!

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8477
  • Registered member
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2014, 10:51:32 AM »
It sounds like the devices don't *stop* the car, but rather interrupt the *starter*.  So it has no effect on the car if it's already running, but once you turn off the engine, it won't start back up.  That way, there are no safety issues.

Just don't stop it on the train tracks

AH013

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2014, 11:05:02 AM »
It sounds like the devices don't *stop* the car, but rather interrupt the *starter*.  So it has no effect on the car if it's already running, but once you turn off the engine, it won't start back up.  That way, there are no safety issues.

Exactly.  I can't tell which way I'm leaning in this "car shut down in the middle of the highway" story.  Half the time I lean to thinking she is outright lying or there is some half-truth in there (i.e. she ran out of gas on the highway after they blocked the starter, thus having her car "shut down" in the middle of the highway with no way to restart it) and the other half of the time I think that she probably tampered with the device (as they also mentioned in the article that people do to bypass the shutoff) and it somehow caused some sort of failure.

If it legitimately shut down and locked everything up in the middle of the highway through no fault of her own (outside of not paying her bill on time), she would have had an excellent lawsuit, instead of "settling out of court for an undisclosed amount" mid-trial (ahem..."she drops charges and they won't counter-sue for legal fees").

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2014, 11:27:17 AM »
Quote
I believe most brakes use a vacuum booster.  Meaning you will likely get one or two assisted presses of the pedal before losing the assist.  After that stopping the car becomes much harder.  Try it next time you get in your car.  Press the brakes a few times and see the difference in feel.

Have you tried at speed?

You are correct that they use a vacuum booster or similar, which is why when the car is turned off, you get a couple pumps. But, at speed, even with it turned off, there's not really any issue in being able to brake. Again, done it at 80 mph. Partly because it still translates force to the brakes, and partly because the strength you get from a clenched asshole and white knuckles vastly overcomes the vacuum boost assist.

In other words, it is definitely possible - as long as you can steer. That's the other thing about your car shutting off - power steering is gone. On a straight road, like I was on, fine - if you're in the middle of the mountains somewhere, well, I hope the aforementioned adrenaline helps you out, or you're likely fucked. A modern car without power steering is quite different from an older car without power steering.

Quote
How hard would it be to disable the device? It's just an electronic switch right? Should be able to remove it entirely.

I would have to look into it, but I assume the device 1) gets its power from the car and 2) transmits and receives data by cell. Which means it almost certainly has a heartbeat, "I'm here" transmitted every once in a while. Which means when you disconnect it entirely, whoever put the device on knows. That's just an assumption, I don't know for sure.

Can you remove it entirely? Absolutely. Consequences? Possibly.

Quote
If it legitimately shut down and locked everything up in the middle of the highway through no fault of her own (outside of not paying her bill on time), she would have had an excellent lawsuit, instead of "settling out of court for an undisclosed amount" mid-trial (ahem..."she drops charges and they won't counter-sue for legal fees").

To be fair, sometimes people settle out of court for huge sums of money; settling out of court is not an admission of guilt, legally nor practically. With that said, you are right, if it straight up shut her car off at speed, she has an excellent lawsuit. Especially if, say, she claims she had children with her in the car... oh boy, that would really be something. GM is feeling the pain of cars shutting off at speed but they did it through incompetence, not on purpose.

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2014, 12:09:56 PM »
Quote
I believe most brakes use a vacuum booster.  Meaning you will likely get one or two assisted presses of the pedal before losing the assist.  After that stopping the car becomes much harder.  Try it next time you get in your car.  Press the brakes a few times and see the difference in feel.

Have you tried at speed?

You are correct that they use a vacuum booster or similar, which is why when the car is turned off, you get a couple pumps. But, at speed, even with it turned off, there's not really any issue in being able to brake. Again, done it at 80 mph. Partly because it still translates force to the brakes, and partly because the strength you get from a clenched asshole and white knuckles vastly overcomes the vacuum boost assist.

