Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Navitas Credit Corp.'s headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Navitas Credit Corp. has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Navitas Credit Corp.

  203 Fort Wade Rd Unit 300 Ponte Vedra, FL 32081-5159

  
• 

  Navitas Credit Corp.

  2247 Post Street Jacksonville, FL 32204

  

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/16/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Navitas Credit Corp is reporting a collection account on my ********************** report from February 2018, that I believe is erroneous. Despite my attempts to resolve this issue, Navitas Credit Corp has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate their claim to collect this debt or their authority to report it on my credit file. This inaccurate reporting is causing harm to my creditworthiness and financial standing. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 809(a) and Texas debt collection laws, debt collectors are required to provide specific information to validate a debt and prove their authority to collect it. To date, Navitas Credit Corp has failed to provide adequate proof, and their reporting of this account appears to violate these regulations. I request that Navitas Credit Corp provide the following documentation to validate the debt and their authority to collect it, as required by law: Chain of Title: Complete documentation showing the chain of ownership or assignment from the original creditor to Navitas Credit Corp, including all bills of sale or transfer agreements. Original Credit Agreement: The signed contract or agreement with the original creditor establishing the debt. Bill of Sale: The specific bill of sale documenting the transfer of this account to ******************** Corp, including account numbers and amounts. Account Statement Ledger: A detailed ledger showing the transaction history, including the original balance, payments, interest, fees, and current balance. Debt Validation Notice: Proof that Navitas Credit Corp provided the initial validation notice within five days of initial communication, as required by FDCPA 809(a), including the debt amount, creditors name, and my right to dispute the debt. Texas Debt Collector License: Proof of ******************** Corps current license to operate as a debt collector in the state of *****, as required by the Texas Debt Collection Act.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/16/2025

  We appreciate the opportunity to review your concerns related to your credit report.  It has been a few years since we heard from you about your outstanding balance.
  
  An original creditor is the entity that initially extended the credit, while a debt collector is a third party hired to collect the debt.  Navitas is the original creditor (Lessor) and is not a debt collector as defined by the ***** and Texas Debt Collection Act.  We comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act to report true and accurate information.
  
  We are happy to discuss options to improve your creditworthiness and financial standing.  Please reach out to our dedicated customer service team at ************ or *****************************************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/18/2025

  I am writing in response to Navitas Credit Corps reply to my complaint regarding their inaccurate reporting of a collection account on my ********************** report with Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax. The account in question, reported as a collection, does not belong to me solely, as it was a joint account that was previously charged off. Navitas Credit Corps response fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim and does not address the inaccuracies in their reporting. I am requesting the immediate removal of this account from my ********************** report and the provision of specific documentation to validate the debt, as outlined below, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
  Navitas Credit Corp claims to be the original creditor and asserts compliance with the ***** However, their response lacks documentation to prove the accuracy and legitimacy of the reported account. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b), credit reporting agencies and furnishers must follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of reported information. As a furnisher, Navitas contributes to this obligation by providing accurate data. Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) (Section 623(a)(1)(A) of the ****), furnishers are prohibited from reporting information they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. The case of ********* v. Equifax Info. Servs., 484 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2007) further establishes that furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b), reviewing all relevant documentation and correcting or deleting inaccurate data.
  Navitas has not provided evidence, such as a signed credit agreement or account ledger, to validate my liability for the reported joint account or its current status as a collection. Their reporting of this account as solely my responsibility, despite its joint nature and prior charge-off, appears inaccurate and unsubstantiated. The **** implies that reported accounts must stem from a legitimate credit relationship, typically established through a consumer agreement. Without such documentation, Navitas reporting violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) and their failure to adequately investigate my dispute violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b).
  To resolve this matter, I demand the following from Navitas Credit Corp:
  1.  Original Credit Agreement: A copy of the signed contract or agreement with the original creditor establishing the debt, clearly indicating my liability as part of the joint account.
  2.  Account Statement Ledger: A detailed ledger showing the transaction history, including the original balance, payments made, interest, fees, and the current balance, as well as documentation confirming the charged-off status of the account.
  I further demand that Navitas Credit Corp:
    Immediately remove the collection account from my ********************** reports with Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax.
    Provide written confirmation to me and the Better Business Bureau that the account has been removed.
    Submit the requested documentation (original credit agreement and account statement ledger) to substantiate their claim or cease reporting this account entirely.
  ********************** failure to provide this documentation or correct the inaccurate reporting violates the **** and ***** my credit profile. If Navitas does not comply, I reserve the right to escalate this matter through legal channels, including filing a complaint with the ************************************ (****) and pursuing remedies under the **** for damages caused by inaccurate reporting.
  Please forward this rebuttal to Navitas Credit Corp and include it in the record of my complaint. I appreciate the BBBs assistance in facilitating a resolution.

