Automotive Compliance Consultants general counsel David Missimer gave a strong warning to dealers stemming from what might be considered a small problem or incident blossoming into a significant issue that attracts the attention of federal regulators.
Missimer described many dealers’ attitude toward government laws regulating their business as unfortunate and likely to cost them dearly.
Why could such a stance hurt dealers badly? Missimer pointed to how easily it has become for consumers to register complaints against dealerships
“The compliance approach of some in our industry is that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission nor the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will take much interest in a single dealership, so why make compliance a priority,” Missimer said.
“This approach works well until someone is injured in a shop accident, a disgruntled employee decides to take on the title of whistleblower or a consumer takes their complaint to the government,” he continued.
Missimer reminded dealers that the government has made it very easy for consumers to register complaints against them.
“Have you logged onto the CFPB or FTC website lately? These agencies are begging people to contact them and complain about your business,” he said.
Presently, Missimer noted that CFPB posted complaints do not provide a consumer narrative, but the bureau is strongly considering changing that policy.
Given the CFPB’s eye on dealerships, Missimer believes that it likely won’t be long before consumer report narratives will also focus on dealerships as well.
Missimer said haphazard compliance is not an option in today’s business environment.
“Not a single reward is associated with noncompliance unless you consider the discount in attorney fees you get from your lawyer for frequent use,” he said.
“For those dealers,” Missimer continued, “their business risk-reward analysis should consider how much can it afford to pay for fines, lawyers, settlements and judgments — and still make a profit.”
Missimer reminded dealers the CFPB is not going away, and the FTC has taken more dealer compliance action in the past six months than it has in the last 10 years.
He also noted federal and state agencies now share consumer complaint information.
“To test your risk, type into Google ‘car dealer suit’,” Missimer said. “When I did this, I got more than 1.2 million results in 0.34 seconds, with the very first result being, ‘How to sue a used-vehicle dealer in small claims court.’”
For information on how dealers can sharpen their compliance strategy, contact Missimer at dmissimer@compliantnow.com or visit www.compliantnow.com.
The Financial Services Roundtable — a nearly 100-member advocacy organization whose supporters include a wide array of captives and commercial banks that offer vehicle financing — is four steps into a campaign the organization has called, “The CFPB Rumor Mill.”
Earlier this summer, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a new policy proposal that would empower consumers to publicly voice their complaints about consumer financial products and services. When consumers submit a complaint to the CFPB, they would have the option to share their account of what happened in the CFPB’s public-facing Consumer Complaint Database.
CFPB director Richard Cordray insisted that publishing consumer narratives would provide important context to the complaint, help the public detect specific trends in the market, aid consumer decision-making and drive improved consumer service.
The proposal has been met with strong pushback including the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, The Clearing House and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce.
Officials from the Financial Services Roundtable went so far as to create a rebuttal campaign dubbed “The CFPB Rumor Mill.” One of the segments the organization rolled out highlighted what leadership believes are three problems with the bureau’s online complaint portal, including:
1. The CFPB is planning to launch a system to post anonymous, unverified consumer complaints about financial services companies online.
2. Anybody can file a complaint, but the CFPB won’t independently verify who they are. Neither can other consumers.
3. The complaint could be completely untrue, but it stays online. That’s a disservice to consumers who expect facts on government websites.
Financial Service Roundtable officials continued the campaign with another three-part rebuttal, offering what they believe are a trio of reasons why the complaint portal won’t be based on facts.
1. Government websites are supposed to be the place to go for people to find authoritative facts. By posting unverified information onto their government website, CFPB will be tacitly endorsing what is in the complaints. That doesn’t help consumers.
2. Information posted on a government-funded website, like the CFPB’s, is a government endorsement. The government shouldn’t be endorsing information it chooses not to verify.
3. The CFPB says financial services companies will be able to post responses to complaints. However, federal consumer privacy protections restrict financial companies from posting information about the customer or the circumstances. But if the institution doesn’t respond, consumers may be left uninformed.
“As a consumer educator, my reaction was disbelief that the CFPB could get it so wrong and shock that consumers, who expect and deserve facts from their government, would instead get rumors,” said Anne Wallace, senior director of consumer financial services for the Financial Services Roundtable.
