Editorial
By Roy Griffaw

The Hartford Advocate published a story Thursday by reporter Patrick Rucker entitled 'Rent, or Robbery? The rent-to-own industry makes a lot of money in poor neighborhoods. Blumenthal is watching'. The "Blumenthal" in the exceptionally long headline refers to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Connecticut AG Blumenthal

The story is meant to deceive readers into believing a crisis exists in Connecticut. A crisis that demands attention from the states leading crime fighter. Attorney General Blumenthal, in perpetual campaign mode, was only too happy to oblige.

The article quotes the AG (Aspiring Governor) as saying the industry should be taken to task for targeting the poor and that its practices might bear more scrutiny. The Attorney General added that laws governing the industry might need to be strengthened.

I contacted the Connecticut Attorney Generals office to get a feel for what must be an avalanche of consumer complaints. I was told initially that there had been 2 to 3 complaints in the last several months. While precision is not my strong suit, '2 to 3 in the last several months' is too vague even for my low standards. When pressed for the actual number of complaints, the spokesman for the AG reported that, statewide there had been 2 complaints in 2002, and 1 in 2003. All 3 involved errors by rent to own stores that resulted in alleged overcharging, and were handled by "a few phone calls".

3 complaints in nearly 2 years...why the rancor? The Connecticut rental purchase statute is, as state statutes go, above average in it's consumer protections. Mr. Blumenthal was AG when the statute was passed, so one can safely assume that he signed off on its language. The statute caps total cost of ownership at twice the retail price and allows up to 180 days for reinstatement. The state caps late fees at 5% of the payment, requires price tags, and clearly defines disclosures. It is a work of legislative art. Why then, would AG Blumenthal wish to change it? What crisis exists in Connecticut? What great consumer sin has been committed against the good people of the "constitution state"? 3 complaints in 18 months for an entire industry should result in medals, not headline grabbing rhetoric.

In addition to baiting Mr. Blumenthal, the author trots out the usual suspects to make his point. In this case, Marisol Jiminez, described as a current rent to own customer in Hartford.

Ms. Jiminez's story begins with a crisis. She needs $300 for her children's school clothes but the mean rent to own company is denying her the ability to provide for her children because she must make her rental payment of $470 per month. Ms. Jiminez rents a wide-screen television, computer, and living room suite from an unnamed company. In the story she is quoted; "I need, like, $300 for my kids' new school clothes," she says. "But I can't afford that. If I did, I'd lose the television."

The article fails to mention that Connecticut law, passed in 1991 with the full support of the newly elected Blumenthal and the RTO industry, provides the perfect solution for Ms. Jiminez. She could have temporarily returned the merchandise and re-instated the agreement up to 180 days later with absolutely no penalty. An option, by the way, only available to rent to own customers. Though it was certainly not his intention, the author, through his ignorance, proved the value of the rent to own transaction.

The author quoted various so-called advocates spouting verses straight out of the Ralph Nader "consumers are stupid so we have to take care of them" handbook. For an example of the validity of Consumer Advocate opinion, I suggest reading our story on the NCLC published in May of this year.

Advice to Mr. Rucker, choose your sources wisely, spend at least 5.8 minutes researching prior to publication, and be certain of your cause before dragging a state Attorney General into your non-issue.