Auto Loan Finders, Inc - Hal Ross Hal : Owner Lied about vehicle Predatory Lending! Kennesaw, Georgia

We apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused. Regardless of the status of the factory warranty, the vehicle would have come with our 4 month/3,000 mile power-train Extended Service Contract. The issues reported would have been covered under this Extended Service Contract unless the issues had been discovered by an independent and certified mechanic to be due to negligence/abuse, the time limitation had been exceeded or mileage limitations had been exceeded.

We are unclear on what grounds you are filing said “theft by deception case” as every reasonable accommodation, to the best of our knowledge, has been provided from the time of sale to deal with the noted grievances and there has been no “theft*” by any definition according to your above claim. Also according to your above claim, your “client” has not made any reasonable efforts to work with our company to use the already provided means or those made available to rectify their situation.

Additionally, Auto Loan Finders cannot certify that any vehicle is still covered under manufacturer’s warranty, which is something that can only be done at a service center certified by the manufacturer in question. This is yet another reason why we supply our Extended Service Contract on most vehicles without charge. If your client wished to have the vehicle certified by an approved service center, accommodations would have been made to do so.

Furthermore we disclose all of the terms and conditions of our loans, to the extent that many of the terms and conditions have multiple signed documents clearly stating said terms and conditions and clearly indicating agreement to said terms. Auto Loan Finders makes every effort to ensure that our customers understand exactly the terms and conditions they will be agreeing to prior to becoming contractually bound to them.

We make every effort on every occasion to ensure our customers are taken care of to the best of our abilities by clearly stating all terms, conditions, payments, interest rates and by providing our Extended Service Contract without charge. We regret that your “client” did not have the best of experiences with our company and that it did not have a better result but we have made every reasonable effort on our part to facilitate a favorable outcome.

*”Theft by deception” defined and explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_deception

We have reviewed the file in question and found additional information related to this complaint that will shed some light on the situation.

First and foremost, your claims to be “Colonel John Shepard” working for the DoD and the Georgia JAG, as claimed here and in various e-mails, have not been able to be substantiated. In contacting various personnel at Dobbins ARB and Fort McPherson we were not able to find any record of a “Colonel John Shepard” working with the DoD or JAG and as such we were not able to obtain any contact information. Nowhere within the armed forces or the DoD is there any record of such an individual existing.

The only means of contact we had with this alleged person was by e-mail, in which we were informed that we could contact this alleged attorney by phone or they would meet with us in person. It was also indicated that if we were to engage in telephone or personal conversation, this attorney was “authorized” to charge our company $425/hr. No phone number was provided at that time nor any indication of how they were “authorized” to charge us any fee to speak with them. We found these facts especially strange as this individual claimed that they would be representing their “clients” for free or pro bono(1).

All e-mails were sent from a Gmail account (@gmail.com) and not an account that would have been provided by the DoD, which would have come from @dla.mil(2). It is our understanding that the DoD does not use Gmail.

We also requested the alleged Colonel’s Georgia BAR # and mailing address to which we could send documents related to the case. We received a response claiming that this alleged Colonel was authorized to practice law throughout the United States under a provision of Patriot Act, no specifics of what article or provision were provided that gave this individual that kind of authorization. To the best of our knowledge and research there are absolutely no such provisions within the USA Patriot Act(3) nor is this type of authorization to practice law on a national level available(4). In the same response we also did not receive the requested mailing address. However, a telephone number was provided. The phone number was registered to his “Client” at her residence. We do not believe this to be a coincidence.

In addition, the status of the customer was that they were repossessed due to non payment. We afforded the customer additional time after their specified due date, although it was made clear that no grace periods were provided. The customer claimed they mailed a certified check for their payment due on 10/23/09, which we still have not received. Despite using a payment method that we typically do not accept we still chose to provide this customer extra time as they claimed there were issues with their bank. We even arranged a meeting with the owner on 11/2/09, which the customer claimed they could not make just prior to the meeting due to transmission problems. This was the first time that the customer indicated that there were any problems with the vehicle.

With these facts as presented to our organization we can only determine that Colonel John Shepard is not a real person and if they were they would not be authorized to practice law. To the best of our knowledge Colonel John Shepard is most popularly known as a character from Stargate SG-1. In addition, the customer in question did not make their payments as agreed upon and contractually bound to(5), which would fall under the definition of “theft by deception”.

References -

(1) Pro Bono:(((Redacted))) (2) DoD e-mail: (((Redacted)))

(3) USA Patriot Act: (((Redacted)))

(4) Admission to practice law: (((Redacted)))

(5) Theft by deception: (((Redacted)))

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.