LANSING, Mich. – The federal government is proposing to change rules that protect consumers from those short term payday loan companies often referred to as predatory lenders.

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection had already put the Obama-era Payday Lending Rule on hold, but on Wednesday, the agency said it wants to remove the requirement that lenders determine whether borrowers have the ability to pay the loan back.

Christine Hines, legislative director for the National Association of Consumer Advocates, says she thinks the administration has caved to industry pressure.

"Payday lenders are some of the worst actors in the financial industry, and it looks like the CFPB has given them a lifeline, as opposed to vulnerable consumers," she states.

Michigan does have some state-level rules that, for example, limit the interest rate on a two-week, $100 loan to 390 percent.

But 37 other states have limited it to 36 percent, or have banned these high cost installment loans altogether.

The Trump administration defends the change, saying it will allow more people access to credit.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau studies done under the last administration found that four out of five payday loan customers can't pay off their loans and end up renewing them and paying more fees.

And one in five people who get a car title loans ends up handing over the vehicle.

Hines says she thinks the rule change would lead to exploitation of vulnerable low-income communities.

"It would be bad for consumers, and good for an industry that has a longstanding history of trapping vulnerable borrowers in a cycle of debt," she states.

The rule-change proposal will be published in the Federal Register by Monday, which kicks off a 90 day public comment period on the federal website regulations.gov.


get more stories like this via email

Consumer groups are calling for the withdrawal of a bill that would change the way California's auto lemon law works - before the legislative session ends this week. Assembly Bill 1755's backers say it would reduce delays in getting reimbursed for a defective new car.

Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said it would also mean if a problem arises more than six years after the sale, the lemon law no longer applies.

"It would shorten the statute of limitations for filing a lemon-law case to just one year after the warranty expires. Right now it's four years after you find out you have a claim," she explained.

The bill would also require consumers to file a formal written complaint instead of simply calling the dealer. Bill co-author State Senator Tom Umberg said in a statement that the bill "is a necessary step towards streamlining and strengthening California's 'Lemon Law' to get drivers out of the judicial system and back on the road more quickly."

General Motors is the biggest backer of the bill. Shahan suggests car manufacturers are looking for ways to avoid paying to repair or replace vehicles.

"What they're trying to do is reduce their warranty compliance costs, like last year alone, Ford paid out $1.9 billion in warranty repairs, and they're under pressure by Wall Street to reduce their warranty costs," she continued.

She added the bill would also mean that manufacturers would no longer have to pay off the amount people may still owe on a lemon car. So some people may not be able to get a buy-back unless they can come up with thousands of dollars up front.

A controversial Illinois law signed earlier this month has pushed landlords and tenants even further apart.

Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Landlord Retaliation Act, which puts restrictions on landlords. The measure prevents them from terminating leases, increasing rent or threatening a tenant with a lawsuit over disputes. Further restraints include barring them from refusing to renew a lease after a tenant has filed a code violation complaint.

John Bartlett, executive director of the Metropolitan Tenants Organization, supported the measure and views it as another layer of protection for tenants.

"A lot of tenants end up getting retaliated against because they've complained to a governmental agency or requested an inspection because of poor maintenance issues in a building," Bartlett pointed out. "What it does is it creates a presumption, a rebuttable presumption, for eviction court, that a tenant can defend themselves against the eviction."

Bartlett seeks more landlord accountability and believes one solution to curb tenant discrimination and retaliatory behavior is a just cause for eviction law. It permits landlords to evict tenants for any or no reason as long as notice is given before eviction papers are filed in court. Under Illinois law, a landlord must notify a tenant in writing of the intention to terminate a lease. A 30-day notice is required for month-to-month leases, and a 60-day notice for a yearly lease.

Although the Landlord Retaliation Act passed Springfield's House and Senate chambers by nearly 2-1, the legislation has drawn the ire of some landlords.

Paul Arena, director of legislative affairs for the Illinois Rental Property Owners Association, opposed the measure, claiming it prevents landlords from standing up for themselves and creates liability for making ordinary and necessary management decisions such as a rent increase to cover rising costs or a change of property rules or a decision not to renew a lease.

"The way the law is written, if a tenant calls and said, 'My drain is plugged up,' and the landlord comes that very day and unplugs their drain, then the presumption in the law now is that any action the landlord takes for a year following that request is presumed to be in retaliation for having made that request," Parena argued.

He warned the measure could prove to hurt the people it is designed to help the most by decreasing the number of landlords entering the market and higher rents in an already tight housing market.


get more stories like this via email

Housing advocates said they are seeing more Kentuckians affected by electricity shut-offs.

In 2022, the number of Kentuckians who had their power disconnected increased by 228% compared to a 29% increase nationwide, according to data from the Energy and Policy Institute and Center for Biological Diversity.

Cara Cooper, coordinator for Kentuckians for Energy Democracy, said LG&E and KU, one of Kentucky's largest investor owned utilities, ranks among the top twelve worst offenders in the nation when it comes to utility disconnections. She pointed out in some cases, power was shut off for as little as $9 owed in payment.

"Currently, Kentucky is one of only 10 states that has no weather related protections for disconnections," Cooper explained. "That means that disconnection protections are happening at the utility level. That's a problem because it's not one policy across the board for the entire state."

Mountain Association and other Kentucky advocacy groups recently signed onto a petition calling for federal legislation to protect households from utility disconnections during extreme weather. The Preventing Unnecessary Deaths During Life-Threatening Events or PUDDLE Act is similar to House Bill 180, introduced by Kentucky lawmakers twice during legislative sessions.

Sarah Pierce, housing and energy affordability program coordinator for the Metropolitan Housing Coalition, said utility disconnection is tied to housing affordability. She observed people will forego other important bills, groceries or medicine in order to pay their electric bill, or turn to risky methods of heating their home in winter, such as kerosene stoves. For people with young children or the medically vulnerable, power shut-offs can be deadly.

"What we see happening with people who are disconnected during extreme heat or extreme cold, we're seeing a lot of adverse health effects, heat strokes, heat illness," Pierce outlined.

Tomorrow, Metropolitan Housing Coalition and Kentuckians For Energy Democracy are hosting a webinar on utility disconnection protections during extreme weather.


get more stories like this via email