CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS BY STATE
(Statistics Derived From State-Specific Regulatory Agencies)
Tennessee: Of the 606 complaints filed with the Department of Financial Institutions, the Deferred Presentment (or pay day), received zero (0) for 2005
Arizona: In 2006 there were 11 complaints involving payday lenders.
Colorado: The state does not distinguish between individual types of consumer lenders. However, in 2005 there were 253 total complaints against consumer lenders.
Delaware: Customer complaints are confidential.
Florida: The state does not distinguish between individual types of consumer lenders. However, in 2005 there were 215 total complaints against consumer lenders.
Idaho: In 2006 there were 43 complaints filed against payday lenders. The majority of these complaints were regarding unlicensed lenders.
Indiana: In 2006 there were 19 complaints involving payday lenders.
Kentucky: In 2005 there were 12 complaints involving payday lenders.
Michigan: The state does not distinguish between individual types of consumer lenders. However, in 2005 there were 986 total complaints for all consumer lenders.
Missouri: In 2006 there were an estimated 10 calls per day involving payday lenders. Most of these calls were answered by explaining the law to the caller. While the office does not distinguish between “questions” and “complaints”, the complaints received involved such issues as collection tactics, proper crediting of payments and “customers being unable to make payments due to the location being closed”.
Montana: In 2006, there were 10 complaints involving payday lenders. Two complaints were against licensed payday lenders and 8 complaints were against internet payday lenders that were unlicensed.
New Mexico: In 2005, there were 11 complaints against payday lenders.
North Dakota: In 2006, there was 1 complaint against a payday lender. The customer was upset because he was denied a loan. However, he was denied a loan because he was over the allowable loan limit.
Oklahoma: In 2006, there were 68 complaints against payday lenders.
Ohio: In 2006, there were 13 complaints against payday lenders.
Virginia: In 2006, there were 53 total complaints; 39 with licensed lenders; 14 unlicensed lenders.
Wisconsin: The state does not maintain this information for specific industries. They group all consumer loans under the category of mortgages and are unable to distinguish payday lenders from others.
South Carolina: The state does not maintain this information for specific industries. They group all businesses together and are unable to distinguish payday lenders from others.
Washington: In 2005, there were 64 complaints against payday lenders.
