I know this is an off the wall question.  I financed my LQ thru a finance company and I've had MANY problems.  I am at the point now that I need to begin writing the overseers of such companies, however cannot find anything on their website. 

Does anyone know how I would obtain this information?  I was told by my bank (who did not do the financing, I just called them in hopes of getting information) to check the companie's website, but there is no information.  I'm guess I'm looking for info similiar to the FCIC for a bank.

Who do I write to?  There must be some type of regulating committee/group/whatever so these people are held accountable.

Thanks for the info.  I think I will begin by going through the department of consumer affairs.  It looks like that very well may cover it to some extent.  I will not name the company at this point, however I WILL post my entire saga after I obtain all of my money from them.  The trailer has since been re-financed, however I do feel others who may use the "problem" company should know of my trials with them.

I will contact them tomorrow and once I obtain all of my refunds, I should post the long story by the end of the week.

I don't understand the need for regulation.

Did they tell you an intesrest rate?

Did they tell you the terms?

Did they tell you about any added cost of preparing the loan?

If the answer is "NO" to any of the above "RUN", don't walk away.

"The government is not the answer to your problems, the government is the problem" Ronald Regan

Yep, they deregulated the banking industry. What's that going to cost us? One trillion plus? The big wigs and CEOs made out and we pay. They deregulated the airlines. How many have gone under and now they want gov bailouts? Yeah, lets deregulate everything and trust the people in charge, to take only a fair share and treat the consumers honestly.

Gard

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act

Representative Phil Gramm was the author of our current financial deregulation activities, pushed forward by special interest groups to the Bush administration.

He is the same "advisor" to the MCCain election crew, who said that Americans were a bunch of whiners, and we weren't in as much of a fiscal problem as we thought. He subsequently was fired this summer, rather, "asked to resign" his position.

Gard

You're right Gard.  The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill was attached as a "pork barreled" amendment to the budget bill in a late night session of the budget appropriations that went to Clinton for signature. Clinton either had to sign it or veto it and send it back to be hammered out with the federal government operating without funds appropriated which would take who knows how long to go through the house and senate again with debate. So, he signed it. And the deregulation bill was nicknamed "the Enron Loophole" as Phil Gramm's wife Wendy was on the board of directors for Enron. No conflicts there, huh?  And deregulation came to pass and all of the outlaws in Washington and Wall Street threw one huge non-stop party that finally stopped when greed met reality head-on.

You two boys are drinking to much cool-aid.

“In the mid-1990s…[CRA regulation] allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical ‘housing rights’ groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.”

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080917/issues01.html?.v=1

Maybe we could regulate that these banks loan money to a horse, they are already forced to loan it to horses asses.

Really enjoy the orange flavor .

Wrong about Gramm? Read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#Banking_deregulation_and_the_2008_mortgage_crisis

As a preacher in Chicago once said "the chickens have come home to roost" 

It shouldn't take the mainstream media but a month or so to pick up on this story.

Gramm's legisation deregulated the banking industry by allowing a bank to practice banking, insurance and brokerage activities. I and most others think it was the subprime loans that were regulated by San Fran Nan, and lobbied for by Barry Hussein Obama that have us in the mess we are in. But if you boys think otherwise, then you are entitled to you opinion.

I must say gard for someone who come across as knowlegeable- you sure are dumb. here is some info and i'll leave it that this- democrats in congress as well as clinton set up what we now have in the financail markets by passing laws and regualtions that forced lenders to loan money to those who couldn't afford the mortgage OR those who would be termed "high risk" under normal banking practices. Remember liberals goning ape crap over the term red lining? That was the banks way to determine who wouldn't meet normal lending practices. Thanks to "affordable housing" liberals, anyone can afford a house,default on the morgage and get to keep it! The rest of the taxpayers are now bailing them out and paying the piper- as early as 2005, GOPer's and the Bush administration wanted to appoint outside regualators to audit fannie/freddy but Democrats in congress blocked that effort ( BTW two of Obamas economic advisors were foreced out of fannie/freddy for inflation profits and raking in millions)

This is factual- democrat policies are the direct cause of this scandal and guess what-they blame capitialism!Now they want BILLIONS to fix what they caused and they want complete oversight! Gads!!!!

 I have far more confidence in capitalism and the markets rather than goverment officals. This is a criminal attempt to take over a private sector of the economy by feds and it should be stopped.

Thank you so much for your vote of confidence. Coming from someone of such unbiased and thoughtful information, I find it very comforting to disagree with you on many topics. Gard

Then Farmbabe is right about your wealth of knowledge

I've known it for months. Keep talking.

Here is the difference gard- I can prove everything I said as totally and completely factual. It was and continues to be bad democratic policies enacted by the same people ( liberals) who say they can fix the problem. Please do more research than just being spoon fed by moveon.org.

Liberals don't ever thnk that their ideas are wrong, they just think that they haven't forced their ideas upon enough people yet.

OK i know this thread will get the freeze job real soon. The OP never did say what problems they had...unless i missed that part. if they think its a legal issue, I'd see an attorney. if you made your payments on time, in full, every month, then I am not sure what problems you might have had. Your obvious recourse would be to refinance some where else and rid yourself of a bad situation, whcih you did. Other posters had good info about you states attorneys office.

A few weeks ago, Paulson, Bush's republican fiscal czar, wouldn't even admit we had a serious financial problem. Now he's saying that the overwhelming problem he just discovered, must be fixed immediately, and he's just the person to effect the cure. Today, he's also saying that the executive CEO golden parachute payments must be maintained, and funded by the tax payers' bailout.

