Mutual Consolidated Savings

Customer Complaints Summary

Complaint Details | Definitions | BBB Complaint Process | File a Complaint

• Government Actions

  On June 25, 2009 the Federal Trade Commission filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction and other Relief in the United States District Court against MCS Programs also doing business as Mutual Consolidated Savings, United Savings Center Inc, USC Programs LLC, its principals Paul Morris Thompson and Miranda Cavendar.

  Charges filed indicate since at least 2006 the company has telemarketed a "rapid debt reduction" program to consumers nationwide in the US and in Canada. In many instances the telemarketing calls are initiated by a live representative. In many other instances they are initiated using a telemarketing service that delivers prerecorded voice messages, known as "voice broadcasting" or "robocalling." Defendants also market their program via the internet on several websites, including www.mcsprograms.com, www.uscprograms.com and www.mutualconsolidatedsavingsinc.com. Defendants tell consumers that if they purchase the program, they will obtain substantially lower interest rates on their credit cards by negotiation with the card issuers. MCS Programs also claim that their program will provide substantial savings to consumers, typically $2500 or more, and enable consumers to pay off their debt three to five times faster without increasing their monthly payments. Defendants and their telemarketers also expressly promise that a consumer can obtain a full refund from the Defendants if the consumer foes not save at least the promised amount, typically $2500 or more. Defendants websites echo the telemarketers refund promise, stating that there is a no risk to the consumer because of the availability of a refund.

  Defendants sometimes obtain the consumer's credit card number before contacting the consumer. Defendants and their telemarketers use this information to generate trust by displaying knowledge of the consumers accounts which helps mislead the consumer about the relationship between the bank issuing the credit card and Defendants. Defendants typically charge a fee of between $690 and $899 for their "rapid debt reduction" program. Defendants represent that the amount of the fee will be quickly offset by savings achieved under the Defendant's program. Defendants do not disclose to Canadian customers that the fee for their program is in US dollars. Thus, when Canadian consumers authorize what they believe is a fee of $690, they later find they have been charged $800 Canadian dollars or more as a result of the currency exchanges rate.

  In many instances, Defendants do not obtain substantially lower credit card interest rates for consumers. Thus, in those instances consumers do not save thousands of dollars, and they are unable to pay off their debts three to five times faster as a result of the promised reduction of their credit cars interest rates.

  After a consumer has paid for the Defendants service, Defendants send the consumer general information about finances, along with a form to complete and return listing all of the consumer's indebtness. Sometimes defendants then send the consumer a computer generated accelerated payment schedule or "Rapid Debt Reduction" plan that if adhered to, will purportedly allow the consumer to pay off his or her debts years faster than if the consumer makes only minimum month payments. In many instances, after defendants have failed to achieve the promised interest rate reduction for the consumer, Defendants claim their "Rapid Reduction" plan shows how the promised savings are realized by increasing the consumers monthly payments. Defendants do not disclose prior to the purchase of the program that the "Rapid Debt Reduction" plan is the basis for the savings claims and that the promised savings may take decades to achieve.

  In many instances, Defendants do not honor their promise to refund if they do not save the amount promised instead claiming the consumers has failed to comply with previously undisclosed conditions or that Defendants have complied with their obligations in some way other than providing the promised interest rate reduction and savings. When Defendants do provide a refund in many instances they deduct a "restocking fee" of 12.5%, also undisclosed prior to charging a consumers credit card.

  While telemarketing their program, Defendants or their telemarketers have made numerous calls to telephone numbers in the National Do Not Call Registry, as well as to consumers who have previously asked Defendants not to call them again. In some instances their telemarketers also "spoof" their calls by transmitting phony caller ID information so that call recipients do not know the source of the calls. In numerous instances, Defendants acting directly or through one or more intermediaries, have initiated telemarketing calls that failed to disclosed truthfully, promptly and in a clear manner to the person receiving the call, the identity if the seller; that the purpose of the call is to sell goods or services; or the nature of the goods or service. Since December 1, 2008, there have been numerous incidents where the Defendants, acting directly or through one or more intermediaries, have initiated prerecorded telemarketing calls to consumers that failed to make such disclosures, or to immediately thereafter disclose the mechanism for asserting a Do Not Call request.

  The Federal Trade Commission requests that the Court Award plaintiff preliminary injunctive and ancillary relied to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency if this action and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including but not limited to, temporary and preliminary injunctions and an order freezing assets, award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from Defendants violations of the FTC Act and the and the TSR including but not limited to rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, refund of monies paid and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. Award Plaintiff of costs of investigating and bringing this action and reasonable attorney's fees as well as other relied as the Court may determine to be just and proper.

  For more information on this Permanent Injunction and other Relief, please contact the Federal Trade Commission at 1-877-382-4357 or www.ftc.gov
  

  The following describes a government action that has been resolved by either a settlement or a decision by a court or administrative agency. If the matter is being appealed, it will be noted below.

  On July 19th, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma signed and settled the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) charges against Mutual Consolidated Savings (MCS, LLC.) also doing business as Mutual Consolidated Savings, United Savings Center, Inc., a Washington corporation, also doing business as Mutual Consolidated Savings, USC Programs, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, also doing business as Mutual Consolidated Savings, Paul Morris Thompson, individually and as an officer of MCS Programs, LLC, United Savings Center, Inc., and USC Programs, LLC, and Miranda Cavendar, also known as Miranda Cavender, individually and as a manager of MCS Programs, LLC, United Savings Center, Inc., and USC Programs, LLC (collectively Defendants). Allegations made by the FTC included MCS defendants used cold calls, pre-recorded "robocalls," and the Internet to push false "Rapid Debt Reduction" programs to consumers in the United States and Canada. Additional allegations included MCS defendants failed to honor money back guarantees, called consumers on the Do Not Call Registry, failed to honor consumers' requests to not be contacted, transmitted fake Caller ID information, failed to identity themselves during telephone pitches, and made illegal robocalls.

  The Defendants claimed reducing consumer's debt three to five times faster than their normal schedule. The FTC charges MSC defendants misled consumers. The Stipulated Final Judgment bans the defendants from working in the debt relief industry and prohibits them from misleading consumers or helping anyone else mislead consumers about any material facts regarding goods or services they are selling. They have agreed to pay $1.5 million that will be distributed to defrauded consumers in the United States and Canada.

  For more information, please contact the Federal Trade Commission at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 30, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

  What government actions does BBB report on?

• Advertising Review

  BBB has nothing to report concerning Mutual Consolidated Savings' advertising at this time.

  What is BBB Advertising Review?

• Out of Business

  According to information in BBB files, this company is no longer in business. If you have an unresolved dispute with this company you may wish to seek legal advice.