If you thought the subprime mortgage crisis was bad...

[Harry Chappas]

This is the EXACT reason the credit system is in place! To prevent people from being sucked in by smooth advertising campaigns, salesmen, and their own stupidity.

 

It is NOT supposed to operate with salesmen and lenders manipulating the credit system to circumvent it.

 

I can't go in to a Porsche dealer and just say "I can afford to put 15k down and pay $1500/mo." Now here is my actual income, this is my credit rating (which doesn't come close to backing up my actual statement to him). Make it happen, no matter what you have to do.

 

The Porsche dealer will get you what you want if your credit and income is good enough. Somehow she was able to save $30K therefore the dealer will believe her if she feels she can make the payments. She agreed to a monthly amount that they gave her. She needs to know if she can actually pay that amount and then agree to it. Somehow she had $30K. The real sad part of this is that after the lease ran out she would still be out $30K then what would she do. I do not lease cars so I am not sure what happens at the end.

[iamshack]

There's a difference between a Best Buy CC application and a lease on a $100k car. If you're signing a lease like that, you better sit your ass down and read it through several times and make sure you completely understand it.

 

From my understanding she did read through it, and I am sure they explained the basic terms of her contract. But then they went and changed a material element of the contract, didn't tell her, and made her believe she was signing the same contract she had earlier orally agreed to. That's an abuse of trust and good faith. It's fraud.

 

I bought a car about a year and a half ago, and I was in and out of there within an hour. And this is part of what car dealerships advertise as a selling point- "an easy, no-hassle buying experience." Now if you honestly had to sit there and read through (and ask questions about and receive answers for) all the fine print and language of all the documents one signs when purchasing an automobile, you could be there for a week, if not more. But the dealerships advertise the no-hassle experience. And I think it's pretty fair to assume that defrauding you is not part of the "no-hassle buying experience."

[southsider2k5]

She was led to lie about her income in order to qualify. Later the dealer altered the contract she signed to inflate her income even higher. She agreed to use her expected income (same as before her disability) they bumped it up another 35%.

 

Did she go into the dealership with the intent of trying to drive away in a $100,000 car, knowing full well what her income was?

[iamshack]

The Porsche dealer will get you what you want if your credit and income is good enough. Somehow she was able to save $30K therefore the dealer will believe her if she feels she can make the payments. She agreed to a monthly amount that they gave her. She needs to know if she can actually pay that amount and then agree to it. Somehow she had $30K. The real sad part of this is that after the lease ran out she would still be out $30K then what would she do. I do not lease cars so I am not sure what happens at the end.

 

Right. If my income and credit is good enough. Her income was not good enough.

 

That is the point where the dealer is obligated by law to say, "I'm sorry, you don't qualify for the financing required to purchase or lease this particular automobile. Perhaps we can get you into something more affordable and more appropriate for your budget."

 

Now I am not naive. Obviously some fudging goes on all the time. But the dealer is the benefactor of this fudging, and no one else. So the dealer is the one who will often be held accountable for breaking the law.

[Texsox]

The Porsche dealer will get you what you want if your credit and income is good enough. Somehow she was able to save $30K therefore the dealer will believe her if she feels she can make the payments. She agreed to a monthly amount that they gave her. She needs to know if she can actually pay that amount and then agree to it. Somehow she had $30K. The real sad part of this is that after the lease ran out she would still be out $30K then what would she do. I do not lease cars so I am not sure what happens at the end.

 

Jenks you are missing some key information. Her income was not good enough, so the salesperson convinced her to list her expected income of $6000. Later, they altered the application, after she signed, to show an income of $8,600. It is not the companies right to alter the contract to sell her a more expensive car. Even if she immediately earned her pre-disability income, she still would not have qualified.

 

If she walked in with this in mind, she's wrong. But the sales rep lured her into lying. Later they compounded the lie by altering the contract she signed.

[Texsox]

Did she go into the dealership with the intent of trying to drive away in a $100,000 car, knowing full well what her income was?

