Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint Report---Five

 

Christopher Menkin, editor

 

SC Superbroker SC Superbroker, Southern California Town, California

 

These three or four complaints ( one is really an “alert” ) are listed chronologically as received by Leasing News. Much time was spent in talking to all the parties involved; many telephone calls, e-mail, re-verification, in an attempt to be both “accurate and fair.”

 

After review with our legal counsel, Ken Greene, we determined not to use

names at this time, and as you read, you may understand our position on this.

Mr. Greene told us he was prepared to defend whatever we printed, as we were

presented facts to the best of our knowledge, but we would rather “err” on

the side of keeping a company in business, especially when we feel we

have “reasonable doubt.”

 

The first comes from Applicant 1 at *******.

 

June 18,2003

 

“After doing some research for help I had come across Leasing News.

 

“Our request for equipment funding had been placed with SC Superbroker

through another company. We had signed a proposal with SC Superbroker and sent in an advance payment of $2,230.00 to SC Superbroker.

 

“We had additional requests from SC Superbroker for financial docs. We had sent those to them. Over time SC Superbroker did not finalize any lease so we were able to obtain financing from our bank. After this SC Superbroker called said the lease was finalized, I told them we had it done through our bank. We never received or signed any loan/lease docs.

 

“We feel we should received a refund for the advance payment.

 

“SC Superbroker is not returning our phone calls or taking our phone calls and

as of yesterday the receptionist said they could not locate dour file.

 

“I have been dealing with ********(sic) and Superbroker Ops Person.

 

“This has been going on for several months...”

 

He said he was dealing with Broker 1, *********,

who brought him to SC Superbroker. And the last he had heard

from Mr. Broker 1, he was approved at a different rate with

three payments up front.

 

Leasing News contacted Broker 1, Broker 1 Leasing, State, who

confirmed the story and was told three times by Superbroker Ops Person at

SC Superbroker, that the money would be returned. Superbroker Ops Person

was listed in the SC Superbroker Voice Mail Box listing, and it referred

us to another telephone number. Superbroker Ops Person said he no longer worked

for SC Superbroker and *******( the owner) had promised

he would return the deposit to Applicant 1 when he was associated

with SC Superbroker..

 

Mr. *******said it was not true, Superbroker Ops Person did not work there, even

though his name was on the voice mail box directory, that he

had done that as a favor to Superbroker Ops Person to list his telephone number.

He said he never told anyone he would send the money back as

he had signed a “proposal” letter, and had approved the lease.

 

Applicant 1 said he had never received any lease papers form SC Superbroker, and referred me to the original vendor. The vendor said he had had many conversations with SC Superbroker, but they never produced a lease contract,

and were also talking about changing the terms and conditions.

During the course of the conversation, I believe he said that Applicant 1

had gone elsewhere for the equipment.

 

*******said he would never deal with the broker again, and had raised

his minimum acceptance to $50,000, as he did not want to deal in the

small ticket market due to all the time his company spent on this

transaction for *******. He was adamant that since the applicant

had backed out of an approval as per the proposal was not entitled

to the return of the money.

 

We asked *******for a comment, and he responded by e-mail:

 

“There are numerous lies and mistakes in the fore mention article. Kit

remember I have all the paper work for this and you will be held liable.”

*******

 

While it appeared there were three others who said they were aware of

a lease, according to the proposal, not being approved, this basically

becomes a “he said, “ “they said,” and in the many talks with the broker,

vendor, and other leasing company, it sounded suspicious, or that there

was more to the story that was not being told. The applicant was

furious. In reality, if it were not for the next two complaints against

the same “super broker,” we would not have spent so much time trying

to prove the complaint’s argument. We would like to follow the

American Way, “ a person is innocent until proven guilty.”

 

 

July 29, we received the following:

 

VENDORS & BROKERS BEWARE. A CA. COMPANY CALLED SC SUPERBROKER CORP.TEL;*********** BASED IN**************** IS TAKING UPFRONT PAYMENTS FROM UNSUSPECTING CUSTOMERS FOR LOANS OR LEASE'S THEY WILL NOT FUND.WE KNOW OF TWO CASES. THEY KEPT THE UP FRONT PAYMENTS AND REFUSED TO REFUND OR RETURN PHONE CALLS.

APPLICANT 2***********

APPLICANT 3 **********

.

I HAVE THEIR PERMISSION TO USE THEIR NAMES.