In other words, it is definitely possible - as long as you can steer. That's the other thing about your car shutting off - power steering is gone. On a straight road, like I was on, fine - if you're in the middle of the mountains somewhere, well, I hope the aforementioned adrenaline helps you out, or you're likely fucked. A modern car without power steering is quite different from an older car without power steering.


Yep.  You do get some braking force but it's not enough to do a panic stop. 

I've owned cars without power steering too.  You're right that cars designed to operate without power steering are very different than cars with failed power steering.  I had several people nearly crash my car pulling in to parking spots in it for the first time even after I've warned them. 


I don't see what the big deal is.  Buy here pay here lots have been using GPS tracking in cars for years to pick up cars after one missed payment.  This is just another step along those lines.  Make sure you know what you are signing up for. 

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4058
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2014, 05:37:28 PM »
Obviously, we as a society haven't learned anything from the sub-prime mortgage crisis, because we are continuing to offer financial products like this that lock people into a continuing cycle of poverty.       

Until these sub-prime car loans start getting packaged together and resold as AAA rated CDOs, I think we've at least learned something.

slugline

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Location: Houston, TX USA
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2014, 06:59:25 PM »
Is this based on the same technology that gets installed in the cars of some DUI offenders -- leaving out the breathalyzer part, of course? My understanding is that it shouldn't be a safety issue because it only prevents starting.

I do agree that the issues raised should be more explicitly addressed by state law if they're not already.

Davids

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 973
  • Location: Somewhere in the USA.
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #31 on: September 27, 2014, 07:04:42 AM »
That is a brilliant concept that a lender can have a kill switch in a car to shut it off if the borrower does not pay. I love that idea.

innkeeper77

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #32 on: September 27, 2014, 07:47:46 AM »
Have you tried at speed?

You are correct that they use a vacuum booster or similar, which is why when the car is turned off, you get a couple pumps. But, at speed, even with it turned off, there's not really any issue in being able to brake. Again, done it at 80 mph. Partly because it still translates force to the brakes, and partly because the strength you get from a clenched asshole and white knuckles vastly overcomes the vacuum boost assist.

In other words, it is definitely possible - as long as you can steer. That's the other thing about your car shutting off - power steering is gone. On a straight road, like I was on, fine - if you're in the middle of the mountains somewhere, well, I hope the aforementioned adrenaline helps you out, or you're likely fucked. A modern car without power steering is quite different from an older car without power steering.


For the record, my 2007 Subaru Impreza has terrible brakes without power, but after about 10 MPH it steers just fine. Its under 10 MPH that it gets super heavy and you have to haul on the wheel.. (I am no hypermiler but I have a tendency to kill the engine once I no longer need it to make it into the parking spot.)

This is a "compact" car though. I wouldn't feel safe without an engine in many of the gigantic monstrosities on the road today.

domustachesgrowinhouston

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Location: Colorado Springs
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #33 on: September 27, 2014, 08:36:59 AM »
I have a hard time feeling sorry for lenders in general, but especially high interest, high risk lenders.  A whole nation seems to believe that cars are mandatory and that the very first thing you have to do in adult life is establish a credit history. Im really glad to see quite a few young people frequenting this forum.

franklin w. dixon

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2014, 01:15:55 PM »
Hmm...I have to say I agree with the complaints on this list. They really should wait until the 30-day mark before shutting off cars that people are relying on. And really, why wouldn't they want to? If people are consistently paying, but always late to do so, the lender is making bank in fees. And it is pretty shitty to shut off someone's car when they are with their kids away from home. Anyone lending to this demographic knows they are going to get late payments, it shouldn't be a surprise.

It's really easy to say, "Well, these people aren't being responsible, so they deserve what they get!" but I don't think the punishment here fits the crime. Plus it's rather counter-productive: if people can't get to work for lack of their car, they aren't going to be able to catch up on payments.