 

No, she went into Autonation "looking", according to the article. She got wrapped up in the excitement created by the salesperson and wound up committing fraud with the sales person.

 

From the article

Snyder's story started like so many others. She went to the dealership which is owned by Autonation, the largest automobile retailer in the country just to look.

 

She was caught up in the excitement and said she told the salesperson about her $2,500-a month income. But, what ended up on the credit application was the amount she could be making if she was not on disability.

 

"He (the salesperson) put what he thought I needed to get qualified for the car," according to Vivian.

 

She admitted she signed the lease with an inflated income at $6000 a month.

 

But CBS5 reviewed the lease application handed to Vivian as she left and compared it to a page from the same multi-layer document she retrieved days later.

 

Snyder's income had been changed once again - from $6,000 to $8,600, this time without her knowing. An "8" had been placed before the "6" and "0"s tacked at the end.

 

Does that change your opinion even a little bit?

[southsider2k5]

No, she went into Autonation "looking", according to the article. She got wrapped up in the excitement created by the salesperson and wound up committing fraud with the sales person.

 

Why would you go into a luxury car dealership with $30,000 in life savings, if you didn't intend to try to buy something?

[southsideirish71]

They absolutely DID con her. How are you missing this?

 

The credit system is in place to not only protect sellers, but to protect buyers as well. And the credit system determined she was NOT qualified to buy the car. Yet they fudged the income figures, so that she suddenly appeared to be qualified to buy the car. But in the end, they did everyone a disservice but themselves. They conned all parties involved.

 

So here is a scenario for you.

 

This lady is paid 1500 dollars a month(not realistic but fits the part of this scenario). This is what she gets month in and month out for the last 4 years. The only increases are a 4 percent raise she gets at her job in March. She has lived in a rent controlled apartment, and her rent is 700 dollars a month for the last 4 years. Her utilities are 300 dollars and she spends 200 dollars in food. Now if a slickster salesman tells her she can afford 500 dollars a month and she signs it. Is it the fault of the slickster, sure. But I would say that the lady who had a clue on her budget and her income versus debits per month should have a handle on what is an appropriate payment to be made. In my scenario this lady cannot afford 500 dollars a month payment. So if she signs it knowing that her budget which has been laid out for years doesnt allow it, she is a willing participant in stupidity. Now the slickster is a fraud artist and deserves the same blame. But the person, who knows damn well what their discretionary income is should have a handle on what they can add to their monthly note.

 

As an adult it is your responsibility to have a handle on what your income is, and what your monthly bills are. And as an adult you are responsible making sure that any additions to your financial responsibility will fit within the earmarks of your income for the monthly. If you strap yourself so much that you have no room for any mistakes then maybe you shouldn't buy the car. I can tell you my budget each month. I can pretty much tell you what my bills are with a 5 percent variance every month.

 

If this is someone telling you that you have 300 dollars, you sign a contract that says the payment is 300 dollars and then they cook the books and then your payments are 600 dollars. Then thats not your fault. But if you sign a contract and know that 500 dollars is your monthly payment, then 3 months down the road you realize that the 500 dollars puts a strain on you and you are going check to check now. THen guess what, thats your fault.

 

Unscrupulous lenders, snake oil salesman, and all sorts of filth is out there to try and separate you from your money. It is up to you to make sure that you make decisions for yourself based on what you know about your financial situation.

Edited February 14, 2008 by southsideirish71

[iamshack]

Why would you go into a luxury car dealership with $30,000 in life savings, if you didn't intend to try to buy something?

 

I'm assuming she didn't walk in with a briefcase full of the actual cash.

[Texsox]

Why would you go into a luxury car dealership with $30,000 in life savings, if you didn't intend to try to buy something?

 

Some people like to see the new cars. Not everyone walks into a store with the intent of buying. Look at the car shows, they are packed with people. The industry even has a term, tire kicker it's so common. And they train their sales reps to turn tire kickers into customers. And I don't have a problem with that.

 

But the dealer crossed the line in this case.