Lehman has off shore accounts holding 25 billion dollars. Most of the top executives of the failed institutions have pay compensations ranging from 20 to 70 million dollars annually.

The same people who created these problems, now believe that they are the only ones who can fix it by using our money. They also don't hold the executives accountable for their greed and poor choices, when operating for immediate profits. The failed institutions were some of the largest contributors to the RNP, and many lobbyists well represented their positions, with much favourable legislation being created.

Any label can be placed on anyone, and will do little to resolve the problem. It is a total failure of our leadership that has created this mess. Now we are being held accountable and have to pay for its actions. We do need change, not lip service and more of the same.

Gard

Blather, Blather, Blather............Don't let the truth get in the way of your horseturds Gardy.........Maybe you should stop while your behind.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

All I said was there is no regulation needed, you might go back and read the post to see who got snippy first. As far as being an Ex-Marine, I don't think I have said that but a time or two on here, and I surely don't go on about being any hero. I think W. is an idiot for bailing these companies out, I think they should have had to lie in the bed they made. Why are you and I on the hook for these loans because some idiot banker made a bad loan to someone who had less than desireable credit. Now the government that can do very little right is going to be in the home business. I'll let you name the bet, that these people who did not pay back the money they borrowed are going to get to stay in these houses and you and I will pay the loans off. Plus the clowns that made the loans will get to keep their jobs and big salaries also. They should have failed, then someone with better business sense could have bought what was left. But noooooooooooo, the government is smarter than the rest of us, so they offered to take yours and my money and give it to these loosers.

Business will self regulate if government will just get out of the way.

I agree with most everything you wrote except that you don't hire a fox to guard the hen house. And you can't really believe that Big Business will police itself when LARGE profits are involved and multi-million dollars in compensation to be made by cooking the books or bending the rules.

CIVILITY - now there's something new for this post. And I agree wholeheartedly that we can, in fact, agree to disagree with civility.

here is some interesting info about the bank deregualtion bill that some have mistakenly used for blame- from national review online....

Who's responsible for the panic of 2008? In the gathering legend, it's one man, former Sen. Phil Gramm, the ex-John McCain adviser who lamented "a nation of whiners" a few months ago and therefore is fit to have responsibility for one of the nation's worst financial crises heaped on his head.

Gramm's gravest alleged sin is pushing the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley bank deregulation bill. Barack Obama has identified the legislation as ground zero of the financial implosion, the deregulatory predicate for Wall Street's excess. As a Texas conservative who afflicted liberaldom for years before decamping to Wall Street, Gramm is easy to vilify. That doesn't make the case against him any less unjust.

The law allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate, repealing the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that prevented banks from offering customers insurance, investment or commercial banking services. Gramm-Leach-Bliley tore down the artificial walls between financial institutions. Was this the disastrous mistake that it is now portrayed as on the stump? No.

One, Democrats in good standing supported the final bill. Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, Clinton Treasury officials whom Obama relies on for advice, supported it. Joe Biden voted for it, it passed the Senate with 90 votes, and President Clinton signed it. Heaven knows, Washington can make bipartisan mistakes, but if the bill were so obviously the road to financial perdition, presumably some of these Democrats much keener to regulate the economy than Gramm would have voted "no."

Two, the bill was a foregone conclusion. Europe already had so-called universal banking in which financial institutions could undertake varied operations. U.S. banks were finding loopholes in the law to keep up with foreign competitors, and increasingly bumped up against the 60-year-old regulatory constraints. The Gramm bill just blessed the world as it was already evolving.

Three, the legislation appears to have alleviated the current crisis rather than making it worse. Big, diversified financial institutions have been weathering the crunch better than anyone else and have occasionally swooped in to lessen the pain. Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch, which would have been impossible prior to Gramm's deregulation. Otherwise, Merrill would either have gone under or been bailed out by the taxpayers. Similarly, J.P. Morgan wouldn't have taken over Bear Stearns, and Barclays Bank wouldn't be considering buying Lehman Brothers.

Indeed, we've witnessed the end of the era of the large investment bank, with the dramatic decision of the last two firms standing, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, to transform themselves into traditional bank holding companies. The investment-bank model of relying on short-term markets for funding was no longer workable. Instead, Goldman and Morgan will rely more on less risky sources of funding, as regular banks do. Would we really want a 1930s law saying, "No, sorry, you have to remain pure investment banks and go bust"?

The root of this crisis is subprime loans lavished on people who couldn't truly afford their homes. This bad debt was securitized -- i.e., chopped up -- and spread throughout the system as complicated financial instruments. Gramm makes an unlikely villain here, since he always opposed the rush to give marginal borrowers mortgages -- and took hell for it from left-wing activist groups -- and his deregulation didn't create securitization or other financial exotica.

It's the very word "deregulation" that galls Gramm's critics. In their simplistic morality play, anything promoting it must be to blame. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were practically arms of the government ("government-sponsored enterprises") and still did more than any other institution to spread the bad debt before requiring a bailout themselves.

It's certainly possible to fault lax regulation. The Securities and Exchange Commission's 2004 decision to allow the investment banks to double their leverage looks foolhardy. But the mistakes and mania that created this crisis can't be attributed to one man. In other words, Barack Obama and every other Democrat should lay off their scapegoat of the hour.