“Imagine asking a police officer for directions in an unfamiliar city. You’d expect the police officer, a trusted law enforcement official, to point you in the right direction,” Wallace continued. “But what if you followed the directions, only to find out the police officer had pointed you in the wrong direction? Would you still place your confidence in that government representative as an official source of reliable information?
“Of course not. And that’s why the CFPB’s plan to post consumer narratives is so baffling,” she went on to say.
More material associated with the ongoing campaign is available at www.cfpbrumors.com.
Dealer solutions provider Autosoft now offers convenient access to credit report and compliance services within its Web-based FLEX F&I application because of a new a partnership with 700Credit.
On Monday, executives highlighted this partnership can help dealers quickly complete the entire sales process without leaving Autosoft’s FLEX F&I application — in most cases while a customer sits across the desk. Sales personnel can pull credit and comply with mandatory state and federal requirements using 700Credit’s credit reports product and the included compliance safeguard features.
“At Autosoft, we’re always looking for ways to make our customers’ jobs easier,” Autosoft senior vice president of business development Christopher Morris said of the new integration.
“Convenience and cost-savings are important to our customers, so we’re happy to offer a fairly priced service that saves time and steps for our dealerships,” Morris continued. “More importantly, 700Credit provides our FLEX F&I users with a simple, efficient and effective means for ensuring compliance with federal and state laws that many dealerships may not even realize they are required to follow.”
With just a few mouse clicks, FLEX F&I users can:
— Gain access to credit reports and credit scores (FICO and Vantage) from the leading national credit repositories, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. The Vantage Score is a new generic credit scoring model that provides accurate scores for potential buyers who use credit infrequently and more credit-worthy borrowers from a broad population.
— Access a credit report summary that helps dealers and lenders analyze the most significant factors in a consumer’s credit file.
— Quickly comply with the U.S. Patriot Act by screening customers against the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for every commercial transaction at a dealership.
— Prevent identify theft and comply with the new Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act “Red Flag” identify theft program with a turn-key solution that can automatically alert the dealer to potential identity theft Red Flags and offers verification options at the point of sale.
— Stay in compliance with federal and state adverse action laws and regulations. 700Credit can either print an adverse action notice for a dealer to provide to the customer or send it automatically on the dealer’s behalf within 30 days of the original application.
— Receive an automatically generated Risk-Based Pricing Score Disclosure Exception Notice each time a credit report is retrieved.
— Use Prospect Prescreen to gain a unique insight into a customer’s credit profile from basic deal information — and without needing a Social Security Number or permission — enabling a more informed conversation with consumers during the sales process
“The integration with Autosoft's FLEX F&I application gives dealerships complete, instant access to our credit reporting and compliance solutions. 700Credit managing director Kenneth Hill said of this new offering.
“In today's market, the ability to save time and not have to worry about the legal ramifications of various regulations brings dealers peace of mind while increasing profitability,” Hill continued.
Hill added 700Credit is offering Autosoft’s FLEX F&I customers preferred, pay-as-you-use pricing for its credit reporting and compliance services.
Hill highlighted a wide array of compliance issues dealers must track during a recent webinar hosted by SubPrime Auto Finance News. The recording of that webinar can be viewed in the above window.
Along with an opportunity to complete the organization’s compliance certification program, members of the National Automotive Finance Association can take advantage of a $100 registration discount to attend the SubPrime Forum, the event dedicated to auto financing at Used Car Week.
This two-day conference will provide data, knowledge, insight and powerful business networking opportunities to spur innovation and drive growth in the growing subprime auto finance marketplace. Presented by SubPrime Auto Finance News and SubPrimeNews.com, and in affiliation with the NAF Association, the event will offer a best-in-class forum for executives and thought-leaders in the auto finance vertical.
The SubPrime Forum is set for Nov. 11 and Nov. 12 at the Red Rock Casino, Resort and Spa in Las Vegas. It’s a part of Used Car Week, which includes the CPO Forum, the Re3 Conference and the National Remarketing Conference.
All member-company staff of the NAF Association are eligible for a discount of off the standard registration fee for the SubPrime Forum. Use discount code NAF2014 when registering.
“Register before Oct. 10 and attend this best-in-class forum for $395,” NAF Association executive director Jack Tracey said. “Hope to see you there.”