IF THROUGH YOUR PUBLICATION YOU CAN HELP,IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED

THANK YOU,BROKER 2

Phone = *****

Fax = *******

*****@********

 

 

THANK YOU FOR CALLING.I AM A BROKER WITH ******** IN ******. I REFERRED BOTH DEALS TO SC SUPERBROKER ON THE PROMISED UNDERSTANDING THEY WOULD BE GIVEN A FAIR RATE OR THEIR MONEY WOULD BE RETURNED.IN BOTH CASES THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH FAR HIGHER RATES THAN ORIGINALLY QUOTED.THEY ALSO PROMISED MR. APPLICANT 2A REFUND FOR THE PAST MANY MONTHS.

YOU CAN CONFIRM MY STORY WITH THE CUSTOMERS.

******* WITH ***** BROKERAGE IN ****** WHO EVENTUALLY FUNDED MR APPLICANT 2WILL ALSO CONFIRM. HE TRIED TO INTERVENE TO GET MR. APPLICANT 2HIS MONEY WITHOUT SUCCESS.TEL*********

AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN TRYING TO GET SOME FAIRNESS FOR SOME HONEST HARD WORKING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.

BROKER 2

 

Applicant 2 provided by fax a copy of the “proposal” dated January 15,2003 and later a copy of a check for $2,558. He said he had lost a hauling contract due to all

the time involved, had actually visited SC Superbroker’s office as he was also

located in California, and was promised on several occasions by people in

the SC Superbroker office his money would be returned. He said he keep

calling, but they would not return his telephone calls.

 

On the Applicant 2 Applicant 2complaint, the proposal had a 60 month lease factor of .0256634 and a penciled note of a 48 month payment with a lease factor of .0396446 ( if the truck cost remained the same.) It was not initialed.

 

*******said he approved the lease, but Broker 2 took the lease elsewhere,

and referred to a paragraph in his proposal:

 

“If SC SUPERBROKER does not approve this application, the deposit will be refunded interest, less the cost of the credit verification, documentation, appraisal costs, legal and underwriting fees, and all out of pocket expenses that occur in the process of approving the applicant, etc. The applicant hereby authorizes SC SUPERBROKER to expend these funds in the approval process.”

 

In a telephone conversation, *******threated to sue Leasing News if we printed

this complaint. We spoke to Mr. Applicant 2 again, then sent an e-mail to ******:

 

“I will recommend to the other to bring the issue to small claims court,

then when he files it will all be public information as it appears you will not

refund his deposit either.”

 

 

“I don't understand what your saying here. Applicant 2’s check is already

on the way to him.”

 

August 5th Mr. Applicant 2received a check for $2,000, not his $2,558 deposit.

We assumed SC Superbroker kept $558 as per their paragraph about

credit, documentation, and other costs. Mr. Applicant 2said he did not

agreed to that, had lost a hauling contract, had called many times for eight months,

and was still angry in the length of time and response and wanted Leasing News

to post the complaint.

 

Leasing News spoke to Broker 2 about the length of time between

the Applicant 2lease and the next complaint, and he said during this time

he had funded other leases with SC Superbroker, that ********

and Superbroker Ops Person had said they would return Applicant 2’s check, and

that Mr. Applicant 2actually visited the SC Superbroker office and

was told he would get his check back ( He said, the entire $2,558,

as that was what the dollar amount on the check.)

 

We felt the super broker made a gesture by returning a good portion of

the money, and there was nothing in the contract regarding a time limit.

Applicant 2 had the truck, and at a lower cost than the Super Broker had

originally offered, and under the advisement of Ken Greene, we’ll

leave it at that for the time being.

 

The third complaint is from Applicant 3 of ***** LCC, *******,

On the Gulf of Mexico in the United States. for six barges dated June 21,2003. It concerns a $1,000 deposit. During the course of the many conversations and e-mail, Leasing News suggested to settle the matter for $500, but ***** refused, again referring to the paragraph

in his proposal.

 

The proposal was for six barges at a total dollar amount of $115,800 with

a ten percent ( $11,580) purchase option at a .0221588 lease factor for sixty months. SC Superbroker presented to Applicant 3 a lease from The Funder in ********, California for three barges at $50,000+ with a 60 month lease factor of $025560

and purchase option “Market Value” (est. market value $40,000 + for 3 barges.”