This mechanism seems like it would be most useful when they are getting ready to repossess the car. Shut it off, get a GPS signal, and go pick up the car.
Many used car dealers have a business model that is predicated on repossessions. They sell some crummy old car for $4000 @ 25% apr, collect a down payment of $500 hundred and a couple monthly payments until the buyer gets behind, repossess, and repeat. It's common for a dealer to sell the same car four or five times over a period of a couple years in this way. They make even more money by repeatedly collecting down payments than they would if the car were actually paid off at the high rate. Since repossession is part of the business model, they try to force it as early as possible and with techniques like this (behind three days? No car for you, sucker. Now you're fired and you DEFINITELY won't make the payments). It's predatory. It's also very difficult to avoid as a poor person who wants to work because so many jobs require a car.

Must_Stash

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Unhappy that lender doesn't want you to drive a car you don't want to pay for
« Reply #35 on: September 27, 2014, 03:00:17 PM »
Obviously, we as a society haven't learned anything from the sub-prime mortgage crisis, because we are continuing to offer financial products like this that lock people into a continuing cycle of poverty.       

Until these sub-prime car loans start getting packaged together and resold as AAA rated CDOs, I think we've at least learned something.

Well, thank god that we learned at least that mu-- oh.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/national-and-international/the-welcome-return-of-subprime-loans/article_0caac9a4-cb7c-5903-9df9-169e9b1c127f.html

ash7962

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Chicago
Wait, one of the people in this article (the lady who had her car repo'd at the women's shelter) actually agreed to only drive it within a certain mile radius?  Did I read that wrong?  Why would anyone agree to that ever?

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Quote
Wait, one of the people in this article (the lady who had her car repo'd at the women's shelter) actually agreed to only drive it within a certain mile radius?  Did I read that wrong?  Why would anyone agree to that ever?

Don't underestimate how difficult it is to navigate negotiation when you have no money, no resources, and little to no education regarding the law and contracts.

There was / is an issue where dealerships accept trade-in, finance the newer car, then call the buyer up a couple days later saying that the financing fell through and they need to come in. But the traded-in car is gone, sold. Now the buyer is shit outta luck, can either accept the new and much worse deal or walk with less money than their traded-in car was worth.

You might think: well, why don't they _____? Because they fucking don't know how, never got taught, never learned, don't know how to fight as the underdog, and oh yeah, absolutely need a car to get to work because they have 30 minutes to go between two jobs that are 20 miles apart, without which they get evicted.

Of course, any dealership tries that on you or me, and they have a very fun lawsuit to deal with because you and I have the time, resources, knowledge, and desire to make "Fuck me? Fuck you!" come to life. That's why the story is never about a guy trading in his 3-series beamer for an M3, it's about a guy trading in his 1992 civic for a 2003 civic.

Someone told her: you have to agree to X. She agreed to X because she either doesn't imagine she doesn't have to, or she felt she had no other choice. That's why the defense against predatory terms being "well, we all have a choice" is not that great of a defense. If we have a choice, but people feel they're backed into a corner and painted out of any other choices, anyone taking advantage of that may be legally in the right, but I wouldn't say what they're doing is morally acceptable. It's not hypocritical to attack morally wrong behavior even if it's legal.

Jags4186

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
1 - Brakes work, unless you have brakes by wire, which I don't think  any production cars do, because it'd be a terrible fucking idea. I've had my car shut off at 80 mph. Scary as fuck but I made it.

2 - These systems prevent a car from turning on; they should never, ever ever ever, turn it off. It should be as simple as an authentication device during ignition or a mechanical linkage during ignition. It is possible to set the OFF signal in the ignition module in a similar and simple way but doing it should, and probably would, have you paying for wrongful death.

I believe most brakes use a vacuum booster.  Meaning you will likely get one or two assisted presses of the pedal before losing the assist.  After that stopping the car becomes much harder.  Try it next time you get in your car.  Press the brakes a few times and see the difference in feel.

My first car didn't have power breaks or power steering.  When you are moving it is much easier to press the breaks/turn the steering wheel than the car is at a standstill and shut off (which simulates not having power steering/breaks).

