| Comment Number: | 522418-06495 |
| Received: | 7/6/2006 2:17:27 PM |
| Organization: | Tastefully Simple |
| Commenter: | Lisa` Winne-Clark |
| State: | PA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
There is so much REAL fraud and deception that the state and federal governments completely ignore, that you shouldn't have to conjure up reasons why companies whose main lifeline is the direct-selling business -- and who DO operate according to the Code of Ethics -- should become victims of the bureaucracy. I acknowledge that the government should indeed take action against companies that individually participate in deceptive and fraudulent practices, but to make even companies that operate in an ethical manner suffer the ramifications that should only pertain to those who operate in a dishonest manner, is not the correct method to use in handling this problem. Aside from the point I just made, let me state that my husband and I were completely scammed by an outfit that advertised themselves on television, portraying themselves as a HUD I Title Loan Company, while claiming that they provided home improvement loans to middle-income homeowners. To those who never learned what HUD is all about OR who they represent, this seemed pretty tempting, partially due to the low interest rates they offered. Domestic Bank (of Rhode Island) was even part of the scam, because they drew up (what should have been an FHA loan) on HUD documents, stating a higher interest rate than was originally quoted to us. By that time, it was too late, because we had already signed with the contractor, under duress. To top that off, the contractor hired an inexperienced subcontractor to do the job, which ended with 4 projects; two of which were finished, but shoddily done, one that was only half finished and damaged the doorway b/w two of our rooms and one, that they never worked on, at all. They also mentioned that we sign a form (which they mentioned, was a "release"), only once the job was finished and we were satisfied with it. Needless to say, our signatures were either forged or American Housing Alliance (who actually called themselves the "loan company") overlooked the "release" form altogether, so the construction company could receive their pay, regardless of whether the job was done. They claimed they went bankrupt, but we never saw evidence of that. In fact, the owner of the company took out a $125,000 loan to payoff her employees. Short of contacting and meeting with the PA State Atty.General's office and providing them w/ documentation, we will have to pay $261 a month out of our hard-earned money, up until the time this case gets settled -- which may take from 3 to 5 years. If we are even partially vindicated, they will only deduct the amount of the unfinished job and expenses that it cost us to finish the job ourselves, from the full amount of the loan. However, those who committed the fraud and deception against us (a bank, a bogus corporation, it's contractor and subcontractors) will not be arrested, charged or serve time for their unlawful actions, simply because they are not in the direct-selling business -- am I correct? And if I am not, then where are those who are bound by law to protect the consumer, under these circumstances? I would very much like to know that and feel that I am entitled to an explanation of why there is a double-standard being set. Thank you... Lisa Winne-Clark