 

E-mail from *****:

 

“He Agreed to the new rates... the terms aren't in question. He called

us to get those rates and have another set of documents prepared. And we

did... the last time I spoke to Broker 2 he said he understood and

agreed with our decision due to the fact that we reopened and did this

deal 4 times for the client and that the client agreed with the new

terms. The new docs were for the FULL AMOUNT REQUESTED. Please get

copy of last set of docs from client. As for the rate increase, the

client stated that he agreed to new terms and only issue was to get the

6 barges done... WE DID IT!!! WE were the only one to issue an approval

to him. NO ONE ELSE wanted to help him. Do you have any idea how many

hours we've invested into this transaction. WE opened and closed it 4

times and doc'd it at least twice. After the last time he asked us to

make doc's, we asked him if he was sure he wanted to go through with the

deal and he stated everything was fine. He NEVER returned the doc's and

that's why the deal never got finished. We've done everything we said

we would do and MORE!!!!”

 

From Mr. Applicant 3:

 

“Broker 2 was the broker.

 

“I did not sign the lease with The Funder because it was not what I

agreed to on the SC Superbroker agreement. The Agreement I agreed to was

for 6 barges with the total cost per barge being $27,590. The Funder

lease was only for three barges with the total price per barge being

$43,653.40. I am not going to pay $43,653. per barge.

 

“I did not wait all this time to make a complaint. I have been complaining to

Broker 2 since Sept. of 2002. I made numerous attempts to get my deposit

back from Broker 2 and SC Superbroker . They both promised me my money

several times over the last year. SC Superbroker told me my check was in

the mail 3 times. SC Superbroker deliberately tried to sneak a contract by

me that I did not agree to hoping I would not notice. I'm sure you've heard

of bait and switch. That’s all they are doing.”

 

*******again said he spent a lot of time on this, and to the offer

of a settlement of $500, he said “no way.”

 

Applicant 3 did confirm:

 

“They did make other verbal offers to me. I declined them all cause none came

even close to the original. The only thing I agreed to was the document I

sent to you that I signed. The only contract I even saw was the The Funder

contract I sent to you that I did not sign or agree to.

 

As far as his comment about No One Else wanted to help me....I told them

from the start I was not in desperate need for this lease and terms was a

major factor. I have owned these barges since they were built. I also own

the company who built them. They are worth $26,000 each. They only cost me

$19,300 each. Why would I agree to pay $40,000 each? Feel free to check my

credit and you will see I don't need any help from SC Superbroker . I own

four different companies and make a good living (without having to rip

people off).”

 

******’s reaction:

 

“If this is true he lied to us and would of committed fraud. He NEVER

told us he owned the company that manufactured the barges. He said be

purchased them from a 3rd party.

 

There's nothing to settle. We haven't heard from Mr. Applicant 3 is over a

year. He's never even asked for his money back. We told him the last

time we did doc's that there's no refund for him. This has been

perpetrated by Broker 2. He's using you to try to cause us trouble.

We no longer accept his business. He obviously knew that Mr. Applicant 3 was

the manufacture of the equipment and tried to deceive everyone. “

 

From Broker 2:

 

“Sounds like *******will not or can not pay these

folks back. Applicant 3 is right, both of us were promised

on numerous occasions as was Mr. Applicant 2the "the check

was in the mail". My fear is there are others out

there.

 

“We told Superbroker Ops Person from the outset the barges were

manufactured by Mr. Applicant 3's other company. He then

requested and received taxes from that Corporation.

Mr. Applicant 2is a sad case in that we were all misled up

until the end. Because of the ongoing delays, he lost

his haul contract for the new trailer but has since

found new work for it.”

 

Leasing News again tried for a settlement of $500. Mr.

SC Superbroker said “no” again.

 

“You are so wrong!!! All other proposals I've seen from other finance

companies that outline (as you call it) have the credit process fees

range from $1,750- $2,500. I only have $1,000 and I've approved the

deal and have doc'd it twice. I've showed you all the reasons why were

right but you won't listen to them. He signed the proposal saying we

can change the terms. He signed the proposal saying he will pay for

underwriting cost and time. He signed the proposal saying that ALL

deposit become the property of SC SUPERBROKER once an approval is given either Verbally or in Written!!!! What else do you need. You should run this

past your superiors before printing this”

 

Since The Funder was involved, we contacted The Funder

of the company, who said he was quite aware of Applicant 3,

and requested we wait to see if he could make a settlement with SC Superbroker

SC Superbroker on another matter, and if he could not, would give us a statement

to utilize as an “alert” on Leasing News.

 

In the meantime, we advised Broker 2 to join the National Association

of Equipment Leasing Brokers for the “fellowship, education, and for

funder comfort level.”

