![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blog.cucollector.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/hmstr_trdmll.jpg\" "\\"hmstr_trdmll\\"")
<\/a>Editorial<\/strong><\/p>\nI have to vent in order to wrap my mind around this one. We ran an assignment last night for a vehicle that was believed to be a *straw<\/strong>* purchase. The maker was listed as deceased and a third party was supposedly in possession of the vehicle. The vehicle\u2019s origin was from the state of Maine. The client provided info on the third party being from New Jersey.<\/p>\n Additional work was done for verification on the third party\u2019s multiple addresses in New Jersey. When all addresses were run to no avail, we searched for possible relatives and found a new address for a brother that also showed this *third<\/strong>* party having connections to the brother\u2019s address.<\/p>\n After attempting contact and getting a phone call from the brother in regards to this matter we looked into this further after the brother stated that he did not know anyone by the name of the deceased maker, nor did he know anything about the vehicle in question, but he did have a brother by the same name of the person we were told was in possession of the vehicle. I understand that there are many instances where several people can have the same name. However, we had to do damage control with the brother because he was so nasty that we came to his home looking for a person who might possibly have a connection to his address.<\/p>\n Further search showed that the person in possession of the vehicle does not live in New Jersey, but in Mass, and we were in fact looking for the wrong *third * party with the same name. The obit is further confirmation of this conclusion.<\/p>\n My issue is this, the client (forwarding company) is one that pays the lowest repossession fees. They are providing information that they feel is valid without doing their *due diligence<\/strong>*. This information basically sent us on a wild goose chase for nothing since they do not pay close fees, nor *skip<\/strong>* fees.<\/p>\n Why are we working like this? We are forced to work for companies that basically have us up against a wall, either accept our terms or don\u2019t receive the assignments. I feel like we are being bullied by these companies because we all know that if we turn down the work, someone else will do it. It seems like it\u2019s a no win situation and I strongly believe that the banks need to be aware of who they are dealing with when choosing what I deem to be a cut rate operation. Last night\u2019s wrong *third<\/strong>* party has really confirmed the fact that the banks are willing to work with these companies since they offer the best price for their services and apparently are clueless as to how these companies filter information down to the repossession agent and then report it back to the client. Are they scrambling to service the client by making it look like they examined every avenue and giving the client any \u00bd arsed story to keep them happy. What about those of us who are relying on the information they are providing? Research takes time, time is money\u2026..no brainer.<\/p>\n When the keynote speaker at NARS addressed our concern of fees not increasing in the last ten years by reasoning that the financial industry feels we were OVERPAID ten years ago, so does not sit well with me, nor anyone else that listened to his presentation. He did mention that the industry is well aware of the rising costs of fuel and insurance, etc, but we should not expect to pass this along to our clients due to the fact that there are less of them and they are forced to work harder to cover the responsibilities of many positions. Sorry, not buying that.<\/p>\n Thank you for listening\u2026please offer any comments you feel might fit this frustrating situation\u2026..aaauuuggghhh!!!!<\/p>\n Trish<\/p>\n