   Complaint: 23606607

  I am rejecting this response because:

  Regards,

  ***** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/25/2025

  Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond and address your concerns. 

  First, we want to clarify that Navitas Credit Corp. only reports to Experian and not to TransUnion or Equifax. 

   We also acknowledge that the account in question is a joint account, and we can confirm it is being reported to Experian as such.Additionally, we will be submitting an updated balance to Experian this month,as the balance has increased due to additional fees incurred on the account.  

   To protect your privacy, the documentation youve requested including account details and supporting information will be sent to you by mail at the address we have on file.  

   If you have any further questions or would like to speak with us directly, please dont hesitate to reach out. Were here to support you and ensure that your concerns are thoroughly addressed.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/27/2025

  Dear Navitas Credit Corp.,

  Thank you for your response regarding the account in question, which was charged off nearly five years ago. I am writing to formally dispute the accuracy of the information you are reporting to Experian and to demand the immediate deletion of this account from my ********************** report due to multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and applicable case law.

  1.  Failure to Issue Form 1099-C for Charged-Off Debt: The account was charged off as bad debt approximately five years ago, indicating that you deemed it uncollectible. Under *** regulations (26 C.F.R. 1.6050P-1), creditors are required to issue a Form 1099-C for cancellation of debt exceeding $600 when a debt is charged off and no collection activity has occurred for three years, or upon other identifiable events. Your failure to issue a Form 1099-C suggests that the debt was canceled, yet you continue to report it as active with an updated balance. This discrepancy constitutes an inaccurate report under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b), as it misrepresents the legal status of the debt. See FDIC *. *******, 720 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2013), which highlights the importance of accurate reporting consistent with tax obligations.
  2.  Inaccurate Reporting of a Positive Balance on a Charged-Off Account: Your response indicates that you intend to report an updated balance to Experian, including additional fees, despite the account being charged off nearly five years ago. Under ****, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b)(1), furnishers are prohibited from reporting a positive balance on a charged-off account without verifiable evidence that the debt remains legally enforceable. Reporting a balance with additional fees on a charged-off account is misleading and violates the ***** requirement for accurate and complete reporting. Courts have held that such practices are actionable, as seen in ******** *. ****** Banking & Trust **** 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008), where furnishers were required to correct or delete unverifiable or misleading information.
  3.  Multiple Inaccuracies in Reporting: The account contains multiple inaccuracies, including but not limited to incorrect balance amounts, unauthorized fees, and potentially inaccurate dates of delinquency. As a furnisher, you are obligated under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b)(1)(C) to conduct a reasonable investigation and provide verifiable documentation to support the reported information. Your failure to substantiate these details, as noted in your response that documentation will be mailed (which I have not yet received), renders the account unverifiable and requires its deletion from my Experian credit report. See ******* v. *************, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004), which mandates that furnishers delete unverifiable information after a dispute.
  4.  Reporting Beyond State Statute of Limitations: The account, now nearly five years old, may be beyond the statute of limitations for debt collection in my state (typically 36 years, depending on jurisdiction). Reporting a time-barred debt as collectible without proper disclosure violates FCRA accuracy requirements and may also contravene the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e, if collection activity is implied. See FTC v. ***************, No. 00-CV-7493 (E.D. *** 2004), where inaccurate reporting of time-barred debts was deemed unlawful.
  5.  Failure to Provide Documentation: Your response states that account details and supporting documentation will be mailed to me. As of today, July 27, 2025, I have not received any such documentation. This failure violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b)(1)(C), which requires furnishers to provide results of their investigation, including relevant documentation, in a timely manner. Continued reporting of this account without providing verifiable evidence is a direct violation of the FCRA.