Yes you need to push the breaks in harder.  They work fine and did for 80 years before power breaks became standard.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Brakes.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3184
  • Location: Mississippi
Quote
Wait, one of the people in this article (the lady who had her car repo'd at the women's shelter) actually agreed to only drive it within a certain mile radius?  Did I read that wrong?  Why would anyone agree to that ever?

There was / is an issue where dealerships accept trade-in, finance the newer car, then call the buyer up a couple days later saying that the financing fell through and they need to come in. But the traded-in car is gone, sold. Now the buyer is shit outta luck, can either accept the new and much worse deal or walk with less money than their traded-in car was worth.

Kind of like this?
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/when-the-dealership-steals-back-the-car-they-just-sold-1636730607

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
That is precisely it, RWD. And the story shows very clearly what happens when the customer refuses to be taken advantage of: it's a slam-dunk case with penalties to make the thieves (no reason to be polite with euphemisms - this is theft) cry. The only thing missing is a public arrest and stripping the business license.

But as the guy said, most people just roll over, because they don't know or feel they have no choice, or both.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3643
  • Location: Minnesota
I wonder if we can get a kill switch in case the car gets stolen? I've heard that new cellphones have this option, which would help reduce the temptation of theft as a stolen phone's value plummets if killed.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3184
  • Location: Mississippi
I wonder if we can get a kill switch in case the car gets stolen? I've heard that new cellphones have this option, which would help reduce the temptation of theft as a stolen phone's value plummets if killed.

I suppose there is always OnStar which has GPS tracking and can remotely slow down a stolen vehicle.

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
1 - Brakes work, unless you have brakes by wire, which I don't think  any production cars do, because it'd be a terrible fucking idea. I've had my car shut off at 80 mph. Scary as fuck but I made it.

2 - These systems prevent a car from turning on; they should never, ever ever ever, turn it off. It should be as simple as an authentication device during ignition or a mechanical linkage during ignition. It is possible to set the OFF signal in the ignition module in a similar and simple way but doing it should, and probably would, have you paying for wrongful death.

I believe most brakes use a vacuum booster.  Meaning you will likely get one or two assisted presses of the pedal before losing the assist.  After that stopping the car becomes much harder.  Try it next time you get in your car.  Press the brakes a few times and see the difference in feel.

My first car didn't have power breaks or power steering.  When you are moving it is much easier to press the breaks/turn the steering wheel than the car is at a standstill and shut off (which simulates not having power steering/breaks).

Yes you need to push the breaks in harder.  They work fine and did for 80 years before power breaks became standard.

Just remember.  Steering and brakes designed to be operated with no power assist are dramatically different than steering and brakes designed to be used with power assist that is malfunctioning.  Brakes for 80 years were designed to be operated with no power assist.  Usually they relied on a bit more leverage in the brake pedal design. 

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
Quote
Wait, one of the people in this article (the lady who had her car repo'd at the women's shelter) actually agreed to only drive it within a certain mile radius?  Did I read that wrong?  Why would anyone agree to that ever?

Don't underestimate how difficult it is to navigate negotiation when you have no money, no resources, and little to no education regarding the law and contracts.

There was / is an issue where dealerships accept trade-in, finance the newer car, then call the buyer up a couple days later saying that the financing fell through and they need to come in. But the traded-in car is gone, sold. Now the buyer is shit outta luck, can either accept the new and much worse deal or walk with less money than their traded-in car was worth.

You might think: well, why don't they _____? Because they fucking don't know how, never got taught, never learned, don't know how to fight as the underdog, and oh yeah, absolutely need a car to get to work because they have 30 minutes to go between two jobs that are 20 miles apart, without which they get evicted.

Of course, any dealership tries that on you or me, and they have a very fun lawsuit to deal with because you and I have the time, resources, knowledge, and desire to make "Fuck me? Fuck you!" come to life. That's why the story is never about a guy trading in his 3-series beamer for an M3, it's about a guy trading in his 1992 civic for a 2003 civic.