Click here for additional information regarding the SubPrime Forum, including the agenda, scheduled speakers and exhibitors.
Before the SubPrime Forum begins, the NAF Association is planning to hold the closing segment of its compliance certification program. The NAF Association offers an exceptional certification program including:
— 35 hours in-classroom and online self-paced courses
— In-depth coverage of federal laws and regulations
— Thorough analysis of state laws and regulations
— Complete module devoted to CFPB
“A critical part of a compliance management system is staffing it with qualified compliance personnel. A company having their compliance officers certified through a comprehensive educational program is a clear demonstration of the importance the organization places on compliance,” Tracey said.
For complete details about the compliance certification program, visit www.nafassociation.com.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced on Wednesday that Texas-based First Investors Financial Services Group entered into a consent order because the regulator said the subprime finance company distorted consumer credit records for years.
CFPB officials said First Investors failed to fix known flaws in a computer system that was providing inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies. The bureau contends the actions potentially harmed tens of thousands of the finance company’s customers.
On Tuesday, the CFPB ordered First Investors Financial Services Group to pay a $2.75 million fine, fix its errors and change its business practices.
“First Investors showed careless disregard for its customers’ financial lives by knowingly distorting their credit profiles for years,” CFPB director Richard Cordray said. “Companies cannot pass the buck by blaming a computer system or vendor for their mistakes.
“Today’s action sends a signal that the CFPB will hold companies accountable for sending inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies,” Cordray continued.
Back in September of 2012, First Investors Financial Services entered into a definitive merger agreement as the company came off of record-setting performances during its previous two fiscal years. First Investors merged with FIFS Holdings Corp., a company controlled by Aquiline Capital Partners, which is a New York-based private equity firm investing in the financial services sector.
Under the merger agreement, officials said FIFS Holdings acquired all of the outstanding shares of First Investors common stock in an all-cash transaction valuing the subprime lender at $100 million. They said stockholders of First Investors received $13.87 for each share of First Investors common stock they hold.
Signing the consent order with the CFPB was Bennie Duck, executive vice president and chief financial officer of First Investors Financial Services Group.
According to regulators, the CFPB investigation found that First Investors furnished inaccurate information about its customers to credit reporting agencies for at least three years. Because the company services its own loans, it supplies information on its accounts to the credit reporting agencies and is considered a furnisher under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
When First Investors discovered the problem in April 2011, the CFPB determined it notified the vendor but did nothing more. Bureau officials said the company did not replace the system or take any steps to correct the inaccurate information it had supplied. It continued for years to use a system that it knew was flawed.
“Tens of thousands of consumers were likely subject to these systemic reporting problems,” bureau officials said.
Specifically, the CFPB found that First Investors was providing distorted information to the credit reporting agencies regarding how its customers were performing on their accounts. The incorrect information First Investors reported included:
• Wrong payments and overdue amounts: First Investors provided inaccurate information about how much consumers were paying toward their debts. In many cases, First Investors understated the amounts its customers were paying. When consumers made multiple payments within a single month, for example, First Investors only reported one of the payments. This does not give consumers full credit for keeping up with their loan obligations. First Investors also overstated the dollar amount by which many of its customers were past due on their accounts.
• Distorted dates: First Investors inaccurately reported many of its customers’ “date of first delinquency,” which is the date on which a consumer first became late in paying back the loan. In most cases, First Investors was reporting the date to be more recent than it actually was. The date an account first becomes delinquent matters because it determines how long a delinquency can appear on a consumer’s credit report. Inaccurate reporting of the age of a consumer’s delinquency can cause it to appear on the consumer’s credit report longer than is allowed by the FCRA.
• Inflated delinquencies: First Investors substantially inflated the number of delinquencies for some customers when it reported customers’ last 24 months of consecutive payment activity. In one case, First Investors reported that a consumer was delinquent 11 times, when in fact the consumer had only been delinquent twice.
• Mischaracterization of vehicle surrender: When loans reach a certain stage of delinquency, First Investors has the option to repossess the car. Before that happens, though, consumers have the option to voluntarily surrender their vehicle and avoid a “repossession” showing up on their credit report. First Investors told credit reporting agencies that some of its customers had their vehicles repossessed, when in fact those individuals had voluntarily surrendered their vehicles back to the lienholder.
