AUTO SALES AND ADVERTISING
TOPS IN Consumer Complaints for 2009 and 2008
So why were autos exempted from the new Consumer Protection Agency?
It is very troubling to see another example of Congress obviously legislating not in the public interest but for the benefit of the Special Interests, in this case the auto dealers. One has to wonder what type of people are these Congressional people?
If there was ever a consumer group that needed protection from their suppliers, it is auto buyers who need protection from their suppliers, the auto dealers.
The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report was conducted by the Consumer Federation of America, the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators and the North American Consumer Protection Investigators and is their 15th report on top consumer complaints. The latest results are based on a survey of 33 state, county, and city agencies from 18 states on the most common complaints received from January 2009 through December 2009.
Top Types of Consumer Complaints for 2009
1. Auto: Misrepresentations in advertising or sales of new and used cars; lemons; faulty repairs; leasing and towing disputes. Also No. 1 in 2008.
2. Credit/Debt: Billing and fee disputes; mortgage-related fraud; credit repair; debt relief services; predatory lending; illegal or abusive debt collection tactics. Up from No. 3 in 2008.
3. Home Improvement/Construction: Shoddy work; failure to start or complete the job. Down from No. 2 in 2008.
4. Utilities: Service problems or billing disputes with phone, cable, satellite, Internet, electric and gas services. Also No. 4 in 2008.
5. Retail Sales: False advertising and other deceptive practices; defective merchandise; problems with rebates, coupons, gift cards and gift certificates; failure to deliver. Also No. 5 in 2008.
6. Services: Misrepresentations; shoddy work; failure to have required licenses; failure to perform. Also No. 6 in 2008.
7. Internet Sales: Misrepresentations or other deceptive practice; failure to deliver online purchases. Up from No. 9 in 2008.
8. Household Goods: Misrepresentations; failure to deliver; faulty repairs in connection with furniture or appliances. Down from No. 7 in 2008.
9. (tie) Landlord/Tenant: Unhealthy or unsafe conditions; failure to make repairs or provide promised amenities; deposit and rent disputes; illegal eviction tactics; Down from No. 8 in 2008. Home Solicitations:Misrepresentations or failure to deliver in door-to-door, telemarketing or mail solicitations; do-not-call violations. Also No. 9 in 2008.
10. Health Products/Services: misleading claims; unlicensed practitioners; failure to deliver. Also No. 10 in 2008.
Source: The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report
Showing posts with label Financial Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial Reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
RESTRUCTURE-REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH
REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH—RESTRUCTURE! The facts behind the news.
In regard to the Financial Reform bill “REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH” for several reasons. I) It depends on who is doing the regulating.
During the Bush years all the regulatory agencies were underfunded and staffed with people who did not believe in regulation. We are now experiencing the results, whether it’s the SEC and financial regulation, Nancy Nord and Consumer Products such as baby cribs ,or Mining and Mineral Dept.—oil spill, or mine safety-29 coal miners killed, Dept. of the Interior, or lax aircraft maintenance inspection by the FAA and so it goes all across the Govt regulatory organizations.
2)It is also important, to not only focus on mechanical ways to make THE PUBLIC SAFER, but also more broadly on helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be ways to improve the choice architecture — to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest. Ideas from David Brooks NY Times editorial.
This is why it is essential to restructure and put into law policies to protect the public in any of these areas so as to do everything possible to maintain a high level of oversight. The Obrama administration may faithfully follow guidelines but what about future administrations?
1)In regard to Financial Reform this why Derivatives should have no place in commercial banking. They are too risky and were one of the major causes of the recent financial meltdown. Commercial banking should stick to commercial banking or similar low risk activities.
Derivatives and other risky financial arrangements should be handled by specialty firms that offer speculators, wealthy individuals, large corporations the opportunity for large gains and the risk of large losses, and for hedging purposes.
2)Such an arrangement would make commercial banking a more low key risk adverse business. It would tend to keep commercial banks a slower growth business. This is the way commercial banks should be. The Commercial banks should service the savings, checking, mortgages and trust business of the general public They should stay out of risky business that can hurt the general public when things go wrong. See recent meltdown.
The Volcker plan is good but it does not go far enough. It is better to get the “gogo” boys out of the commercial banking business. “Gogo” boys should not be in commercial banking. They should be in other areas of business .
In regard to the Financial Reform bill “REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH” for several reasons. I) It depends on who is doing the regulating.
