|
Reader's Survey Results by Christopher Menkin “No” -- 292 “Yes” ---297 First, the money was NOT returned. As stated, we were asked “IF” a “settlement” was made, it might include removing the complaint from the Leasing News Bulletin Board. It was an “if.” In the course of the many conversations, we came to the conclusion that it would not be removed from the archives, but since this would be a “precedent” or “policy decision,” the Leasing News advisors suggested we take a poll from our readers. Actually, as we noted, it fit several recommendations made by our advisor Leasing News Advisor Edward Castagna, Nassau Asset Management.
In reality, the dispute is now in the legal process with a second court date, an appeal. This party has had other complaints, which all were “settled.” Two, they never said they would return any money, but if they did, would we remove the complaint? They stated carefully with an attorney involved, it may be one of the conditions of the “settlement,” and they were not admitting any “guilt.” We did speak with the attorney from the company who made the complaint. We also did NOT represent all the facts, but an abbreviated version, as stated. As many readers noted, they would have liked more of the facts, circumstances, background, to make a better decision on how they would vote. Our goal was not to “judge,” or even ask readers to decide who was “right” or who was “wrong” on this specific bulletin board complaint. No actual facts were presented. This was done on purpose, and also was a REQUIREMENT of all the parties involved. Our sole goal was to obtain your viewpoint on the bulletin board process, plus opinion on the precedent of removing a complaint once posted on the bulletin board. The survey was a “success.” We thank everyone who responded. All comments were read, too. From the knowledge gained, Leasing News will remove a complaint from the Bulletin Board if the money is returned to the person making the complaint by cashier's check and the concurrence of the person who made the original complaint. There may be circumstances when we might not follow this procedure. It does not include changing any of the archives, meaning newsletters printed and in our archives. As in our survey at the end of last year, everyone who responded said that if the lease did not go through, they would return the deposit. It was the right thing to do. Let me add to those who thought this was about “Keystone Leasing” are incorrect. It involves another complaint on the bulletin board. http://www.leasingnews.org/bulletin_board.htm Barry Reitman of Keystone Leasing has never offered to return the “advance rental.” 100% of the survey at the end of last year said he should have. This is after the, ex-president, incoming president, most of the directors and many ex-directors asked to be removed from the mailing list and said they would never read Leasing News. They obviously did not vote. They also stated in their e-mails to us Keystone should not return the “advance rentals.” The then current president indicated the same viewpoint. That is not a fair hearing of the facts or circumstances, and is one of the indications that ethics involves funders and not brokers at National Association of Equipment Leasing Brokers. It is one of the reasons I say " Talk the Talk, but not Walk the Walk." Ironically, the person who made the complaint that is posted on the Bulletin Board regarding Keystone Leasing responded to the survey, voting “yes.” Here are comments from people who voted “no:” “If money is kept when it should have been returned, the damage is done and it should be reported as such. No deal-making after that fact changes anything...” “I assume that as your policy is to attempt a settlement prior to posting the Complaint, that this was the case in the instance here. As you are providing an archive, it would be my suggestion that the Complaint remain, but the word "Resolved" or "Settled" or such be noted next to the company's name. This should be done only after the prospective lessee verifies to you that the money has been returned and funds cleared.” “It seems that this company/person would not otherwise return the deposit. If they are so well respected than they should return it without having to result to bribery. They should have thought about having the complaint show up before they decided to keep the money.” “Ethics in this industry have not improved in my 26 years of equipment leasing. We need to do the right thing on every deal from start to finish. Those who stumble should be accountable, always.” ( name with held) “If this is the first complaint and it is settled promptly, then I would remove the formal complaint from your system. If this is the second problem for this broker/lessor, then I would NOT remove the complaint. I would jump twice as hard on this entity the next time, if it comes up again. “I get commitment fees on almost all the deals I do. I have only kept three fees in my life (20 years in the leasing business) and the customers did NOT complain. The fee language was fully explained. I only had the right to keep the fee if the deal is approved as stated on the proposal letter and the customer backs out. When it was time to do the business, they were the ones that backed out. If someone is keeping two fees per year, then it would appear to me that it is their intention to keep fees, rather than earn a living by helping people acquire financing for capital equipment. “ Rationalizations, such as "I worked really hard on this deal" or the "customer lied to me" are NOT sufficient reasons to disregard your agreed upon "Commitment Fee" paragraph on the signed proposal letter. A much worse rationalization would be something like "the deal is approved, the documents are all signed, but the lessor won't pay the vendors, so it isn't my fault". If the lessor (you chose) won't pay the vendors in a timely manner after all the documents are signed and returned, then by definition, the deal is NOT approved. “AS AN ASIDE: I did hear from one attorney about a commitment fee in the early 90's. I faxed him the signed proposal letter and a copy of the signed leases and I never heard from the attorney again.” David Murray Evergreen Financial, Inc. “If the pressure from Leasing News was the major contributing factor for the return of the money, then I don't feel the complaint should