Enforcement Action
The CFPB said First Investors violated the FCRA by inaccurately furnishing information and it violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting to consumers that the company would only furnish accurate information. The CFPB’s order requires First Investors to take the following actions:
• Correct errors on credit reports: First Investors must identify all consumer accounts affected by its reporting errors and fix any inaccuracies. The company must either provide the correct information, or, in cases where accurate information is not available, First Investors must delete references to the loan altogether.
• Help consumers obtain free copies of their credit reports: First Investors will identify and inform all affected consumers about this action. It will also help all affected consumers receive free copies of their credit reports so consumers can check the reports’ accuracy for themselves.
• Establish consumer safeguards: First Investors must change how it does business and establish safeguards to ensure that it reports only accurate information about its customers to credit reporting agencies. In addition, it must ensure it has the staffing, facilities, systems, and information necessary to timely and completely respond to consumer disputes. And, it must establish an audit program to identify any systemic inaccuracies.
• Pay a civil monetary penalty of $2.75 million: First Investors will pay a $2.75 million fine for the illegal actions.
Editor's Note: To clarify a previous headline associated with this story, the CFPB did not penalize New York-based First Investors, a financial services provider that helps clients reach their financial goals through a variety of products and services, including mutual funds, life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services and investment management.
The American Financial Services Association responded to a petition asking that the Federal Communications Commission rule that finance companies are not liable when they call a wireless number for which they have prior express consent to call or text, but which has been reassigned to a different subscriber.
AFSA made the plea in an effort to initiate a rulemaking response to these petitions this fall.
In the letter to the FCC, AFSA executive vice president Bill Himpler recapped that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits autodialed non-emergency calls to wireless numbers without the prior consent of the called party.
AFSA agreed with the petitioner that there should be an exception to, or a safe harbor from, liability in these instances provided the caller updates its records and ceases calls to that wireless number within a reasonable time period after being informed that the number has been reassigned from the consenting consumer to another person without the caller having notice or knowledge of the change.
Himpler contends the FCC has received many petitions over the last several months regarding the TCPA.
“AFSA members comply with the requirements of the TCPA that they obtain express consent from the subscriber to a cell phone service before calling their assigned number,” Himpler said. “The calling party has notice of the number assigned to the party being called and their expressed consent to being called.
“However, when a number is reassigned and no notice thereof is given to the party to whom express consent was granted, it is unfair to penalize a caller who believes in good faith before making a call that it has complied with the TCPA,” he continued.
“Congress enacted the TCPA intending to protect consumers from undesired calls on their cell phones, and the desires of consumers are expressed when they consent to receiving calls from a particular party. However, Congress did not intend to set a trap for those who comply with the law,” Himpler went on to say.
Himpler also insisted that penalties of up to $1,500 per violation of the TCPA have provided plaintiff’s attorneys with fodder for lawsuits that “enrich” the attorneys rather than compensate their clients.
“Instead of receiving compensation from class action litigation, consumers will experience rising costs as businesses struggle to make up the massive legal fees incurred during TCPA litigation,” he said.
Himpler emphasized how critical this issue is for the FCC to consider.
“An exception or safe harbor is crucial because there is no way for the caller to know that the number has been reassigned, unless notified by the consumer. It is unreasonable to hold companies liable for a TCPA violation when the company has done all it can to comply with the law,” Himpler said.
Cloud-based loan origination system defi SOLUTIONS integrated Carleton SmartCalcs into its platform this week.
Officials highlighted defi SOLUTIONS customers now can access Carleton’s 40 years of compliance expertise to assure federal and state lending interest, fees and the annual percentage rate maximums are not exceeded.
From within the defi SOLUTIONS system, SmartCalcs automatically can validate the loan disclosure items against state usury laws and federal Truth in Lending, assuring clients compliance.
Carleton also intends to keep defi SOLUTIONS clients up to date with all regulatory compliance requirements on an ongoing basis.
Carleton president and chief executive officer Pat Ruszkowski said, “defi SOLUTIONS shares our same objective of providing customers with a comprehensive set of validation tools that allow them to focus on their business and customer relationships instead of managing the complex federal and state compliance requirements."