 

They could have sold her a $30,000 car and just took her savings. They could have sold her a $50,000 car and strapped her, but she probably would have qualified based on her true income. But this guy went in for the kill and used fraud to get it.

[southsideirish71]

No, she went into Autonation "looking", according to the article. She got wrapped up in the excitement created by the salesperson and wound up committing fraud with the sales person.

 

From the article

Does that change your opinion even a little bit?

 

I agree they cooked the books, I agree that they were bad people.

 

I have 2 simple questions.

 

Was the price of the car known.

Did she have a clue that the loan on said price would have to be paid off over a term of 5 years or so.

That disability check I am sure is a certain amount every month. So she should have a clue with a job or without what her income is per month.

Edited February 14, 2008 by southsideirish71

[southsider2k5]

Some people like to see the new cars. Not everyone walks into a store with the intent of buying. Look at the car shows, they are packed with people. The industry even has a term, tire kicker it's so common. And they train their sales reps to turn tire kickers into customers. And I don't have a problem with that.

 

But the dealer crossed the line in this case.

 

They could have sold her a $30,000 car and just took her savings. They could have sold her a $50,000 car and strapped her, but she probably would have qualified based on her true income. But this guy went in for the kill and used fraud to get it.

 

Why isn't she committing fraud by agreeing to an income number that wasn't true?

[Texsox]

So here is a scenario for you.

 

This lady is paid 1500 dollars a month(not realistic but fits the part of this scenario). This is what she gets month in and month out for the last 4 years. The only increases are a 4 percent raise she gets at her job in March. She has lived in a rent controlled apartment, and her rent is 700 dollars a month for the last 4 years. Her utilities are 300 dollars and she spends 200 dollars in food. Now if a slickster salesman tells her she can afford 500 dollars a month and she signs it. Is it the fault of the slickster, sure. But I would say that the lady who had a clue on her budget and her income versus debits per month should have a handle on what is an appropriate payment to be made. In my scenario this lady cannot afford 500 dollars a month payment. So if she signs it knowing that her budget which has been laid out for years doesnt allow it, she is a willing participant in stupidity. Now the slickster is a fraud artist and deserves the same blame. But the person, who knows damn well what their discretionary income is should have a handle on what they can add to their monthly note.

 

As an adult it is your responsibility to have a handle on what your income is, and what your monthly bills are. And as an adult you are responsible making sure that any additions to your financial responsibility will fit within the earmarks of your income for the monthly. If you strap yourself so much that you have no room for any mistakes then maybe you shouldn't buy the car. I can tell you my budget each month. I can pretty much tell you what my bills are with a 5 percent variance every month.

 

If this is someone telling you that you have 300 dollars, you sign a contract that says the payment is 300 dollars and then they cook the books and then your payments are 600 dollars. Then thats not your fault. But if you sign a contract and know that 500 dollars is your monthly payment, then 3 months down the road you realize that the 500 dollars puts a strain on you and you are going check to check now. THen guess what, thats your fault.

 

Unscrupulous lenders, snake oil salesman, and all sorts of filth is out there to try and separate you from your money. It is up to you to make sure that you make decisions for yourself based on what you know about your financial situation.

But that isn't this situation. In this situation the buyer would not legally qualify for the purchase. Time to look for a less expensive car. But this sales rep realized she is stupid and an idiot and he can convince her to commit fraud so he can sell a more expensive car.

[StrangeSox]

But that isn't this situation. In this situation the buyer would not legally qualify for the purchase. Time to look for a less expensive car. But this sales rep realized she is stupid and an idiot and he can convince her to commit fraud so he can sell a more expensive car.

 

Yep, seems to be the situation. How is it not her responsibility to take care of and manage her own financials again?

 

If someone convinces me to hold up 7/11, am I not responsible for my own actions? Is this crime different because it was committed on paper?

Edited February 14, 2008 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

So here is a scenario for you.