  Resolution Requested: Due to the aforementioned FCRA violationsfailure to issue a Form 1099-C, reporting a positive balance on a charged-off account, multiple inaccuracies, potential reporting of a time-barred debt, and failure to provide verifiable documentationI demand that Navitas Credit Corp. immediately:
    Delete the account from my Experian credit report.
    Provide written confirmation of the deletion.
    Furnish all documentation allegedly supporting the accounts reporting, including the original contract, payment history, and details of any additional fees.

  Failure to comply within the 30-day timeframe mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(1) will result in further action, including filing a complaint with the ************************************ (****), reporting to the *** for potential tax reporting violations, and pursuing legal remedies for FCRA violations, which may include actual and statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o.
  

  Please respond through the BBB portal to confirm compliance with this request. I look forward to your prompt resolution of this matter.
  

   Complaint: 23606607

  I am rejecting this response because:

  Regards,

  ***** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/31/2025

  We appreciate your inquiry and have completed our reinvestigation of the matter. Below is our response to the concerns you outlined:
  
  FCRA Compliance & Reinvestigation:
  Your dispute was processed in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the results were reported to Experian. No inaccuracies were found in the reporting of this account.
  
  Status of the Debt/1099-C:
  Your account was charged off for internal accounting purposes only. It was not canceled or forgiven. Therefore, a Form 1099-C was not issued. Our continued efforts to collect and our ongoing credit reporting are consistent with IRS and FCRA guidelines.
  
  Balance Reporting Accuracy:
  The current balance reported to Experian is accurate and verifiable. All fees and amounts reflect terms disclosed and authorized in your signed Lease Agreement.
  
  Contractual Terms & Supporting Documentation:
  Documentation substantiating the debt, including your signed agreement, payment history, and fee breakdown, was mailed to you on July 25, 2025, as stated in our prior communication.
  
  Statute of Limitations:
  The account is being reported within the 7-year limit from the original delinquency date, in full compliance with the ****. State collection statutes do not govern the duration of credit reporting.
  
  Timely Response & Right to Pay:
  You retain the option to pay the account at any time. Our **************** team is available at ************ or **************************************** to assist.
  
  We respectfully decline the request to delete the account from your ********************** report.
  
  Sincerely,
  Navitas Credit Corp.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/31/2025

  Dear Navitas Credit Corp.,
  

  Thank you for your response dated July 25, 2025. I am writing to formally dispute your reinvestigation results and demand the immediate removal of the above-referenced account from my ********************** report with Experian, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and relevant case law. Your response fails to address critical inaccuracies in the reporting of this account, violates **** requirements for data furnishers, and contradicts *** regulations regarding charged-off debts. Additionally, I request full disclosure of your policies and procedures as a data furnisher, as required under ****. Below, I outline the legal and factual basis for my demand.

  1. Inaccurate Reporting of Charged-Off ******* with Positive Balance (FCRA Violation) Your response states that the account was charged off for internal accounting purposes only yet maintains a positive balance reported to Experian. This is inherently contradictory and violates FCRA 623(a)(1)(A), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. A charged-off account, by definition, reflects a debt deemed uncollectible and written off as a loss. Reporting such an account with a positive balance is misleading and misrepresents the accounts status.

