|
| assured home financial assuredhomefinancial.com Loan modification scam via mail then 800 number Internet, Internet |
| 6th of Nov, 2011 by User873764 |
| Received a piece of mail that looked real (it looked very similar to a notification I got from my actual bank) until I realized there was no mention of an actual company on the piece of paper. It was referencing my lender and also had my name, address and a loan amount very close to my actual loan amount but not exactly. It had an 800 number and a time limit of December 16, 2011. I called the number and spoke to an Andy Evans, he took my information and sounded pretty convincing. He even put me on hold (I assume he was pretending to be) while consulting with the underwriting department. It all sounded legit until he asked me for $2500 up front fee for a "loan modification". He said he contacted my lender but when I questioned him for more info about who he spoke to from my lender and more information about what exactly happens during the modification and extra fees he became evasive and had a lot of fluff answers for me like how the government programs are funding it all. He tried to press me into making a decision within the next few hours and I assume to send me half of the fee. I got really suspicious and looked up the website he gave me to assuredhomefinancial.com but when I went to check it out everything about it screamed scam. I looked up the ip address and found out it had only been created in Aug 2011. He told me the company was based in california but there was no information about an address on the website itself. When I looked up the web owner it showed up as owned by a John Ehlinger with an email address of [email protected] and mailing address as PO Box 691 Manchester MO,63011. None of the details he gave me about the company matched the ipwhois info and I knew right there it was a scam. I reported the website to the FTC and I wanted to put up this info here on this website as well to warn potential victims away. |
|
|
|
|
Let this letter serve as rebuttal to the complaint dated 11/7/11.
We will attempt to address each point made to clarify why we believe this complaint is false, malicious and how it has caused damage to our reputation and loss of revenue to our company.
Consumer states:
“Received a piece of mail that looked real (it looked very similar to a notification I got from my actual bank) until I realized there was no mention of an actual company on the piece of paper. It was referencing my lender and also had my name, address and a loan amount very close to my actual loan amount but not exactly. It had an 800 number and a time limit of December 16, 2011”
The information we use for our direct mailer campaign is derived from a database of public information.
The consumer was in no way obligated to use the mailer he received to contact us for help.
“I called the number and spoke to an Andy Evans he took my information and sounded pretty convincing. He even put me on hold (I assume he was pretending to be) while consulting with the underwriting department. It all sounded legit until he asked me for $2500 up front fee for a "loan modification". He said he contacted my lender but when I questioned him for more info about who he spoke to from my lender and more information about what exactly happens during the modification and extra fees he became evasive and had a lot of fluff answers for me like how the government programs are funding it all. He tried to press me into making a decision within the next few hours and I assume to send me half of the fee.”
It is unclear why the customer continued the call with our representative if he suspected something, or was otherwise uncomfortable with what was discussed during the intake process. A reasonable person with any level of doubt would have terminated the call. Instead, consumer continued to ask for more information and specifics.
“I got really suspicious and looked up the website he gave me to assuredhomefinancial.com but when I went to check it out everything about it screamed scam”
This consumer never became a client. Had he engaged us for services and gone through our process he would have discovered that we are a reputable business and most certainly not a scam. Instead, consumer decided to deliberately damage the reputation of a legitimate business he knew nothing about. He has succeeded in threatening the livelihoods of innocent employees providing a legitimate service by writing an unsupported and disparaging complaint about a process he was never involved in.
I looked up the ip address and found out it had only been created in Aug 2011. He told me the company was based in california but there was no information about an address on the website itself.”
We are under no obligation whatsoever to disclose information about the origin of our company or when it was created. In light of the invasive nature of consumer’s actions to “investigate” the company’s officers or affiliation, it appears prudent on our part not to disclose more information there. Why consumer felt he needed to spend time doing this level of background checking is unclear.
“Then I looked up the web owner it showed up as owned by a John Ehlinger with an email address of [email protected] and mailing address as PO Box 691 Manchester MO, 63011. None of the details he gave me about the company matched the ipwhois info and I knew right there it was a scam”
Again, it’s unclear why consumer published an additional revision of the initial complaint solely to add someone’s full name in an effort to discredit that person directly.
“I reported the website to the FTC and I wanted to put up this info here on this website as well to warn potential victims away. I found an article in bbb.org (http://www.bbb.org/us/article/bbb-warns-homeowners-mass-joinder-lawsuit-mailings-may-be-latest-advance-fee-mortgage-modification-scheme-26797) by searching for John Ehlinger and Missouri on google. I now completely believe this was definitely a scam.