be removed. What if it happens again and someone doesn't complain? A disclaimer can be put on that the issue was resolved amicably, but it still needs to be noted. I liken it to a credit rating. If someone is 90-120 days past due, but then brings the account current, it still needs to be reported that the account was past due. It allows other financial institutions to make up their own minds about the character of the customer. Not returning down payment monies, goes toward the character of the broker/lessor.” “If money is kept when it should have been returned, the damage is done and it should be reported as such. No deal-making after that fact changes anything...” ( name with held) “Unless the initial complaint was in error, people need to know that there was a violation, even if it was resolved. But the original item should be amended to indicate that there has been a resolution. It remains true that there WAS the incident. Let's not try to change the historical record.” “WHY WASN'T IT PAID IF IT WAS DUE? THE JAILS ARE FULL OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD GIVE THE MONEY BACK IF THEY GOT CAUGHT. THAT'S ONE HECK OF A PRECIDENT TO SET.” (name with held/government agency) “If the pressure from Leasing News was the major contributing factor for the return of the money, then I don't feel the complaint should be removed. What if it happens again and someone doesn't complain? A disclaimer can be put on that the issue was resolved amicably, but it still needs to be noted. I liken it to a credit rating. If someone is 90-120 days past due, but then brings the account current, it still needs to be reported that the account was past due. It allows other financial institutions to make up their own minds about the character of the customer. Not returning down payment monies, goes toward the character of the broker/lessor. “ “No, I think you should keep it on there...if ethics were violated once, there is a chance they could be violated twice. I think with the industry in the state it is in, every method of due diligence should be explored. I do however think that each individual should be given a FAIR opportunity to dispute your claim prior to being posted on the complaint board initially. But I'm not sure what method, or who's moral judgment should be considered as an accurate portrayal of good vs. evil intentions.....” - “If money is kept when it should have been returned, the damage is done and it should be reported as such. No deal-making after that fact changes anything...” chris@creditleaseonline.com -- “You should note the fact that the dispute has been settled but removing it entirely would be a bit inaccurate. History is valuable. If the cops catch a bank robber running down the street they still prosecute him even if he hands over the bag of loot.” (name with held) “Should be removed only if the underlying complaint is found Ron Bannerman “I have never kept a deposit check in my life. It is unfortunate some people in the industry are using that tactic to recognize revenue. If you look at it from the customers perspective they have no recourse except to go after the Leasing Company legally which does not make sense financially. No one wants to involve lawyers so what recourse does the customer have? They go to Leasing News to see if they can help. Just like people go to 60 Minutes when an injustice is done. Lets police ourselves! I think it is a horrible business practice and I hope that no one involved in any of the associations are practicing this technique. It only hurts the industry as a whole.” J. Thomas Williams “No, you shouldn't be able to buy integrity.” “What don't they just return the funds and forget about removing the comments/facts. If they are honest and know the funds should be returned, then what is the problem. Can't they admit they were wrong and do what is right. I think people should be advised of issues of this manner and the people or companies just have to face the facts. By removing the complaints/facts would be like sweeping it under the carpet. “ “It is not so much the amount of money, or that they paid it. it boils down to is the company reputable, ethical and trust worthy. we often see lessees, brokers, etc. pay when they are forced into a corner, but should not reasonable people be able to negotiate or compromise their differences without force, legal action or other threatening means?” (name with held ) “Protect future users. If threats need to be utilized to get them to do the correct action, then users need to be aware of how they typically conduct their business transactions.” (name with held ) “ Description of complaint should mention prominently that payment has been made, as well as circumstances and conditions (if any) of such payment. But if it took a public complaint to get that payment, that in itself is worth knowing.” (name with held ) “I believe it should stay posted but with an amendment to the posting that the dispute was settled and deposit returned or whatever the outcome was...to simply remove it because it was paid doesn't justify the reason they made it on the complaint board in the first place. Thus setting a precedent, you get on the complaint board, you pay what's owed, you get off the complaint board? This doesn't make sense, the whole object I would think is NOT TO GET ON THE COMPLAINT BOARD!” ( name with held ) Why I Changed My Viewpoint “Life is short. Forgiveness is not overrated. If there is no mechanism for resolution your complaint board serves only to punish and not to reform.” hughswandel@shaw.cahughswandel@shaw.ca “Definitely. It should not be the role of leasing news to be both judge and jury on anything. Leasing News is a source of information and an impartial way to maintain fairness in an industry with virtually no federal regulation. (Let's keep it that way) If money is returned...mission accomplished.” “I think this speaks well to the power of your newsletter to reach resolution for the person who sent in the complaint. I think the thing they were looking for is a resolution to their problem and appealed to you to help. Thus I think that as leverage for the offender to do the right thing, the exchange would be to have the complaint removed. “ “Your stated purpose is to resolve these problems, not necessarily to punish anyone. This action would be consistent with that goal. “ “If the advanced