    Legal Basis: Under FCRA 623(b)(1), furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation when notified of a dispute and correct or delete inaccurate or unverifiable information. Case law supports this:
    In ******** *. ****** Banking & Trust **** 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008), the court held that furnishers violate FCRA by reporting a charged-off account with a balance when the debt was settled or otherwise resolved, as it misleads creditors about the consumers liability. Your claim that the account is charged off but still carries a balance mirrors this violation.
    In Schaffhausen v. ***************, 393 F. Supp. 2d 853 (D. Minn. 2005), the court ruled that reporting a charged-off account with an inaccurate balance constitutes an FCRA violation, as it ***** the consumers creditworthiness.
    Demand: You have failed to verify that the positive balance is accurate or consistent with a charged-off status. Per FCRA 611(a)(1) and 623(b)(2), unverified information must be deleted. I demand immediate removal of this account from my ********************** report and a written confirmation of compliance.

  2. IRS Reporting Requirements for Charged-Off Debt Over $600
  Your response claims the account was charged off for internal accounting purposes only and not canceled or forgiven, thus no Form 1099-C was issued. This assertion raises concerns under *** regulations and FCRA accuracy requirements.
    IRS Regulation: Per 26 U.S.C. 6050P and 26 CFR 1.6050P-1, creditors must file a Form 1099-C with the *** for any debt of $600 or more that is canceled, forgiven, or written off as uncollectible. A charge-off is an identifiable event triggering this requirement if the creditor treats the debt as a loss for accounting purposes. Your admission that the account was charged off suggests a write-off, yet you claim no 1099-C was issued. This discrepancy indicates either:
    The debt was written off, requiring a 1099-C, and your failure to issue one violates IRS rules, or
    The debt was not truly charged off, rendering your reporting of it as such to Experian inaccurate under FCRA 623(a)(1)(A).
    Case Law: In ******* v. Experian Info. ***********, 901 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2018), the court emphasized that furnishers must ensure consistency between their internal accounting practices and credit reporting. Reporting a debt as charged off while failing to comply with *** reporting obligations undermines the accuracy required by *****
    Demand: Provide evidence that the charged-off status reported to Experian aligns with your internal accounting and IRS compliance. If the debt was written off and exceeds $600, furnish a copy of the 1099-C filed with the ***. If no 1099-C was issued, correct the credit report to reflect the account as active, not charged off, or delete it entirely due to inaccuracy.
  3. Lack of Consumer Consent for Data Furnishing (FCRA Violation)
  Under FCRA 604(a), consumer reporting agencies may only furnish reports for permissible purposes, and furnishers must ensure their reporting complies with these restrictions. Your response does not confirm that you obtained my explicit consent to furnish information about this account to Experian, as required for certain types of reporting.
    Legal Basis: While **** does not explicitly require consumer consent for all furnisher reporting, case law clarifies that furnishers must have a legitimate basis for reporting, particularly for non-credit accounts like leases. In ****** v. ***********************, No. 17-cv-00888 (N.D. Ill. 2018), the court held that furnishers violate **** when reporting data without clear contractual authorization or consumer consent, especially if the consumer disputes the accounts validity.
    Application: Your response references a signed Lease Agreement, but you have not provided evidence that this agreement explicitly authorizes credit reporting. Without such consent, your furnishing of this account to Experian may lack a permissible purpose under FCRA 604(a)(3).
    Demand: Provide a copy of the signed agreement highlighting the clause authorizing credit reporting. If no such consent exists, cease reporting this account and delete it from my credit report, as it violates FCRAs permissible purpose requirements.
  4. Navitas Procedures and Policies as a Data Furnisher