With defi SOLUTIONS, clients have the ability to coordinate the lending process from end-to-end (the online application to decision to verification and then to underwriting). defi’s SOLUTIONS program can increase efficiency by minimizing manual processes.
Stephanie Alsbrooks, chief executive officer of defi SOLUTIONS, insisted the provider created an LOS that can meet the complex requirements of large institutions but is also quick to deploy, scalable and affordable for the general auto financing industry.
“Integration with Carleton will give defi clients the ability to more easily comply with federal and state lending regulations from within their LOS,” Alsbrooks said.
“Our clients will also be able to validate against in-house defined underwriting lending requirements which further extends our goal of offering the most flexible and configurable LOS on the market,” she continued.
The integration with Carleton SmartCalcs comes on the heels of defi SOLUTIONS signing First Access Funding Corp. to its client roster.
First Access Funding is privately held non-prime auto finance company based in Edmonton, Alberta. President and CEO David Ballantine initially met Alsbrooks at the National Automotive Finance Association Non-Prime Auto Financing Conference a year ago.
“We weren’t looking for a new LOS vendor at the time, but Stephanie’s overall industry knowledge and ability to express an action plan with confidence was key,” Ballantine said.
Ballantine said the defi SOLUTIONS LOS is already making a significant impact on First Access business processes.
“Our systems now communicate front to back, eliminating hours of manual re-entry by our accounting staff. In addition, the streamlined nature of the LOS saves our credit analysts a lot of time and it helps reduce errors so we win more deals with speed and accuracy,” he said.
Ballantine added, “defi SOLUTIONS came in and delivered on time and on budget and was responsive to our questions and requests. They remain accountable, accessible, and reliable, and it has made all the difference for our business.”
Credit Acceptance Corp. recently reported more than just its second-quarter performance. The company also received a civil investigative demand from the Federal Trade Commission.
As a part of its Q2 financial reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Credit Acceptance said in its filing that the CID came from the FTC on June 6 relating to its various practices regarding consumers.
Credit Acceptance senior vice president and treasurer Doug Busk told investment analysts during a conference call that the company is cooperating with the inquiry.
“Relative to the contents of the civil investigative demand, it requested information on a number of topics: credit reporting, consumer privacy and information security, customer payments, marketing, training, customer communications, and consumer complaints,” Busk said.
“In terms of timing, really we don't have any insight there. We provide information, and the next step and the timing of the next step isn't known,” he continued.
The FTC’s request arrived as Credit Acceptance was in the closing weeks of a quarter when both its consolidated net income and adjusted net income increased year-over-year.
The company’s Q2 consolidated net income rose to $69.4 million, or $3.06 per diluted share compared to $61.5 million, or $2.56 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter.
For the six-month span that ended June 30, Credit Acceptance generated $119.2 million, or $5.15 per diluted share, in consolidated net income, a total slightly lower than the same time frame in 2013 when the amount was $122.1 million, or $5.04 per diluted share.
Credit Acceptance’s second-quarter adjusted net income came in at $67.6 million, or $2.98 per diluted share, compared to $60.7 million, or $2.53 per diluted share, for the same period last year.
Through half of 2014, the company posted $131.0 million in adjusted net income, or $5.66 per diluted share. That’s higher than a year ago when Credit Acceptance had adjusted net income of $119.5 million, or $4.93 per diluted share.
Q2 Originations and Competition
Credit Acceptance’s string of double-digit growth year-over-year in loan unit volume and dollar volume stopped in the second quarter after reaching three quarters in a row. The company still posted unit- and dollar-volume jumps of 4.5 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively, during Q2 as its number of active dealers grew 10.6 percent.
The company originated 50,913 contracts in Q2 from a dealer base that consisted of 4,960 stores.
Credit Acceptance chief executive officer Brett Roberts acknowledged average volume per active dealer declined 5.5 percent year-over-year in Q2. Roberts attributed the decline in volume per dealer as the result of increased competition.
”It continues to be a difficult competitive environment,” Roberts said. “The growth rate in the second quarter did break the trend that we saw over the last three quarters. I don't know if the comparison is a little bit tougher this quarter. Last year's first quarter was pretty soft, so the first quarter of this year's growth number likely reflected that. The comparison was a little bit tougher. But it continues to be a very tough market, and the 4.5 percent growth that we had this time was certainly a break in the trend line.”