rentals are returned, that should be reported as a positive resolution of the matter. Show the complaint and the resolution. If a Google search continues to result in references to the party's' business, let the record show both the complaint and the positive resolution - it will speak volumes to his credibility in future dealings. “There are some circumstances where keeping PART of the advanced rentals may be appropriate. For example, large ticket deals where expenses of a UCC search, pulling a D&B, remitting for a site inspection, can run into several hundreds of dollars. If an approved candidate signs documents and returns them with intent to proceed, then later changes his mind perhaps for a better deal utilizing the same structure from another source, THEN it makes sense to subtract those fixed expenses from his documentation fee and potentially part of his advanced rentals payments if need be prior to returning the balance. “In small ticket deals the costs of due diligence can be typically covered by the documentation fee charged, so the full return of the advance rentals should ALWAYS be the rule. The downside is too great to our pool of potential clientele to risk quibbling over an amount that none of us can retire on. “We need to adhere to a strong ideal of self policing. I do not think any of us are looking for outside regulation of our industry. Integrity is everything. Let's act accordingly. “ “If the money is returned, there is no reason to keep the complaint listed. Leasing News will have served its function. Of more import is whether this complaint stops the behavior in the future. A non-public archive against which new complaints are checked could monitor this very real and worthwhile goal. Also, posting the new complaint with reference to the repeat nature of it should help resolve the new complaint faster and reinforce the preventative nature of the bulletin board. “ “Sounds like a quick, good faith effort by the broker to just make this one "go away." If it were me, I'd appreciate the removal.” Sonia Stoddard Stoddard & Associates “ I say if returning the money has resolved the dispute you should remove it.” “Their is no reason to continue listing a complaint that has been resolved. By fostering a policy of removal upon resolution, you are encouraging resolution. Additionally, the posting remains seriously misleading if resolution has been reached, and this is known to you, and the complaint is neither removed or amended to indicate resolution. Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.” HEMAR, ROUSSO & HEALD, LLP “My personal philosophy is this: If an applicant gives a commitment fee and the lease is approved at the rate offered in the proposal and the applicant refuses to accept the lease, the fee has been earned! Because of problems in the past, we do not require a commitment fee! “ “Perhaps some sort of statement of apology should be issued by the company along with the returned deposit.” “Yes ,but on one stipulation that the company does not take any one deposit again and acknowledges that they were in the wrong. “ btucker@soundcastleduplication.com ( http://www.leasingnews.org/Conscious-Top%20Stories/Keystone_Equipment_Capital.htm ) Money needs to be return before hand. The situation caused the company enough discomfort to re consider refunding advanced rentals not earned so I would say the Bulletin Board Complaint worked. Only when you are satisfied the money have been returned should the posted notice be removed. Larry Biricz - Toronto Interesting, most of the people we asked who responded “yes,” if we could quote them, did not want to be quoted or did not respond, which may be a “time” situation. Here are comments without attribution: “ I think a valid question to be asked is, "How many chances does an individual or company get before they can no longer 'buy' themselves immunity from the bulletin board?" “In the justice system within our great country, when a person has a judgment entered against them and they satisfy that judgment, in the reporting systems,i.e. credit bureaus and D&B, is not that satisfaction noted?" “Seems to me that if the money is returned as requested then the dispute is settled and the complaint can be removed HOWEVER if there is another similar complaint that indicates a trend or behavior pattern then I'd reinstate the original and the new complaint permanently.” “Like you say if the money is returned there is no complaint.” “As a one time concession with notice that any similar complaint in the future will void this concession. Thanks Kit! Keep up the strong effort. “ “I reluctantly agreed to this without knowing the entire story; however you do not want to harm someone's business over one incident. On the other hand, is he returning the money only to eliminate the complaint? Your potential course of action (if he does it again, list the complaint again) should act as a deterrent.”. “Only so long as the customer is satisfied, and the funds are good. I say this because the guy in question is supposed to be "respected and well liked etc." If he was a scoundrel, then I would say the complaint should be removed but a warning to people put in its place . . . I'm tired of these people screwing us and our customers . . . it hurts OUR business and we stop having business, so do the Lessors/Financiers.” “Assuming this is a one time event and not a pattern as to the way this person normally conducts his business. He may even be correct in retaining the monies, but based on the way you have described the situation, even if he is correct, then it is not worth the hassle and negative goodwill generated by the leasing complaint.” And there were also people who said yes, and had similar reservations: Kit, I'm having a mixed reaction trying to answer this question with a simple yes or no!. If it is only a single or occasional problem then yes I believe it should be removed because situations do arise where credit work is done and the Lessee just decides to go another way and demands all of their deposit back. However, if there are numerous complaints against the same Broker or Lessor and it is obvious that they have no intention of returning a deposit, ever, then I believe they've earned the right to be identified on your "wall of shame" as someone to avoid. Bob Robichaud You can do whatever you think best but I believe the Bob |
|