  As a data furnisher, Navitas is obligated under FCRA 623(a)(8) and Regulation V, 12 CFR ******* to maintain reasonable written policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies (****). Your response does not disclose these policies, despite my right to understand how my dispute was investigated and how your reporting complies with *****
    FCRA Requirements:
    Furnishers must establish procedures to prevent furnishing inaccurate information (FCRA 623(a)(1)(B)).
    Upon receiving a dispute, furnishers must investigate within 30 days (or 45 days in some cases) and notify **** of any inaccuracies (**** 623(b)(1)). If the information cannot be verified, it must be deleted (FCRA 623(b)(1)(E)).
    Furnishers must notify consumers of frivolous dispute determinations within 5 days, including reasons and required information (FCRA 623(b)(1)(B)).
    Standard Industry Practices: Per CFPB Bulletin *******, furnishers like Navitas must:
    Maintain documented policies for data accuracy, dispute handling, and identity theft prevention.
    Train staff on FCRA compliance.
    Regularly audit furnished data for errors.
    Retain records of dispute investigations for at least 3 years.
    Concerns with Navitas Response: Your reinvestigation appears cursory, as it fails to address the contradiction of a charged-off account with a positive balance or provide evidence of *** compliance. This suggests inadequate procedures under *************************** your claim that the balance is accurate and verifiable lacks supporting documentation beyond a generic reference to mailed materials.
    Demand: Disclose your written policies and procedures for:
    ************* accuracy before furnishing to CRAs.
    Investigating consumer disputes, including timelines, staff training, and verification processes.
    Handling charged-off accounts, including IRS reporting compliance.
    Obtaining consumer consent for credit reporting. Failure to provide this information within 15 days will be considered a violation of FCRA 623(a)(8), prompting further legal action.
  5. Additional FCRA Violations and Case Law Support
  Your reporting practices may constitute additional FCRA violations, supported by precedent:
    Failure to Mark ******* as Disputed: If I disputed this account with Experian, you are required to report it as disputed under FCRA 623(a)(3). Failure to do so is a violation, as affirmed in ******* v. *********** Corp., 115 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 1997).
    Re-Aging or Misreporting Delinquency Date: Your response confirms the account is within the ****** reporting limit, but you have not provided the original delinquency date. Misreporting this date to extend reporting violates FCRA 605(a)(4), as noted in ************* ().
    Inadequate Dispute Investigation: Your reinvestigation does not demonstrate a reasonable effort to verify the accounts status, balance, or IRS compliance. In ******* v. *************, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004), the court held that furnishers must conduct thorough investigations, not merely rely on internal records.
  6. Remedies Sought
  Under FCRA 1681n and 1681o, I am entitled to remedies for willful or negligent violations, including actual damages, statutory damages ($100$1,000 per violation), punitive damages, and attorney fees. Given the inaccuracies, lack of consent, and inadequate investigation, I demand:
  1.  Immediate deletion of the account from my Experian credit report.
  2.  Written confirmation of deletion sent to me and Experian within 5 business days.
  3.  Disclosure of your data furnisher policies and procedures within 15 days.
  4.  Evidence of IRS compliance (e.g., ****-C or proof the debt was not written off).
  5.  A copy of the signed Lease Agreement with highlighted consent for credit reporting.
  7. Next Steps
  If you fail to comply within 15 days, I will:
    File a complaint with the ************************************ (****) and ************************ (***) for FCRA violations.
    Pursue legal action in federal court, seeking statutory and punitive damages, as supported by **** 1681n.
    Escalate the *** reporting issue to the ************************ for investigation of non-compliance with 26 U.S.C. 6050P.
  I have retained copies of all correspondence and will consult a consumer protection attorney if necessary. For reference, Navitas obligations are detailed in CFPB Bulletin ******* and Regulation V, 12 CFR ******* (). 