 

This lady is paid 1500 dollars a month(not realistic but fits the part of this scenario). This is what she gets month in and month out for the last 4 years. The only increases are a 4 percent raise she gets at her job in March. She has lived in a rent controlled apartment, and her rent is 700 dollars a month for the last 4 years. Her utilities are 300 dollars and she spends 200 dollars in food. Now if a slickster salesman tells her she can afford 500 dollars a month and she signs it. Is it the fault of the slickster, sure. But I would say that the lady who had a clue on her budget and her income versus debits per month should have a handle on what is an appropriate payment to be made. In my scenario this lady cannot afford 500 dollars a month payment. So if she signs it knowing that her budget which has been laid out for years doesnt allow it, she is a willing participant in stupidity. Now the slickster is a fraud artist and deserves the same blame. But the person, who knows damn well what their discretionary income is should have a handle on what they can add to their monthly note.

 

As an adult it is your responsibility to have a handle on what your income is, and what your monthly bills are. And as an adult you are responsible making sure that any additions to your financial responsibility will fit within the earmarks of your income for the monthly. If you strap yourself so much that you have no room for any mistakes then maybe you shouldn't buy the car. I can tell you my budget each month. I can pretty much tell you what my bills are with a 5 percent variance every month.

 

If this is someone telling you that you have 300 dollars, you sign a contract that says the payment is 300 dollars and then they cook the books and then your payments are 600 dollars. Then thats not your fault. But if you sign a contract and know that 500 dollars is your monthly payment, then 3 months down the road you realize that the 500 dollars puts a strain on you and you are going check to check now. THen guess what, thats your fault.

 

Unscrupulous lenders, snake oil salesman, and all sorts of filth is out there to try and separate you from your money. It is up to you to make sure that you make decisions for yourself based on what you know about your financial situation.

 

I have absolutely no disagreement with anything you said here. If she wants the car, and she qualifies for the financing through her credit and income, then it is her own fault. The car dealer has absolutely no right and is in no position to make decisions as to what she can afford or what she can not afford.

 

However, if the dealer cannot obtain financing for her using the legitimate income and credit score, then he has to tell her just that. And he cannot fudge the numbers so it appears that she does qualify but she really does not. His option, if he can not obtain financing for her, is to try and get her to purchase a car that she does qualify for.

[southsideirish71]

Yep, seems to be the situation. How is it not her responsibility to take care of and manage her own financials again?

 

If someone convinces me to hold up 7/11, am I not responsible for my own actions? Is this crime different because it was committed on paper?

 

DUMB = no responsibility. Just throw your money around blind, spend like a fool, and then act confused when the bills start coming in. The bad man didn't tell me that the 100k car actually required payment.

 

[iamshack]

Yep, seems to be the situation. How is it not her responsibility to take care of and manage her own financials again?

 

If someone convinces me to hold up 7/11, am I not responsible for my own actions? Is this crime different because it was committed on paper?

 

No one here is saying she is without blame or fault. The woman herself took part of the blame.

 

The point is, the credit system is set up to qualify buyers and to protect both buyers and sellers from a seller making a purchase he or she simply cannot afford.

 

And the deal has absolutely no right to circumvent that credit system.

[southsideirish71]

I have absolutely no disagreement with anything you said here. If she wants the car, and she qualifies for the financing through her credit and income, then it is her own fault. The car dealer has absolutely no right and is in no position to make decisions as to what she can afford or what she can not afford.

 

However, if the dealer cannot obtain financing for her using the legitimate income and credit score, then he has to tell her just that. And he cannot fudge the numbers so it appears that she does qualify but she really does not. His option, if he can not obtain financing for her, is to try and get her to purchase a car that she does qualify for.

 

 

But you should know what you can afford in a payment. Your credit score shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that the 100k car is out of your reach. The dealer is at fault. But how do you not know that the car payments require payment. Just easy math, take the amount of the loan and divide by the months in the term of the loan. Now thats without interest rate and all but you can get a baseline if it fits.

[Texsox]

Why isn't she committing fraud by agreeing to an income number that wasn't true?

