• English
• German
• French
• Spanish
• Russian
• Romanian

English

Consumer Sues Ameriquest Mortgage Company for Spamming, False Promises, Misrepresentation and Incompetence

Ameriquest Mortgage Company purchased mortgage leads from e-mail spammer Lead Jungle, failed to provide the promised credit reports, displayed incredible incompetence and finally denied the application with a false reason.

September 10, 2004 -- After several requests for her credit reports were ignored, Christine Baker named Ameriquest in her federal suit, filed on 6/9/04 in Phoenix, AZ, case # CIV-04-1192-PCT-NVW.

Prior to contracting to purchase real estate, Ms. Baker wanted to know what type of loan she qualified for and she responded to two mortgage spams. On 4/20/04, Ameriquest loan agent Beatrice called in response to the “internet” lead, no additional information was available at the Scottsdale Ameriquest office. Ameriquest Litigation Manager Carol Melber states in her affidavit that Ameriquest purchased the lead from “Lead Jungle.”

To date, Ms. Baker has been unable to find any information about Lead Jungle. If it actually exists, it took measures to hide its existence for good reason. The mortgage spam violated many provisions of the CAN-Spam Act. Ms. Baker intends to submit her complaint to the FTC and Arizona Attorney General for enforcement. It is extremely important to prosecute companies like Ameriquest who pay the spammers. After all, if Ameriquest wouldn’t pay for those illegally obtained leads, the spammers would have no reason to spam.

Paying for illegally obtained leads is as criminal as purchasing stolen goods. The spammers are stealing our time and resources.

Unfortunately, the spam related aggravation pales in comparison to Ameriquest's extraordinary incompetence encountered by Ms. Baker after she applied for the mortgage. Ms. Baker explained to loan agent Beatrice that she was looking for prequalification to purchase property and for information about suitable loan programs, as she is self-employed.

Beatrice promised that she would mail the credit reports and credit scores to Ms. Baker the next day. Ameriquest ordered the credit reports on 4/21/04 and prepared the initial disclosures with the 7.05% interest rate and 2.855 points, a very high rate at that time. On 4/28/04, Jonathan with Great SouthWest Mortgage left a VM, stating that his friend Beatrice had provided him with Ms. Baker's information and that he was offering a free purchase consultation. Obviously, Beatrice had declined Ms. Baker’s application.

When nobody from Ameriquest contacted Ms. Baker, she sent e-mail to Beatrice, inquiring about the strange call from SouthWest Mortgage and the whereabouts of the promised credit reports. On 5/7/04, Beatrice left a VM apologizing for the delay and she advised that she "couldn't put together the best package" and that's why she provided Ms. Baker's phone number to Jonathan at SouthWest Mortgage.

On 5/12/04, Ameriquest sent a Notice of Incompleteness, advising that the loan would be declined if Ms. Baker didn't supply paystubs and W-2s -- despite the fact that Beatrice had known about the self-employment. As any loan agent should know, self-employed applicants don't have W-2s and paystubs.

Ameriquest also demanded proof of insurance for the commercial property where Ms. Baker receives her mail. Ms. Baker does not own this property and has no intention to purchase it.

Most important, why would Ameriquest want any documentation for a loan they already referred to another mortgage company weeks earlier?

On 6/11/04, Ameriquest denied the application because Ms. Baker didn’t provide the documentation that couldn't possibly exist.

In response to her lawsuit, Ms. Baker expected an apology from Ameriquest along with the promised credit reports and assurances that Ameriquest does not participate or condone SPAM and that it will take immediate actions to ensure affiliate and vendor compliance with the CAN-Spam Act as well as applicable state laws.

Ameriquest instead filed a motion to dismiss and submitted an Affidavit by Ameriquest Litigation Manager Carol Melber. She insisted that the loan was declined because Ms. Baker didn't supply the requested documentation.

Federal law requires that creditors notify consumers after "adverse actions" such as declines, higher interest rates or lower loan amounts due to credit. Consumers are entitled to free credit reports and notices of their rights, including the right to dispute inaccurate credit data.

Apparently Ameriquest will resort to perjury to avoid having to inform consumers about their credit rights.

To date, Ms. Baker has not received the credit reports with the FICO scores Beatrice had promised and Equifax and Trans Union have been refusing Ms. Baker's online credit report orders.

Fortunately, Ms. Baker recorded all the phone calls and she is able to document the false promises and the decline back in April, as the documentation proves, due to credit. The audio files are attached to this news release and posted at http://www.fight-back.us/forum/index.php?showforum=25 and the court filings and exhibits are posted at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/4781/4786.html

The Phoenix Better Business Bureau website states that Ameriquest's membership was revoked on 5/20/04 due to the mortgage company's failure to respond to complaints and due to an unsatisfactory report with the BBB in Orange, California, where Ameriquest is headquartered.

A Google search yielded entire pages with links to consumer complaints about Ameriquest.

While it is to be expected in any business that mistakes are made, the Ameriquest 8/20/04 Motion to Dismiss leaves absolutely no doubt that lies and deception are part of its normal business practices.

Ms. Baker is not an attorney. Due to her lack of legal skills and funds to pay a competent attorney, it is unlikely that she will prevail in court. She hopes that her publications including http://ameriquest-mortgage-incompetence.info will at the very least deter consumers from applying with Ameriquest and maybe even result in a class action.

Ms. Baker also maintains http://bayhouse.com, http://creditforum.org/ and http://creditfactors.com/. The 2004 Credit Suit blog with updates about credit litigation, regulatory complaints, legislative efforts and credit news is published at http://creditsuit.org/. The Fight Back!!! Forum at http://www.fight-back.us/forum/ contains screenshots and audio files documenting many CRA and creditor violations as well as efforts to get regulators and legislators to enforce consumer protection legislation.