Anyone forced to install a starter interrupter device in his car?

[joshuagraham]

It seems that there is now the technology for a lender to disable a car if the borrower misses a payment.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/miss-payment-good-luck-moving-013333514.html

I'm sure folks like us coming out of BK are considered sub-prime enough for lenders to want to do this to.

[justbroke]

This is typically done at those "buy here pay here" places. I have never read about any bank or auto vehicle finance company requiring or installing these devices in cars.

[spidge]

That sure makes cash or a 401K loan more appealing as the car would be paid in full.

[TXskyblue]

People coming out of a BK7 should be able to get loans from mainstream lenders.

Like justbroke said, those devices are associated with buy here pay here places. They own the loan, not an outside company.

There are some segments of our society who take out loans with no intention to stay current. These people often have multiple repos on their credit. Unlike someone with a fresh BK, there is reason to believe that the only way these borrowers will stay current is with a starter interrupt device.

[IBroke]

Well, installing these devices to disable STARTING is one thing - but shutting down an engine while driving on an interstate is just plain crazy!

This puts many at risk - not only the individual driving that particular car. This is a recipe for disaster and I am curious to know what legal consequences an accident caused by such a device would have.

[spidge]

Well, installing these devices to disable STARTING is one thing - but shutting down an engine while driving on an interstate is just plain crazy!

This puts many at risk - not only the individual driving that particular car. This is a recipe for disaster and I am curious to know what legal consequences an accident caused by such a device would have.

I almost asked this question but quickly realized that it is a lock out devise rather than a disabling device. Meaning locked out from starting. I am sure nobody would be allowed to remotely shut down a car while it was in operation.

[IBroke]

I almost asked this question but quickly realized that it is a lock out devise rather than a disabling device. Meaning locked out from starting. I am sure nobody would be allowed to remotely shut down a car while it was in operation.

That's what I initially thought but the lady in the video claimed she was DRIVING on the interstate when her car was shut down.

[TXskyblue]

Well, installing these devices to disable STARTING is one thing - but shutting down an engine while driving on an interstate is just plain crazy!

This puts many at risk - not only the individual driving that particular car. This is a recipe for disaster and I am curious to know what legal consequences an accident caused by such a device would have.

There are no devices out there to my knowledge that do that. These are starter interrupt devices only. They only prevent starting. They do not kill the engine.

The lady that claimed her car was turned off is coming out of left field. Let's see the device that was installed and see if it's capable of doing that. Dollars to donuts, it's not.

The police have devices they place on bait cars that do this, but they are not the same devices.

[IBroke]

There are no devices out there to my knowledge that do that.

Doesn't suprise me a bit.

Honestly, it would be crazy if they would use such devices...

[justbroke]

I believe that (only) OnStar has remote shutdown, but they only do this for law enforcement and only if law enforcement has eyes on the vehicle and performing a felony stop.

The device used by the buy-here, pay-here locations are as stated repeated. They are only ignition interrupt (or "starter" interrupt) devices.

There was a news article from some years back, and a lawsuit, where a women sued the buy-here pay-here service. If I remember the facts correctly, she didn't pay, they disabled the starter remotely. She then had some sort of "emergency" and could not start the car. She later sued because it was an emergency and they "prevented" her from using the car. The court ruled in the lender's favor stating that the fact that she didn't pay, subjected the car to being "repossessed" by any means the lender found fit for the situation.

(There is a current class-action but only for the Navajo nation related to starter interrupt devices. That one is from 2012. I can't find any disposition on that case.)