 

And that is the core of the debate. Was she duped into participating in this fraud? Some reject any chance that anyone could be duped into participating. Which sounds to me like no one could ever be a victim of fraud. I believe she is a victim because the dealer, based on her correct information, could have sold her a less expensive car. But this dealership conned her into overstating her income, then altered her admitted wrong doing, to sell her something they clearly knew she would not qualify for.

 

And isn't there always someone like her in a fraud or is fraud a victimless crime? It seems in every fraud someone hands over cash, signs a contract, etc. Yes they should have known, but we call them victims.

 

It's a tough call, but the assbag at the dealership deserves the venom that is being heaped on this woman.

[iamshack]

DUMB = no responsibility. Just throw your money around blind, spend like a fool, and then act confused when the bills start coming in. The bad man didn't tell me that the 100k car actually required payment.

 

See, the problem here is you are making an example of a woman who purchased a car that was led to agree to an income level she was not currently making, and then the dealer went above and beyond that to increase that income level even further, without her notice. This is an abuse by the dealer more than anything.

 

If you want to talk about the people who can qualify for a vehicle because of inadequacies in the credit system, full-well knowing they cannot afford the vehicle because they lack the disposable income to make such a purchase, then that's fine. You'll find no argument here. But that is simply not the situation here.

[southsideirish71]

And that is the core of the debate. Was she duped into participating in this fraud? Some reject any chance that anyone could be duped into participating. Which sounds to me like no one could ever be a victim of fraud. I believe she is a victim because the dealer, based on her correct information, could have sold her a less expensive car. But this dealership conned her into overstating her income, then altered her admitted wrong doing, to sell her something they clearly knew she would not qualify for.

 

And isn't there always someone like her in a fraud or is fraud a victimless crime? It seems in every fraud someone hands over cash, signs a contract, etc. Yes they should have known, but we call them victims.

 

It's a tough call, but the assbag at the dealership deserves the venom that is being heaped on this woman.

 

 

If she buys a car and she buys it for 30k and the car is actually 100k. Sure I can agree that she is without fault.

 

But if she buys the car at 100k, and then doesnt really qualify for the loan so she and the agent lie about the income. Then they are both at fault. She should know that the 100k car is out of reach, because as adults we know what our income levels are. The fact that she knowingly put the other amount down, and knew what both amounts where( her usual monthly income versus disability). She had knowledge of her monthly note so to add that kind of large purchase is financially stupid and that is why its also her fault.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

Who thinks the sales person should be fired? Prosecuted?

[iamshack]

Why isn't she committing fraud by agreeing to an income number that wasn't true?

 

Well, that's where this gets really hairy.

 

She stated that she expected to be returning to work very shortly and would return to her previous income level of $6,000. That's her fault. But she didn't just make this up and guess her income could some day reach that level. She was at that level previously, but was currently on disability.

 

Let's face it. Many people go into a dealership and tell them what their incomes are. But anyone could also get fired a week later and that income number could completely change. So this isn't a number that any of us really have any certainty about. Obviously there are some people that have plenty of money saved, so they could absorb the cost of paying their bills for a while even if their income drastically decreased. But the vast majority of people in this country are basically living either paycheck to paycheck or could maybe survive 2-3 months without any income.

 

But the dealership is the gatekeeper of the financing system here, and thus it is their responsibility to honestly submit the appropriate income levels and credit scores to determine who is able and who is not able to obtain appropriate financing for a vehicle. It is not his duty to determine what a person can or can not afford, but whether they qualify for the appropriate financing.

 

When that gatekeeper is purposefully circumventing the system, the entire process falls apart, as it did here.

[iamshack]

Who thinks the sales person should be fired? Prosecuted?

 

I absolutely do. And I'm sure the financing guy had a hand in this as well.

[southsider2k5]

Who thinks the sales person should be fired? Prosecuted?

 

Absolutely. If more people were prosecuted for this stuff, it wouldn't happen all of the time. But I also think she should get prosecuted for fraud, because she knowingly agreed to something that wasn't true. I also want her paying for her crimes as well.