Someone told her: you have to agree to X. She agreed to X because she either doesn't imagine she doesn't have to, or she felt she had no other choice. That's why the defense against predatory terms being "well, we all have a choice" is not that great of a defense. If we have a choice, but people feel they're backed into a corner and painted out of any other choices, anyone taking advantage of that may be legally in the right, but I wouldn't say what they're doing is morally acceptable. It's not hypocritical to attack morally wrong behavior even if it's legal.

+1

Elderwood17

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Location: Western North Carolina
I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who doesn't pay their bills, but reading about some of the predatory practices shared on the links on the thread gives me a degree of compassion too.

What we really need is a way to elevate the financial literacy of our populations and then squash these kinds of business activities.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Quote
Wait, one of the people in this article (the lady who had her car repo'd at the women's shelter) actually agreed to only drive it within a certain mile radius?  Did I read that wrong?  Why would anyone agree to that ever?

Don't underestimate how difficult it is to navigate negotiation when you have no money, no resources, and little to no education regarding the law and contracts.

There was / is an issue where dealerships accept trade-in, finance the newer car, then call the buyer up a couple days later saying that the financing fell through and they need to come in. But the traded-in car is gone, sold. Now the buyer is shit outta luck, can either accept the new and much worse deal or walk with less money than their traded-in car was worth.

You might think: well, why don't they _____? Because they fucking don't know how, never got taught, never learned, don't know how to fight as the underdog, and oh yeah, absolutely need a car to get to work because they have 30 minutes to go between two jobs that are 20 miles apart, without which they get evicted.

Of course, any dealership tries that on you or me, and they have a very fun lawsuit to deal with because you and I have the time, resources, knowledge, and desire to make "Fuck me? Fuck you!" come to life. That's why the story is never about a guy trading in his 3-series beamer for an M3, it's about a guy trading in his 1992 civic for a 2003 civic.

Someone told her: you have to agree to X. She agreed to X because she either doesn't imagine she doesn't have to, or she felt she had no other choice. That's why the defense against predatory terms being "well, we all have a choice" is not that great of a defense. If we have a choice, but people feel they're backed into a corner and painted out of any other choices, anyone taking advantage of that may be legally in the right, but I wouldn't say what they're doing is morally acceptable. It's not hypocritical to attack morally wrong behavior even if it's legal.

Preach!

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
That is precisely it, RWD. And the story shows very clearly what happens when the customer refuses to be taken advantage of: it's a slam-dunk case with penalties to make the thieves (no reason to be polite with euphemisms - this is theft) cry. The only thing missing is a public arrest and stripping the business license.

Now that is a very good point. Why, exactly, was the guy told the car was "repossessed" after he reported it stolen? It really was stolen! Why, exactly, did he have to "sue" the offender himself when he should have been able to "press charges" and have the state prosecute a felony? Why, exactly, did the district attorney fail to go look back through the dealer's records and tack on additional felony counts for every single other customer it had defrauded this way?

Even with the treble damages, this was an injustice.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8477
  • Registered member
That is precisely it, RWD. And the story shows very clearly what happens when the customer refuses to be taken advantage of: it's a slam-dunk case with penalties to make the thieves (no reason to be polite with euphemisms - this is theft) cry. The only thing missing is a public arrest and stripping the business license.

Now that is a very good point. Why, exactly, was the guy told the car was "repossessed" after he reported it stolen? It really was stolen! Why, exactly, did he have to "sue" the offender himself when he should have been able to "press charges" and have the state prosecute a felony? Why, exactly, did the district attorney fail to go look back through the dealer's records and tack on additional felony counts for every single other customer it had defrauded this way?

Even with the treble damages, this was an injustice.

I think that when there is a colorable argument that the matter is civil, they let the parties handle the dispute in court.  In this case, the dealership has a lien on the car, so it would appear to be a genuine civil dispute.  I don't necessarily agree that's the right choice, but that's why they didn't act -- police departments need to prioritize their investigative resources, and something like this will be very low on their radar compared to, say, violent crimes.