Consumer has taken it upon himself to warn others about a company and service he is not informed enough about to comment on. In doing so, consumer has succeeded in identifying himself as a delusional internet vigilante and satisfied the standard legal criteria for libel.
Consumer’s web postings were made maliciously to injure our company in its trade, office and profession. Our company has already suffered loss of revenue due directly to consumer’s published complaint. As such, the complaint is defamatory per se. Consumer’s libelous and malicious intent to injure is actionable and exposes consumer to the imposition of compensatory as well as punitive damages.
Consumer is asked to immediately publish a retraction to this unfounded, malicious and false complaint immediately and remove the original complaint from the website. |
|
|
|
Let this letter serve as rebuttal to the complaint dated 11/7/11.
We will attempt to address each point made to clarify why we believe this complaint is false, malicious and how it has caused damage to our reputation and loss of revenue to our company.
Consumer states:
“Received a piece of mail that looked real (it looked very similar to a notification I got from my actual bank) until I realized there was no mention of an actual company on the piece of paper. It was referencing my lender and also had my name, address and a loan amount very close to my actual loan amount but not exactly. It had an 800 number and a time limit of December 16, 2011”
The information we use for our direct mailer campaign is derived from a database of public information.
The consumer was in no way obligated to use the mailer he received to contact us for help.
“I called the number and spoke to an Andy Evans he took my information and sounded pretty convincing. He even put me on hold (I assume he was pretending to be) while consulting with the underwriting department. It all sounded legit until he asked me for $2500 up front fee for a "loan modification". He said he contacted my lender but when I questioned him for more info about who he spoke to from my lender and more information about what exactly happens during the modification and extra fees he became evasive and had a lot of fluff answers for me like how the government programs are funding it all. He tried to press me into making a decision within the next few hours and I assume to send me half of the fee.”
It is unclear why the customer continued the call with our representative if he suspected something, or was otherwise uncomfortable with what was discussed during the intake process. A reasonable person with any level of doubt would have terminated the call. Instead, consumer continued to ask for more information and specifics.
“I got really suspicious and looked up the website he gave me to assuredhomefinancial.com but when I went to check it out everything about it screamed scam”
This consumer never became a client. Had he engaged us for services and gone through our process he would have discovered that we are a reputable business and most certainly not a scam. Instead, consumer decided to deliberately damage the reputation of a legitimate business he knew nothing about. He has succeeded in threatening the livelihoods of innocent employees providing a legitimate service by writing an unsupported and disparaging complaint about a process he was never involved in.
I looked up the ip address and found out it had only been created in Aug 2011. He told me the company was based in california but there was no information about an address on the website itself.”
We are under no obligation whatsoever to disclose information about the origin of our company or when it was created. In light of the invasive nature of consumer’s actions to “investigate” the company’s officers or affiliation, it appears prudent on our part not to disclose more information there. Why consumer felt he needed to spend time doing this level of background checking is unclear.
“Then I looked up the web owner it showed up as owned by a John Ehlinger with an email address of [email protected] and mailing address as PO Box 691 Manchester MO, 63011. None of the details he gave me about the company matched the ipwhois info and I knew right there it was a scam”
Again, it’s unclear why consumer published an additional revision of the initial complaint solely to add someone’s full name in an effort to discredit that person directly.
“I reported the website to the FTC and I wanted to put up this info here on this website as well to warn potential victims away. I found an article in bbb.org (http://www.bbb.org/us/article/bbb-warns-homeowners-mass-joinder-lawsuit-mailings-may-be-latest-advance-fee-mortgage-modification-scheme-26797) by searching for John Ehlinger and Missouri on google. I now completely believe this was definitely a scam.
Consumer has taken it upon himself to warn others about a company and service he is not informed enough about to comment on. In doing so, consumer has succeeded in identifying himself as a delusional internet vigilante and satisfied the standard legal criteria for libel.
Consumer’s web postings were made maliciously to injure our company in its trade, office and profession. Our company has already suffered loss of revenue due directly to consumer’s published complaint. As such, the complaint is defamatory per se. Consumer’s libelous and malicious intent to injure is actionable and exposes consumer to the imposition of compensatory as well as punitive damages.
Consumer is asked to immediately publish a retraction to this unfounded, malicious and false complaint immediately and remove the original complaint from the website. |
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
