Fairbanks Capital ripoff of customers rule #11 and #12 need to be added Salt Lake City Utah
LA Bill please add rule #11 which I didn,t see Fairbanks will return all money charged customers Illegaly at the rate of 200% to compensate for there theft. Thats not something that was addresed and I know they do it at grocery stores when they overcharge. Since Fairbanks made money with the money they took it's fair.
Rule #12 Fairbanks will aduit all acounts and justify them at the same rate. Not just the ones they got busted for. I believe now we have something worth believing in.
Oh and a letter of apology from Mr. Shuster would be in order at this time also. And please stop threating people with the owl going out of business you can't get rid of cockroaches that easy.
The Fairbanks Liberation Army
Fairbanks Liberation
ARMY, Tennessee
U.S.A.
5 Updates & Rebuttals
William
Los Angeles,California,
U.S.A.
Keep it within reason
#6Consumer Comment
Sun, June 01, 2003
While I appreciate the thoughts behind your suggestions one must keep in mind that for Fairbanks/PMI to follow through on our suggestions they must appear reasonable to them. I expect that in the last few years Fairbanks has charged millions of dollars to its customers that were not warrented. According to Craig there are about 100,000 loans that need to be audited. If each one had the client ripped off for a thousand dollars the money owed by Fairbanks would be $100,000,000. That is an amount that Fairbanks clearly does not have. To suggest that they double it is beyound anything they would or could accecpt. Our best hope is that they do take actions to prevent these problems in the future, clear our combined credit reports of erronous information and come to a settlement with each borrower that believes he/she has been ripped off.
Fairbanks is a servicing company. IT DOES NOT OWN OUR HOME LOANS! It can not forgive our loans/debts and provide us our homes free and clear. After the last round of Rating service cuts their credit lines were frozen and it was only after PMI & FSA guaranteed $35,000,000 of these loans that they were extended. All credit (needed for Fairbanks to stay in business) would be withdrawn again if they were to accecpt liability for the outragous acts of the past management. They would in fact End in Bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy preceeding secured creditor come first. Most of us who have claims against the company would get nothing. As far as I am concerned it is better for us now to work with Fairbanks or sue them if needed, to solve out individual problems than to put them out of business.
LA_Bill
PS: I agree a general letter of appology from Shuster for any inappropriate actions by Fairbanks Past Management is in order and should be forth comming along with a promise to correct any mistakes that have been made.
William
Los Angeles,California,
U.S.A.
Keep it within reason
#6Consumer Comment
Sun, June 01, 2003
While I appreciate the thoughts behind your suggestions one must keep in mind that for Fairbanks/PMI to follow through on our suggestions they must appear reasonable to them. I expect that in the last few years Fairbanks has charged millions of dollars to its customers that were not warrented. According to Craig there are about 100,000 loans that need to be audited. If each one had the client ripped off for a thousand dollars the money owed by Fairbanks would be $100,000,000. That is an amount that Fairbanks clearly does not have. To suggest that they double it is beyound anything they would or could accecpt. Our best hope is that they do take actions to prevent these problems in the future, clear our combined credit reports of erronous information and come to a settlement with each borrower that believes he/she has been ripped off.
Fairbanks is a servicing company. IT DOES NOT OWN OUR HOME LOANS! It can not forgive our loans/debts and provide us our homes free and clear. After the last round of Rating service cuts their credit lines were frozen and it was only after PMI & FSA guaranteed $35,000,000 of these loans that they were extended. All credit (needed for Fairbanks to stay in business) would be withdrawn again if they were to accecpt liability for the outragous acts of the past management. They would in fact End in Bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy preceeding secured creditor come first. Most of us who have claims against the company would get nothing. As far as I am concerned it is better for us now to work with Fairbanks or sue them if needed, to solve out individual problems than to put them out of business.
LA_Bill
PS: I agree a general letter of appology from Shuster for any inappropriate actions by Fairbanks Past Management is in order and should be forth comming along with a promise to correct any mistakes that have been made.
William
Los Angeles,California,
U.S.A.
Keep it within reason
#6Consumer Comment
Sun, June 01, 2003
While I appreciate the thoughts behind your suggestions one must keep in mind that for Fairbanks/PMI to follow through on our suggestions they must appear reasonable to them. I expect that in the last few years Fairbanks has charged millions of dollars to its customers that were not warrented. According to Craig there are about 100,000 loans that need to be audited. If each one had the client ripped off for a thousand dollars the money owed by Fairbanks would be $100,000,000. That is an amount that Fairbanks clearly does not have. To suggest that they double it is beyound anything they would or could accecpt. Our best hope is that they do take actions to prevent these problems in the future, clear our combined credit reports of erronous information and come to a settlement with each borrower that believes he/she has been ripped off.
Fairbanks is a servicing company. IT DOES NOT OWN OUR HOME LOANS! It can not forgive our loans/debts and provide us our homes free and clear. After the last round of Rating service cuts their credit lines were frozen and it was only after PMI & FSA guaranteed $35,000,000 of these loans that they were extended. All credit (needed for Fairbanks to stay in business) would be withdrawn again if they were to accecpt liability for the outragous acts of the past management. They would in fact End in Bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy preceeding secured creditor come first. Most of us who have claims against the company would get nothing. As far as I am concerned it is better for us now to work with Fairbanks or sue them if needed, to solve out individual problems than to put them out of business.
LA_Bill
PS: I agree a general letter of appology from Shuster for any inappropriate actions by Fairbanks Past Management is in order and should be forth comming along with a promise to correct any mistakes that have been made.
William
Los Angeles,California,
U.S.A.
Keep it within reason
#6Consumer Comment
Sun, June 01, 2003
While I appreciate the thoughts behind your suggestions one must keep in mind that for Fairbanks/PMI to follow through on our suggestions they must appear reasonable to them. I expect that in the last few years Fairbanks has charged millions of dollars to its customers that were not warrented. According to Craig there are about 100,000 loans that need to be audited. If each one had the client ripped off for a thousand dollars the money owed by Fairbanks would be $100,000,000. That is an amount that Fairbanks clearly does not have. To suggest that they double it is beyound anything they would or could accecpt. Our best hope is that they do take actions to prevent these problems in the future, clear our combined credit reports of erronous information and come to a settlement with each borrower that believes he/she has been ripped off.
Fairbanks is a servicing company. IT DOES NOT OWN OUR HOME LOANS! It can not forgive our loans/debts and provide us our homes free and clear. After the last round of Rating service cuts their credit lines were frozen and it was only after PMI & FSA guaranteed $35,000,000 of these loans that they were extended. All credit (needed for Fairbanks to stay in business) would be withdrawn again if they were to accecpt liability for the outragous acts of the past management. They would in fact End in Bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy preceeding secured creditor come first. Most of us who have claims against the company would get nothing. As far as I am concerned it is better for us now to work with Fairbanks or sue them if needed, to solve out individual problems than to put them out of business.
LA_Bill
PS: I agree a general letter of appology from Shuster for any inappropriate actions by Fairbanks Past Management is in order and should be forth comming along with a promise to correct any mistakes that have been made.
K
Wilson,Louisiana,
U.S.A.
How about Rule #13????
#6Consumer Suggestion
Sun, June 01, 2003
How about Rule #13? Repair all credit damage from our credit reports that have been falsely reported so we can CHOOSE to leave this scumbag company!
We do not have the "pleasure" of having a billion dollar company around to bail us out! I have seen Faitbanks Dunn & Bradstreet! They would not be able to finance a thing without the help from PMI!