During the Bush years all the regulatory agencies were underfunded and staffed with people who did not believe in regulation. We are now experiencing the results, whether it’s the SEC and financial regulation, Nancy Nord and Consumer Products such as baby cribs ,or Mining and Mineral Dept.—oil spill, or mine safety-29 coal miners killed, Dept. of the Interior, or lax aircraft maintenance inspection by the FAA and so it goes all across the Govt regulatory organizations.
2)It is also important, to not only focus on mechanical ways to make THE PUBLIC SAFER, but also more broadly on helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be ways to improve the choice architecture — to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest. Ideas from David Brooks NY Times editorial.
This is why it is essential to restructure and put into law policies to protect the public in any of these areas so as to do everything possible to maintain a high level of oversight. The Obrama administration may faithfully follow guidelines but what about future administrations?
1)In regard to Financial Reform this why Derivatives should have no place in commercial banking. They are too risky and were one of the major causes of the recent financial meltdown. Commercial banking should stick to commercial banking or similar low risk activities.
Derivatives and other risky financial arrangements should be handled by specialty firms that offer speculators, wealthy individuals, large corporations the opportunity for large gains and the risk of large losses, and for hedging purposes.
2)Such an arrangement would make commercial banking a more low key risk adverse business. It would tend to keep commercial banks a slower growth business. This is the way commercial banks should be. The Commercial banks should service the savings, checking, mortgages and trust business of the general public They should stay out of risky business that can hurt the general public when things go wrong. See recent meltdown.
The Volcker plan is good but it does not go far enough. It is better to get the “gogo” boys out of the commercial banking business. “Gogo” boys should not be in commercial banking. They should be in other areas of business .
Monday, June 7, 2010
WHY AUTO DEALERS NEED OVERSIGHT
WHY AUTO DEALERS—
NEED OVERSIIGHT BY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY!
A review of the facts should convince anyone that auto dealers should not be exempt from oversight by the new Consumer Protection Agency to be part of the Federal Reserve.
1) Many people with diverse backgrounds buy new and used autos. Most of the buyers and lookers do not have enough technical background to make an informed decision about the autos they see. The potential customers rely on the salesperson they speak to and ads they see on TV. The purchase of an auto is usually a large purchase from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
2 Right there you have a possibility and an incentive for potential customers to be taken advantage of. The salesperson, usually an expert on autos, is advising an untrained buyer on what to purchase. For the unscrupulous salesperson this is an open invitation to take advantage of the perspective buyer.
3) While not all salespeople would take advantage, enough of the auto salespeople do so that that auto dealers have a reputation for sharp practice and people not to be trusted.
4) This tends to be true of not only autos but also computers, insurance, mortgages etc. This is the reason for having a Consumer Protection Agency. Purchasing today is more complicated usually with all kinds of paperwork that most people do not understand and realize the legal implications of.
5) Wherever the buyer has to rely on the seller for the knowledge to choose a purchase you have the potential for purchases that are not in the best interest of the buyer.
6) Auto dealers are the last place in our economy that does not need oversight by a Consumer Protection Agency.
7) As our representative in government we rely on you to protect the interests of the people. In this case you can accomplish this by making sure the Consumer Protection Agency has oversight of the auto dealers.
NEED OVERSIIGHT BY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY!
A review of the facts should convince anyone that auto dealers should not be exempt from oversight by the new Consumer Protection Agency to be part of the Federal Reserve.
1) Many people with diverse backgrounds buy new and used autos. Most of the buyers and lookers do not have enough technical background to make an informed decision about the autos they see. The potential customers rely on the salesperson they speak to and ads they see on TV. The purchase of an auto is usually a large purchase from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
2 Right there you have a possibility and an incentive for potential customers to be taken advantage of. The salesperson, usually an expert on autos, is advising an untrained buyer on what to purchase. For the unscrupulous salesperson this is an open invitation to take advantage of the perspective buyer.
3) While not all salespeople would take advantage, enough of the auto salespeople do so that that auto dealers have a reputation for sharp practice and people not to be trusted.
4) This tends to be true of not only autos but also computers, insurance, mortgages etc. This is the reason for having a Consumer Protection Agency. Purchasing today is more complicated usually with all kinds of paperwork that most people do not understand and realize the legal implications of.
5) Wherever the buyer has to rely on the seller for the knowledge to choose a purchase you have the potential for purchases that are not in the best interest of the buyer.
6) Auto dealers are the last place in our economy that does not need oversight by a Consumer Protection Agency.
7) As our representative in government we rely on you to protect the interests of the people. In this case you can accomplish this by making sure the Consumer Protection Agency has oversight of the auto dealers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)