Complaint Review: Conn's - Waco Texas

Once again the typical "entitlement" attitude shows through.

I can repay the debt once defaulted if it doesn't become inflated through fees and penalties.

- No you couldn't as they wanted $600 to settle out the account.  This presumably removed a majority of the fees and penalties.  Yet you tried to spread this settlement out over 2 months and ended up bouncing a $200 payment.

Conn's has received thousands of dollars over an above the original agreement. While i accept the critique that I need to pay my bills, the contract that was entered into was and is designed to make borrowers fail.

- How is it designed to make the borrower fail?  If you follow the contract you would pay off the loan after a given amount of time. It is YOUR responsibility as the borrower to determine if you can abide by the terms of the contract to pay it off.  For example if the contract stated you needed to pay $170/month and you could only pay $150/month then it is YOUR responsibly to not enter into the contract. You can't enter into the contract and expect them to change.

Relief is welcome, but when relief seems arbitrarily changed, the nature of the predator and its lending practices become revealed.

- Once again it was NOT arbitrarily changed. It was changed when YOU failed to hold up your end of the agreement by having the payment you made bounce. It appars that they actually gave you several chances over the years, you are just upset that they won't do what you want when you want.

But that doesn't make it right, or any less criminal when business entities leverage their legal right to indulge in a punitive process of repayment.

- The only thing criminal here is possibly your actions.  If you intentionally provided them a check or authorization to withdraw from your account knowing there was not money in the account that is a form of check fraud and prosecutable as a criminal act.

Credit card companies and banks are not charities, they are not your friend.  They are a business that you entered into a legal agreement to borrow money under the promise you would repay them under certain terms.  You can of course complain and say how hard it is to try and make the payments, and as they did try many companies will try and work with  you.  But even if they didn't it is not a Ripoff.  However, even at this point they have their limits.  They are not going to do something like let you pay $5/month for 100 months to pay off a $500 debt.  

Good Luck

I can repay the debt once defaulted if it doesn't become inflated through fees and penalties. Conn's has received thousands of dollars over an above the original agreement. While i accept the critique that I need to pay my bills, the contract that was entered into was and is designed to make borrowers fail.

That said, when payments are missed, legally collectable fees inflate the cost of borrowing significantly. Once the borrower goes beyond a point where he or she finds it increasingly difficult to repay is when the contracts create their own momentum of accelerating debt and the fees rise exponentially.

Relief is welcome, but when relief seems arbitrarily changed, the nature of the predator and its lending practices become revealed.

"Just pay your bills" is a sanctimonious response from those who can. When financial difficulties arise, the predatory lending drives the debtor into increasing desperation.

While there is no one to blame but myself for biting on the come-on that, as Conn's would say, I "deserve it," then by turn I deserve the economic consequences from that decision. But that doesn't make it right, or any less criminal when business entities leverage their legal right to indulge in a punitive process of repayment.

And they won't call you all day long...simple as that!

July 4th. The first call came in a 8:10 am. the last call came in at 8:35 pm. At least seven calls from Conn's. Doesn't this constitute criminal harrarssment? 

First, I am a consumer and not affliated with Conns at all. Looking at your complaint I don't see where Conns is acting criminally. 

In reading your complaint, I see that you had an agreement with Conns to pay monthly but were unable to do so according to your statement that the payments were inconsistent for the past 5 years. 

Next Conns offered you a settlement to payoff in one payment of $600. According to you, you accepted the settlement amount but not the terms of one payment. You made a payment of $300 rather than $600 with a promise to pay the other $300. You were late on that last payment of $300 so Conns called and required a payment of $100 from you to keep the arrangements current according to you. Then you had a firm date to pay the final $200 last Friday and that payment didn't clear your bank. That is your default of the agreement you had with Conns. 

Now you are surprised that Conns has recinded their agreement with you after you defaulted on the agreement 4 times: 1. not paying the entire $600 as agreed, 2. not paying the $300 balance due after the first $300 payment, 3. making a partial $100 payment and 4. bouncing the $200 final payment.

Why do you think they are acting criminally? You say they couldn't be trusted to stand by their agreement, yet from your complaint, it is you that broke the payment arrangements on multiple occasions. I understand having difficulty. What I don't understand is making payment arrangements if you know you can't keep them. I do hope you are able to come through your tough times. 

There some people who post here who look like they have read the Deadbeat's Handbook, then there are some that look like they wrote the book.   Do you know which one you appear to be?

First off you admit that you have a poor payment history. You use code words such as "inconsistent" and "consolidated", but that really means you have a history of paying late, becoming severly delinquent, and being sent through collections. Which means that even from the beginning you were the one who has failed to fulfill the legal agreement you made when you agreed to pay back the money you originally borrowed.

But then it gets really good. You get to a point where they agree to a "settlement". Part of this settlement was your agreement to pay $200.  Yet that payment bounced meaning that you have failed to fulfill this arrangement.  But do you take responsibility for this like any other responsible person would? No, you take the deadbeat route and try to shift the blame onto them.

Of course you were in a position to pay it off, but YOU failed to meet the terms. Had that $200 not bounced they would not have cancelled the settlement. As for them not standing by the settlement, again there are two sides to a settlement, and you failed to make the payment so they cancelled the offer.

You ask what recourse you have. The answer is simple..PAY the debt you legally owe. If by chance you get them to offer you another settlement then be sure you follow the terms and don't jerk them around again.