|
|
Two Bulletin Board Complaints---Union Capital, Irvine, California by Christopher Menkin, editor Kathy Douke of Precision Concrete Pumping, Citrus Heights, California. called in with the second complaint on May 20th, Thursday and followed up with the signed agreement, copy of the check, along with this cover letter: “I wasn't happy to say the least, to hear your news about Union Capital. I have ordered a copy of my check and will forward as soon as possible. I didn't tell you one very important thing about this lease - because Bryan and Dan and John all told my vendor "TA Pump" that the lease would fund they released the pump to me on "good faith". I left a $20,000.00 check (that has not been cashed) with the pump company to show my good intentions.” I plan on calling the Irvine Police Department today if the money does not arrive today. “Thank you, Kathy Douke” http://www.two.leasingnews.org/loose_files/Union% In the agreement was a clause, as in the first complaint, “ Lessee, upon acceptance of this proposal, shall forward the Commitment Fee to Lessor. The commitment Fee will be applied to the first & last billing period upon lease commencement. (Here is the kicker:) In the event that the lease fails to commence, expenses, not to exceed Ten Percent(10%) of the equipment cost, within seven(7) business days. Expenses and fees incurred are non-refundable.” I had called the parties at Union Capital by telephone on Friday, and sent e-mails. No response. In the month of placing telephone calls, I never reached anyone but voice mails, leaving messages. Only two calls out of the dozen or more were returned in a conference call manner with several people talking on the other side. This time I left a voice mail that Leasing News was printing the complaint next Tuesday, response or no response. The second complaint had been going on for over a month, and may be more complicated, but this complaint from Precision Concrete Pumping was “cut and dry.” In less than an hour, I received a telephone call from Keith Attlesey of Attlesey and Thomlison, who said he represented Union Capital. I told him I was going to print the Precision Concrete Pumping complaint as it was ready to go. He asked me to send a copy of what I had received and would look into it. We then discussed the second complaint, where he again brought up the agreement in the contract about the 10% expenses. Basically, I told him I did not think it would hold up in a court of law as they would have to produce receipts He then said he thought Leasing News wanted to test this in court. I suggested he have a good retainer. He said he didn't need it since he had been representing Union Capital since the year 2000, when he “...stole the account away from Ken Greene.” He said some other things about Ken Greene. I advised him that Ken Greene was working on an agreement regarding expenses, but employed by ten “sponsors,” and that while he was on the Leasing News Advisory Board, he does not review any story or complaint before it is printed, nor does any of the advisory board. Furthermore, Leasing News has utilized five attorneys, including Mr. Greene, who worked pro bono on the RW Professional suit against us. As a point of reference, Leasing News refers calls http://64.125.68.90/LeasingNews/JobPostingsAttorney.htm As a side note, to insure there was no conflict of interest, I spoke to Ken Greene about this, who called Mr. Attlesey, who according to Ken Greene, denied what he had told me over the telephone. 2:01pm the same afternoon, the follow fax was received from John Wilcox of Union Capital: 1) Customer has received a refund. 2) Lessee was approved (very good credit) but TA pump (collateral) after further investigation was not approved. 3) Customer without our consent went down to pick up equipment. We never authorized release in writing or verbally. She put $20,000 down with the vendor to get equipment released.” Kathy Douke told us she now had a check in the next communication, less $750: “First I would like to relate one really crucial series of phone calls that occurred on Friday May 14' after Bryan Scott telling me just the day before that our lease would fund and that he would be calling our vendor prior to us picking up the pump to assure them that our lease would be funding the next day. “Friday morning (after driving 400 miles one-way from Sacramento on Thursday evening) we arrived at TA PUMP located in Stanton, CA (Southern California) to discover that Bryan did not call them with a purchase order. I must have made half dozen phone calls to Bryan Scott and to the General Voice mail on Friday to find out why he never phoned. TA PUMP relied on my word that it was funding and made a decision to trust me that the loan was going to fund either on that day or the next Monday, so released our $50,000.00 custom concrete pump to me. As a show of good faith I did leave the vendor with my check for $20,000.00 just in case something happened and it didn't fund as promised. When Bryan finally did call TA PUMP, he advised them not to release the equipment to me even though I had sent them my check for $30,313.52 which had already cleared my bank on 5 /13 /04! This back and forth kind of conversation went on the entire