   Complaint: 23606607

  I am rejecting this response because:

  Regards,

  ***** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/31/2025

  We have completed our reinvestigation and consider this matter closed.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/12/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I leased equipment from this company 2018. The pos system never once worked. I made monthly payments 84 to be exact. The employees have harassed us and reported a balance of $5000 on my credit report. My company is called ******.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/15/2025

  Thank you for reaching out and giving us the opportunity to review your concerns regarding your lease agreement with Navitas.
  

  We understand your frustration, and we're sorry to hear the equipment provided by your vendor never functioned as expected. Our role in the transaction was to provide financing for the equipment you selected and to pay the vendor directly based on your agreement to repay the lease.
  

  According to our records, 56.5 out of 63 payments have been received. This leaves a remaining balance, which is why the lease continues to report as open on your credit file.  We also understand that you previously mentioned having documentation showing full payment. As discussed, we are still happy to review any records you can provide in order to reconcile any discrepancies.Please feel free to send those to us at your earliest convenience.

  If theres anything else we can do to assist you or clarify your account, dont hesitate to reach out directly. We're here to help.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/19/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Navitas is continuing to charge me an "insurance fee" despite being given proof of insurance several times via email. Those emails have been replied to and I have been told it has been "submitted" to the insurance verification department. Yet they demand the insurance fees.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/24/2025

  Thank
  you for reaching out and sharing your experience with us. We truly value you as
  a customer and appreciate the opportunity to clarify this matter.

  After
  reviewing your account, we see that your insurance certificate was reviewed
  multiple times, and each time we provided details on the specific corrections
  needed. Once you provided sufficient coverage on February 20, 2025, our
  insurance premiums were removed the following day, February 21, 2025. Our team
  also advised that the decision to use our insurance was entirely up to you.
  

  We’re
  glad this has been resolved and appreciate your patience throughout the
  process. If there’s anything else we can do to support you, please don’t
  hesitate to reach out. We value your business and look forward to continuing to
  serve you.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/14/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I entered into a contract for a shockwave therapy unit for my business, **** *** ************* **. I was never quoted an interest rate, just that I had obtained financing for 60 months. I signed the attached agreement, thinking I would owe the amount financed as shown at $16,780.60. I assumed 60 payments at $358.05 was the amount I had financed and not above and beyond what I owed. Admittedly, in the agreement language it does show the agreement is based on payment terms and not amount financed. Typically in any contract I've ever signed, it shows amount financed, interest rate, interest charged over the period and any applicable finance charge and pre-payment penalty language if necessary. THIS CONTRACT HAS NONE OF THAT. I would prefer the settlement be paying them in full for $16,780.60 and they can keep the $2,418.30 I have paid to date as their service charge, rather than continue to pay $358.05 x 60 months = $21,483. I think this is a fair settlement. I do think their contract needs amended to show a better description of what they are charging vs. the deceptive monthly payment language. This is horribly deceptive business practices.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/17/2025

  Thank
  you for sharing your feedback. We greatly value your business and appreciate
  the opportunity to address your concerns.  After
  reviewing your recent communications with our Customer Service team, it seems
  there may have been a misunderstanding on our part, and for that, we sincerely
  apologize.

  We
  received your request to provide the remaining balance, which reflects the sum
  of the 54 remaining payments on your Equipment Finance Agreement. To clarify,
  we financed $16,780 to your vendor for the therapy unit, and the monthly
  payments over 60 months include our profit, as outlined in the terms of your
  agreement. As noted, the payment terms are prominently displayed on page one of
  the agreement.
  

  It
  appears we misinterpreted your request as asking for the remaining balance
  rather than a full payoff quote. If you are interested in paying off your
  agreement in full, we’re happy to provide a payoff quote with a potential
  discount. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated Customer Service
  team at 888-978-6353 or via email at [email protected] for further assistance.
  

  We hope this
  clarification provides helpful insight, and again, we apologize for the
  misunderstanding. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address your
  concerns. We look forward to resolving this to your satisfaction and continuing
  to serve you.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/15/2024

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Finance agreement did not stipulate a prepayment penalty. However, they will not allow payoff of current principle balance without charging for unearned interest.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 10/22/2024

  We appreciate the opportunity to review your concerns regarding your Equipment Finance Agreements. After a thorough review, it appears there might be a misunderstanding.
  
  The contracts do not stipulate pre-payment penalties because they are not applicable.  ************ agreed to a specific payment amount for a specific term, as prominently displayed at the top of page one on each contract.  Similarly, the contracts do not stipulate principal or interest.
  
