XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IA XXXX-XXXX RE : Compliant of Consumer Fraud, Predatory, and Deceptive Practices Perpetrated in Maryland and Virginia by XXXX XXXX XXXX and Sears CitiBank Card Services Dear Sir : Im asking CFPB to investigate and take immediate action against the two ( 2 ) predatory companies named herein for using credit card transaction processing to defraud and harm customers that have been victimized by deceptive and misrepresented service contracts for work that is never performed and/or performed very poorly and for charging hidden fees that are never disclosed.
The companies named in this compliant are : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, VA XXXX  XXXX Sears CitiBank Card XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SD XXXX This is how the deceptive practice ( scam ) works.
1. A customer calls XXXX XXXX XXXX for a service request. The consumer is then offered a special promotion that they are running. In this case Air Duct and Dryer Duct Cleaning for {$180.00}.
2. On the day of the service, a Searss sales representative shows up unannounced prior to the scheduled service time posing as the supervising technician. He then begins to evaluate the problem and writes up a quote for additional work that he believes you might need.
3. He then tells the consumer that they will get a 50 % discount on the work quoted ; plus no interest for 18 months, if they do the work today. Right now.
4. He then turns the quote into an inflated service contract with written-in language that appears to be what he verbally promised. But that the customer needs to do it now since the actual technicians are on their way and he needs to call it in before they get there. They promises that the back office will work out the details later to ensure that you get 50 % off the invoice plus no interest for 18 months.
5. He then gets your credit card information and quickly leaves. ( Another variation of this scheme is that they take a credit application and approve the consumer on the spot for credit terms that are never fully disclosed at the time. ) 6. A short time later, after they pre-charge your credit card for the full invoice, the actual technicians show up to do to work against the misrepresented contract.
7. The SOP and MO that these companies operate under is to devise a scheme to coerce consumers into misrepresented contracts and credit agreements and then start the work immediately to circumvent consumer protection laws that allow a customer to cancel a contract within three ( 3 ) days. By starting the work on-the-spot, they are taking advantage of a loop-hole in the law to victimize consumers by locking them into a deceptive ( service performed ) contract before the consumer can detect that they have been scammed. This is especially harmful elderly citizens and unsavvy consumers.
8. The technicians go through the motion of providing the service. Once they believe that the consumer is on the nook, then XXXX XXXX XXXX precedes to charge for the work that was not completed or completely poorly ( as if it was services performed ) hoping that the consumer can not dispute it otherwise. XXXX XXXX XXXX then collaborates with Sears Citibank to modify the terms of the contract to a 20 % -26 % deferred interest arrangement which was never disclosed on the original contract. The consumer is misled and deceived into believing the terms are no interest only to find out later that they have been a victim of a predatory credit card scam. The scheme benefits the credit card companies that participate since it brings them larger credit card transactions with the opportunity to charge outrageous interest charges to unsuspecting victims using other loop-holes in the credit card agreement.
9. Multiple calls to XXXX XXXX XXXX and Sears CitiBank Card Services about the issue results in both entities insisting that the work was done and that the service contract can not be cancelled or disputed. Hence attempting to defraud me out $ 1300+ and using the credit card transaction and credit reporting apparatus to extort money from me and other vulnerable consumers including the elderly.
Background information about the specific incident that sparked the filing of this compliant : 1. The incident occurred on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX County, MD.
2. In my case, I knew about the deferred interest practice. So I had the salesman add a statement on the agreement that is also including no deferred interest. He was very unwilling to do that. However, he did since he needed to leave.
3. Once the salesman was gone, we detected additional misleading and deceptive issues with the contract and immediately called XXXX XXXX XXXX to cancel the contract which they agreed to do and re-issue a service order for the original work for {$180.00}. This all got finalized just after the technicians arrived but before any work was ever started ; and within hours of when the salesman left.
4. The customer service representative on the phone said that they would cancel the additional work contract and reissue a service order to the technicians already onsite for the original service order of {$180.00} instead of the $ 1300+.
5. The technicians did the service ( that would have cost {$180.00} ) poorly and left without providing a service completion sheet that describes the work that they actually did.
6. The technician phoned in the service order as being completed including the additional work that was never done. By not providing a completion work order acknowledged by the consumer, they can then make the false claim that they did the additional work.
7. The next day, on XX/XX/XXXX I sent XXXX XXXX XXXX a certified letter at their VA office cancelling the contract and reiterating the fact that the additional work was never performed and demanded a refund of the {$1300.00} charge on the Sears CitiBank Credit Card.
8. XXXX XXXX XXXX received the letter and called me to get some information about the problem. We reiterated that the additional work was never done and that the original work was done incompletely. The dry air duct remained clogged after XX/XX/XXXX
9. They agreed to send me the forms to initiate the refund. They also wanted to send a technician out to reassess the dry vent situation which we agreed to. We also reiterated that no additional work was under consideration and that the cancelation of the contract stands. We agreed to allow a technician to come back out to assess the dryer vent only and they agreed to make the refund for the additional charges.
10. The other technician came out on XX/XX/XXXX to revisit the dryer vent issue. He determined that he could not unclog it due to some unknown reason. He then left. A few minutes later he returned stating that his office wanted him to inspect the areas where the additional work ( AC Coil and AC Blowers ) was located. We refused. We considered this a deceptive attempt by XXXX XXXX XXXX to make a false assertion that they did work that was clearly not done. Or to make it appear that this technician came to do the additional work.
11. When we refused the technician access to the area and reiterated there was no agreement to anything other than the dryer vent, they then refused to honor the refund promised ; citing that they stand by their original technicians claim that he did the additional work.
12. A dispute was filed with Sears CitiBank Card Services. The results to-date of this complaint filing is that the charge would stand until XXXX XXXX XXXX  decides to refund it ; which implies that Sears CitiBank Card Services is acting as a co-conspirator to this scam by aiding and abetting XXXX XXXX XXXX deceptive practices that victimize consumers.
13. We have phone logs to document the phone calls made to XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding the cancelation of the contract and the dispute about the {$1300.00} credit card charge.
14. We also have security surveillance footage from multiple cameras that clearly show what occurred on XX/XX/XXXX It clearly shows that they did not do the additional work that they are attempting the charge for. This footage can be made available to assist in your investigation. XXXX XXXX XXXX has been informed that this evidence exists that definitively shows the work was never done.
There are potentially 100s if not 1000s of other consumers that may have been victimized by these deceptive practices. We are asking CFPB to assist us in seek restitution for the financial lost, harm and mental stress this incident has cause us. We are asking CFPB to assist in seeking monetary restitution for other victims of this scam and take appropriate action to protection consumers from these type predatory companies and their deceptive practices.
We are also asking the Attorney Generals/District Attorneys in both Maryland and Virginia to consider legal action to protection their citizen from these two entities and other entities that perpetrate these type deceptive practices in their respective States.
CC : Maryland Attorney General Office of Consumer Protection Virginia Attorney General Office BBB Serving Metro Washington DC and Eastern PA BBB of Greater Maryland