afternoon where Bryan or Dan would tell me everything was fine and then they would turn around and tell TA PUMP not to release the equipment (they did not know that I had already taken possession). A final conversation between Dan and my husband at 6:00 p.m. on Friday left us with the decision to continue pursuing the lease since they had already cashed our $30,313. check. “On the next Monday (the 17') I had a conversation with both Bryan Scott and John Wilcox and they assured me that they would both call TA PUMP to let them know that the lease would be funding that week. Every day Bryan would call to advise me of the progress and each time he would assure me again that the lease would fund the next day - until Friday the 21st. That is when he told me that he would be returning my money because he could not help me with the lease. “Per our telephone conversation today, I am faxing you a copy of Union Capital's "Refund/Lease Agreement" that was sent along with their check to me in the amount “Please note his reasons — 1> Lessee Withdrawal Prior to Funding. 2> Vendor Declined 3> Lessee requesting refund “1> Bryan Scott called me on Friday 21" on or about 1:00 p.m. to tell me that he was not going to be able to help me with obtaining a lease so he would be refunding my "Commitment Fee" which would be mailed the same day. 2> After I asked him why he responded as follows: after doing some checking discovered that our vendor, TA PUMP was probably going to go out of business due to customer complaints about their pumps and the fact that their just wasn't that many of their pumps in the industry. 3> Bryan Scott told me that Union Capital would be refunding my "commitment fee" since they were not able to help me with a lease. “Since it was Union Capital that reneged on the agreement and not me I feel that the total amount of $30,313.52 should be refunded. They are not entitled to even $750 for any reason. They should be compensating me for the torment and torture they put me through not to mention making TA PUMP believe that it was me that was lying to them all along. “If it weren't for you and Cory at Business Finance.com I don't think my story would have turned out as good as it is and I hope that no one else is taken advantage of by Union Capital.”
The first complaint came from David Nicol, owner of Azimuth Pavement Markings, San Mateo, California from an incident that started late May,2003, after they received this “pre-qualified Equipment Line of Credit” letter: “Based on yew recent payment history per company D&B, Union Capital is pleased to offer a pre-qualified equipment line of credit to Azimuth Pavement Markings in the amount of $150,000.00 (if your requirements exceed the pre-qualified amount,, please let us know ) for upcoming equipment acquisitions. “Union Capital is a leading provider business –to- business for the construction & concrete industry. For more information, please contact your account representative or visit, our web site and apply online at www.unioncapital-llc.com Bryan Gunn http://www.two.leasingnews.org/loose_files/Union% A lease for $50,000 was secured with a leasing company (who's owner, who did not want to be quoted in print, would not consider Tim Brooks, Chief Financial Officer, for NLB Corporation “In reference to the rental payments, yes, they were making Here is a copy of the rental payment made by Azimuth Pavemement Markings: December 4,2003 a new proposal was signed for $150,000: http://www.two.leasingnews.org/loose_files/ The proposal was sent in with the dates of performance circled and an e-mail sent with this paragraph: “I do not want to extend the agreement for another 40 working days as it says in the now acceptance documents. I can only agree to this A copy of the e-mail and proposal: http://www.two.leasingnews.org/loose_files/ Telephone calls to Union Capital were not returned to Leasing News and it was not until an e-mail was sent that we would print the complaint without a statement, since it appeared they had “no comment.” This brought a telephone conference from John Wilcox “This is in response to your last fax. Yes, this is our response however Keith Attlesy is working on the file and would like to provide a more comprehensive analysis of file. In the meantime go ahead and print Dated May 25,2004 • The first takedown was funded for 50K, of which $3,094.38 was forwarded back to Azimuth Paving. A check Azimuth Paving still denies receiving. A copy of the cancelled check was faxed to you yesterday. “Union Capital would like to make the following concessions: 1) Provide a lease on any equipment needed or “In closing, I would like to make some clarifications on our conversation with you: “We never told you verbally or in writing that we "justified" expenses or claimed that. We never said our expenses equaled our internal cost such as D&B, telephone, etc. “You stated deposit held would be "justified" for lost commission if we had the appropriate language in our agreement. We would like to see how that language reads in an effort to incorporate that on future agreements. “We wish to contact client, however per email, he wished no further communication. Sincerely, The issue that Union Capital had kept more than 10% as per their
|
|