  We did provide present value discounts on each buyout quote,which would result in savings for your company.  We hope the potential savings will come as good news and contribute positively to your experience with Navitas.  Thank you for your understanding and for allowing us the opportunity to resolve this matter.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:08/02/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Navitas credit debited my business account for over $400 more than the agreed upon payment. They said it was for insurance on a piece of equipment already insured. They confirmed insurance the week before the debit. They refuse to refund but instead deduct the amount from a future payment without any interest. In a letter sent to me They admitted that the insurance would benefit some entity within their corporation. When I financed this I signed a one time deduction for a down payment but for recurring payment. I just let it go as it was easy for the payment until this happened.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/12/2024

  We deeply value your feedback.  Your satisfaction is our utmost priority, and we genuinely appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and provide clarity.  After a thorough examination, our records indicate letters were sent to you and your insurance agent starting May 23, 2024, through July 30, 2024, requesting sufficient evidence of insurance. The letters do acknowledge any insurance coverage we purchase on your behalf is to protect our interest in the equipment, thus we are the insured party.
  
  Your insurance agent provided sufficient evidence of insurance on August 2, 2024.  The insurance coverage we provided starting August 1, 2024, has been removed, and a credit applied toward your September 1st payment to offset the one insurance premium you paid on our policy. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to clarify this matter.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/17/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Sept 2023 I reported items that was stolen and filed a insurance claim with the company, the insurance company and it has been months I purchased another system and the insurance company wont pay off the Navitias credit , and i only own about a ******* and I have been trying to get this fix for months, I emailed receipts and and information requested so I could payoff and get the remaining balance, I just don't know what to do about this

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/08/2024

  Thank you for reaching out to us. Your feedback is incredibly important, and we genuinely appreciate the opportunity to review your concerns and provide a resolution.  Upon thorough investigation of your insurance claim, we are happy to report the insurance proceeds paid your contract in full and the remaining proceeds were sent to you in January.
  
  Some delays were caused by factors outside the control of Navitas or the insurance company.  It took several months to receive the required claim documentation.  Once received, insurance proceeds were sent to the vendor you selected to replace the equipment.  Afterwards, the insurance company learned you already paid the replacement vendor, which is not typical.  This unusual circumstance added an additional requirement to the claims process.  The additional requirement was never cleared by the replacement vendor, which triggered the exception process.  *************************** took immediate action to approve the exception.
  
  We hope this information comes as good news and contributes positively to your experience with Navitas. Your satisfaction is our top priority, and we are here to assist in any way we can.  Thank you for your understanding and for allowing us the opportunity to resolve this matter.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/02/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I purchased a dental equipment 2018. Seller recommended a financial company to get a 5 years loan with Navitas company. I finished all payments and closed the contract in October 2023. They now sent my case to Capital partners collection saying I would have to return my equipment or purchase it at a price of 14,761.19. They showed me that the contract was a lease not a loan. Yes, I signed the contract. But Navitas tricked me with a small fine print on it. It’s a large long contract. No one read it when signing. There’s no initial on that paragraph. I had been tricked. The contract was even closed.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/10/2024

  We
  appreciate the opportunity to look into your concerns regarding the financing
  of your dental equipment. After a thorough investigation, it appears there
  might be a misunderstanding. Your financing for the dental equipment was
  facilitated by Partners Capital Group, not Navitas Credit Corp. The crucial
  details, such as the financing provider's name and the contract type (Lease),
  are prominently displayed at the top of page one of the contract you signed.
  
  Navitas
  only acquired 58 of your 60 payments from Partners Capital Group, and all
  payments due to Navitas have been duly settled. Your account with Navitas is
  officially closed. The remaining terms of your Lease, including any outstanding
  matters, fall under the jurisdiction of Partners Capital Group.
  
  Our
  records indicate that we corresponded with you annually about property tax,
  elucidating that it was due because your contract was a Lease. For any further
  actions related to the purchase or return of your equipment, we recommend
  coordinating directly with Partners Capital Group. They will provide the
  necessary guidance and assistance to bring this matter to a satisfactory
  resolution.
  
  If
  there is anything that Navitas can do for you specifically, please feel free to
  reach out. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/30/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  We did a hardware upgrade to our MLOCR barcode sorter through Fluence automation (Now BlueCrest) they suggested we should use their preferred finance company which was Navitas. We have never had any contact with anyone after the initial signing of the loan documents. No signed contract copies, no monthly statements, no end of year statements, nothing, nada, zip. The only thing they do is deduct via EFT a payment each and every month. They are impossible to locate even via the website, I have left voicemails and sent emails with absolutely no reply, ever, not once. This has been going on for coming up on 4 years now and other than calling the attorney generals office to complain I do not know what to do. Stop payment on the auto withdraw? that would maybe get their attention but at what additional cost to me!

