Complaint Review: Fay Servicing - IL Chicago
Fay Servicing How can a company or individual get to charge the extension fees for a particular period plus charge the customer penalties as "default interest” simultaneously for the same period IL Chicago
Summary of Dispute against Civic Financial and Fay Servicing :
Again, our contention is simply that any judge or any reasonable person looking at the facts sees and will agree there’s no way under the set of circumstances that a company or person gets to double dip after choosing to and treating the extension fees retroactively and applying the customer’s payments because of the extension fee, can simultaneously earn or accumulate “default interest” for the same period that the extension fees covers. That just does not make sense.
And even logically the moment the extension fees are accepted and treated retroactively any default interest that might have been accumulating for the same period the extension fee covers becomes unenforceable and nonexistent with the acceptance and retroactive application of the $7,000 in extension fees. If not then why would anyone pay the $7000? No one would accept the company’s off to pay an extension fee, right?
How can a company or individual get to charge the extension fees for a particular period plus charge the customer penalties as “default interest” simultaneously for the same period when that’s like having their cake and eating it at the same time?
Had it been a client’s refusal to pay his monthly obligations that created a default, then yes the company would’ve earned the higher default rates and late fees and whatever penalties apply on top.
But that not being the case given the customer was always willing and ready to pay yet the company ends up (after refusing the customer payments initially) then ends up accepting the extension fees retroactive, those facts clearly changes whether default interest can be applied.
Put in the simplest way, the company’s choice to treat and apply the extension fees retroactively eliminated any claim to “Default interest” they very well may have prior to retroactively applying the extension fees and payments.
Had the client needed extra time to complete a project and the company and client agreed bi-laterally to process the extension period going forward beginning the date the extension payment received, then yes, in that case, the company would’ve had a right to any default interest while the account was in limbo.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 02/15/2019 01:18 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/fay-servicing/il-chicago-60680/fay-servicing-how-can-a-company-or-individual-get-to-charge-the-extension-fees-for-a-part-1473615. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.