 

August 13, he responded: “I am new member. Thanks for the push.”

 

It is most likely the case that the Super Broker spent more than $1,000 in cost

and time on this; the lessee is quite wealthy; he also was the manufacturer

of the equipment and whether explained or not in the deal, he was quite

well off, and to pursue the matter of $1,000, especially to be sued over

this, Ken Greene said was not a good business decision on our part.

 

 

 

At first, the Funder wanted to make a comment, but after reviewing the matter

with its leasing counsel:

 

 

“We wrote our piece with the intention of protecting our reputation and clearing our name rather than going on the offensive... We agree with you and Ken Greene that there is a significant amount of hearsay in these stories.”

 

The Funder’s “alert” with names removed::

 

“ (We) booked a lease from SC Superbroker in ***** of last year and the lessee became very upset that SC Superbroker wouldn’t return a separate commitment fee for an additional financing request that didn’t get done (this second transaction was not reviewed by us.).

 

“After a lot of discussion we acted in good faith and took the unusual step of fronting the refund of this $10k plus commitment fee to the lessee ourselves. We did this to keep a good relationship with the lessee.

 

“We have yet to be repaid in full from SC Superbroker. We have heard from several sources that SC Superbroker is using The Funder credit policy changes as an excuse for not returning commitment fees, these claims are entirely untrue. To have someone say bad things about us when we have gone the extra mile to correct bad a situation with a lessee is completely unacceptable to us. The SC superbroker should not point to us if they are withholding money that an applicant rightly deserves.”

 

 

 

Coda: Here were three complaints and an “alert.” If Leasing News receives

more complaints about “Advance Rentals” being held by this company, we

may inform readers about the name of the SC superbroker and his company as it will show a pattern. In the meantime, we wish the company the best and hope it walks the narrow path.

 

 

Fourth Complaint:

 

“These guys marketed us hard to do our turn downs. It appears that they were using a NAELB (National Association of Equipment Leasing Broker) list.

 

“They received commitment Fees on three of my lessee and promised to send out docs and after two weeks, nothing. They rarely answer the phone or talk to your now.

 

They say they are sending the docs, but that was over two weeks ago.”

 

( Name With Held )

 

Leasing News has not received any complaints about this company at this time.

 

In their “Lease Proposal” letter it states, “Should the proposed Lessee not honor any approval, with terms listed on commitment with 60 days of the date of the approval then the Proposal Deposit becomes non refundable and goes to the account of ************* or its assignee as liquidated damages.”

 

Since the document was accepted on July 27, 2003, the company has until September 29th, Monday, as the paragraph continues, “ Should our credit department decline the

proposal, the entire amount of the Commitment Deposit should be refunded to the Lessee with 72 hours.”

 

This goes back to the NAELB “philosophy” of asking the Bonanno Question:

“Is the funder/super broker a member of NAELB?” The gist being if they

are not, you are basically on your own.

 

Ironically, the present NAELB legal counsel Barry S. Marks covers this exact subject of commitment letters and time period in his book:

 

“Power Tools for Successful Leasing”

 

The acclaimed book adopted for Equipment Leasing Association workshops, and on the recommended reading list for CLP and CAUCUS certification programs, as well as Leasing News book recommendation.

 

Technology Leasing: Power Tools for Lessees--(c) 2002, the unique lessee focused book on the recommended reading list for CAUCUS certification.

 

Both titles are available through year-end at the reduced price of $59.95 each, with shipping and handling waived.

 

Orders may be placed by phone (815.753.1116), secure fax (630.365.5602) or email (phdleasing@fastmail.fm)

 

In addition, over 70 leasing web sites and a dozen leasing articles are available for complimentary download at www.leasingpress.com

 

James M. Johnson, Ph.D.
Graduate School, Northern Illinois University
www.leasingpress.com

 

Barry S. Marks, Esq.
Berkowitz, Lefkovits, Isom & Kushner
www.leasingpress.com

 

 

This perhaps would have saved the broker a lot of time, his customer, his vendor,

his frustration, and for $59.95 ( ask them to waive the shipping and handling

and I bet they will, especially for an NAELB member ,) this is money very

well spent. The book is not only for the sales department, but is recommended

reading for all those employed in the leasing industry.


Virus Info Center
 


www.leasingnews.org
Leasing News, Inc.
346 Mathew Street,
Santa Clara,
California 95050
Voice: 408-727-7477 Fax: 800-727-3851
kitmenkin@leasingnews.org