  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/30/2023

  At Navitas Credit Corp., we are dedicated to earning your trust and seek to help you resolve any issues regarding receiving the information you need. 

  After researching your situation, we discovered that on 04/12/2022, we responded to your inquiry by directing you to our customer portal where you can obtain all your loan and payment information and history. Additionally, we have sent your monthly invoices to the email noted in your complaint and respectfully request you check your spam mail in the event they were redirected.  Lastly, on 03/30/2023 we did receive your voicemail and returned your call the same day leaving you a message regarding your circumstances and whom you should speak to for assistance.
  
  For future reference, you can access all your loan information on our customer portal. If you need assistance in the portal, we are happy to help you. Please reach out to us at *********************************, and one of our managers will contact you immediately.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/28/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On October 9, 2022, I made a purchase through Iron Planet Auction for a semi-trailer
  equipment in the amount of $27,326. The sales representative, *** *** ******** with
  ****** **** third party financing, created the sales contract for the purchase. Once we
  agreed on the contract, it was signed and sent to Navitas Credit Corp.
  On the Iron Planet website, it states after purchase and signed contract that it will take
  up to 20 days to receive the title from the seller. My first contact to Navitas was to sales
  rep ***, whom I left multiple messages with and were never returned. Second attempt
  to inquire about the title to my purchase was to *****, Titling Department with Navitas,
  who contacted me on 10 Nov 22 that Navitas had received the title. She also stated that
  the title was incorrect and needed more time to correct the issue.
  As of today, 36 business days later, I have not received the equipment purchased. I am
  making payments on equipment that I have not received. These issues caused by Iron
  Planet, ****** ****, and Navitas has been detrimental to my company where I have lost
  thousands of dollars in revenue because of the failure to deliver on their portion of the
  contract. I have contacted several representatives at Navitas, ***** ****** (Manager
  over ***), ***** **** (Program Manager), ******** **** (Documentation Specialist),
  and ***** ******* (Title Department) none of whom is taking responsibility for the
  issues relating to this purchase. All of whom pointed the responsibility on the other
  person instead of answering my questions.
  I should not be making payments on equipment that Navitas has not to this day
  delivered on their end of the contract so that I can receive my equipment. Either
  reimburse me for the payments already made and stop invoicing me for equipment I
  have not received in a legitimate sale or cancel the contract and return my $27,326 to
  me immediately. This entire process has been unprofessional.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/13/2022

  On October 20, 2022 Navitas funded a transaction to Iron Planet for Mainline Transportation Limited Liability Company.  This was after all paperwork and titling information was executed and reviewed under Mainline Transportation Limited Liability Company. 

   

  On November 9, 2022 we received the title and reassignment for contract # ********, however the assignments were in the customers personal name vs that of the business (Mainline Transportation Limited Liability Company).  That same day Iron Plant was asked for an affidavit of correction to allow for the change on the assignments.  Multiple requests were made to Iron Planet.

   

  On or about November 17^th, *** ***** reached out to our titling department and then was put in touch with ***** ******.  Once escalated, ***** ****** was able to reach TFG who then got in contact with Iron Planets titling clerk on November 21, 2022 and advised that the Affidavit of Correction was being completed, notarized and overnighted.  ***** ****** Communicated this information immediately to *** *****. 

   

  The Affidavit of Correction was received in our office on November 28^th and was then sent on to our titling agency.  Titling agency sent the documents on 11/30/22 to the VA DMV for processing.  As of 12/6/22 the titling was complete.

   

  To summarize, the breakdown in process was caused by a Titling/Name issue not caused by Navitas.  We understand your frustration, but we had to get the Affidavit of Correction from Iron Planet to process the title paperwork correctly.

   

  Regards,

  ****** *******