Analysts asked Roberts if Credit Acceptance is poised to return to year-over-year loan unit increases ranging from 11.0 percent to 14.3 percent as well as dollar volume rises climbing between 11.3 percent and 16.2 percent — the upward levels the company posted in the previous three quarters.
“It will get better at some point but it goes in cycles,” Roberts said. “It's probably likely to get worse before it gets better. That has been the history. It is difficult to know the exact timing, but we're in a period now where there's lots of capital and there’s lots of competition, and there’s certainly loans that are being written that we wouldn't want to write based on the economics of those loans, and so we just have to be patient until the tides turn, which they eventually will.”
The Association of Finance & Insurance Professionals (AFIP) is offering Industry Summit attendees a $100 discount if they register for its pre-summit certification boot camp.
In order to obtain the discount, dealer managers and F&I professionals must complete the registration by Aug. 15.
AFIP highlighted that its two-day intensive training session is slated for Sept. 7 and 8 at the Paris Hotel Las Vegas. The boot camp will culminate with the administration of the AFIP certification exam.
The regular cost for the course and boot camp is $872.50. With the discount, the cost is $772.50.
AFIP introduced regional certification boot camps in January.
“The boot camp model has been highly successful,” AFIP executive director Dave Robertson said. “An attendee at the Bossier City, La., session said it best, ‘Until now, the regulations were just words on a page. This session made them come to life and gave them relevance to what I do every day.’”
AFIP recommends that boot camp attendees study the certification course material for two to three weeks prior to the session.
To register for the pre-summit boot camp, go to www.afip.com/bootcamp or call AFIP at (817) 428-2434.
Sparked by actions of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Automotive Compliance Consultants general counsel David Missimer — who specializes in dealership compliance issues — advised managers to take a close look at the arbitration clause language used in their finance contracts.
Missimer insisted that dealers heed this advice, given the way he sees today’s courts viewing finance contract language — particularly as contract language is under pressure from consumer groups and the CFPB.
“The purpose of an arbitration clause is to keep a customer’s suit against a dealership from becoming the basis of a class action,” Missimer said.
“But the CFPB is busy looking at arbitration clauses and both federal and state courts are reviewing such clauses with more scrutiny,” he continued. “It would be prudent for any dealer to review the arbitration clause now being used and make sure it will keep the dealership out of the court system and a class action when the time comes.”
Missimer acknowledged that response seems rather fail-safe. However, he noted some courts have started to review arbitration clauses as unconscionable and look for any ambiguity to find them non-binding.
Automotive Compliance Consultants mentioned the California Supreme Court currently has such a case before it, and it has stayed action on a number of California Appellate Court Cases striking down arbitration clauses.
“An arbitration clause drafted in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act requires disputes to be resolved before an arbitrator and precludes class actions by prohibiting class arbitration,” Missimer said.
“Consumer groups object to the use of mandatory arbitration and are lobbying the CFPB hard to pass rules and regulations to limit the use of arbitration in consumer loan transactions,” he went on to say.
Missimer and Automotive Compliance Consultants recommended that mandatory arbitration clauses should be based upon the Federal Arbitration Act, which preempts state law, and:
• Be clear and concise on any waivers including waiving the right to participate as a class representative or class member.
• Make the arbitration provision of the contract conspicuous, and consider highlighting through bold or different size type any waivers of legal rights like class action waivers.
• The agreement should be balanced and not pro-seller.
• Avoid provisions and arbitration organizations that would make it financially burdensome for consumers to arbitrate.
• Clearly define any legal remedies not subject to arbitration like self-help remedies, or proceeding in small claims courts.
Missimer advised dealers to have their legal counsel review the arbitration clause language used in their documents.
“Automotive Compliance Consultants specializes in dealership compliance, providing in-dealership consultations and analysis, compliance audits and training, and offers solutions for all compliance needs,” Missimer said.
“The Automotive Compliance Consultants staff has extensive experience in the retail automotive industry and focuses exclusively on dealership compliance issues,” he added.
For more information, contact Missimer at dmissimer@compliantnow.com or visit www.compliantnow.com.
