Asked for husband. I told them he wasn't in but that I had checked his telephone number on the internet and that it appears he is nothing but a big fat scam. I also told him not to call our number again and then I hung up.
I got a call also but but I set my phone now not to receive calls even if it # i don't know I don't answer it Now! OR i GIVE THEM the new number TO REACH ME @ which IS number TO SECRET SERVICE IN my STATE AND THEM FBI THEY USUALLY LEAVE YOU ALONE AFTER THAT!
Seems to be a scam! They called me saying that they were from the "Vehicle Processing Department" and that their records indicated that I did not have a warranty extending past the manufacturer's warranty. I was suspicious to begin with, especially because I DO have an extended warranty, so I asked what company he was with TWICE, and then he just hung up.
I also got a call on 12/11/09 stating they were the Dealer Processing Center asking about my vehicle warranty. Thetrieste to sell me an extension to my extended warranty, which I don't have.
IT IS A SCAM -BEEN ONGOING - ITS IS REFERENCED HERE IN THIS ARTICLE ON 800NOTES
FTC Goes After Credit Card Robocall Scammers
5 hours 20 minutes ago
The Federal Trade Commission just announced its second major law enforcement effort this year targeting telemarketers who violated the Do Not Call Rule and other laws by making hundreds of thousands or even millions of pre-recorded robocalls to consumers. The cases announced target three groups that allegedly made robocalls to sell worthless credit-card interest-rate reduction programs for hefty up-front fees of as much as $1,495. At the FTC’s request, in each case, the court has issued an order temporarily halting the robocalls pending trial.
The three complaints announced today follow two filed in May that led to court orders stopping other telemarketers from using robocalls with deceptive claims about extended auto warranties.
According to the FTC complaints, Economic Relief Technologies, LLC, Dynamic Financial Group (U.S.A.) Inc., and JPM Accelerated Services (JPM) and related defendants made illegal pre-recorded robocalls to consumers, using names like “card services,” “credit card services” or “account services.” The robocalls allegedly claimed the defendants’ services could lower the interest rate on consumers’ credit cards.
In each case, consumers who pressed 1 after hearing the automated call were transferred to live telemarketers who allegedly misrepresented that consumers could dramatically lower the rates on their credit card. The telemarketers also said consumers would save thousands of dollars in a short period of time by lowering their interest rates and would be able to pay off their debts faster – for an up-front fee ranging from $495 to $1,495.
The defendants then falsely stated that if consumers did not save a “guaranteed” amount – typically $2,500 or more – they could get a full refund of the up-front fee. However, after securing the fee, the defendants allegedly did not negotiate lower rates on behalf of consumers and provided few refunds to those who were dissatisfied with the service.
The Economic Relief Technologies defendants also allegedly operated a related scam: using names like “Auto Protection Center” and “Warranty Services,” they tricked consumers into believing they were affiliated with their vehicle manufacturer or dealership, and falsely stated that the consumers’ vehicles’ warranties were about to expire.
The lawsuits allege the defendants broke the law by making illegal robocalls to consumers, and that their deceptive sales pitches violated the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Additional charges include: 1) calling consumers whose phone numbers are on the National Do Not Call Registry; 2) calling consumers who had previously asked not to be called; 3) failing to transmit their caller ID information, as required; 4) “spoofing” or masking their caller ID information; 5) failing to promptly identify themselves, the purpose of their call, and/or the nature of the goods or services they were selling; 6) improperly abandoning calls; and 7) failing to make required disclosures in their robocalls.