|
|
Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint Report 1. “I am writing as a warning on a current scam taking place by ************. I found this company on the internet under a search for equipment leasing & financing at ************. The website was very professional and prompted me to call. I talked with rep ******** who seemed very knowledgeable about leasing and did not pressure sell. He told me that in order to start the lease process that I would have to send an up front deposit which would apply toward my first payment if approved and would be returned if I was denied financing. I questioned this practice and he assured me this was an industry standard practice and that they needed a monetary commitment, so I would not take my business elsewhere after they put in all the effort on my lease. So I was still skeptical and called the Better Business Bureau and Chamber of Commerce that are listed on their literature about their membership status. ******checked out as a long time member in good standing, so I felt confident that I could send the deposit, and felt that it would speed up the process.” The broker who wrote this was asked for copies of the check, copies of literature, or any agreements. The complaint was made in November. The broker has never returned e-mails. 2. This started in early December and concerns a major leasing company in California who's salesman approved a lease for $150,000 for a company with a proposal letter. Only $36,000 was funded, and through a third leasing company, not theirs, and they later denied the remaining amount. The problem stems that the vendor received a copy of an approval, shipped the equipment, received $36,000 for one part of the system, and now is suing the “lessee” for the remainder. The complaint centers on whether the leasing company actually made an approval to the lessee for $150,000. Whether the vendor should have shipped on an approval, or order for part of the system, is not the complaint. In finally receiving and reviewing all the documents, hearing from both sides, the applicant admitted in a fax “ I was stupid because I now see “the first approval had no dollar amount on it, in addition, there was a second approval for the remainder of the equipment, but he did not like the terms and conditions. The vendor shipped without any purchase order from either party, and after waiting two years, was now suing the applicant for payment for parts II and II to the full system. The applicant asked what he could do. An SBA loan was recommended, if he could apply, as the title at best was not clear and it was not a lease/finance situation. 3. From late December: A broker has a signed commitment letter and was successful in getting the lease approved, but the approval is not the same as the commitment letter. It is higher. The price of the equipment changes, and so did the lease rate. The broker says he earned the money because he got the lease approved. A day before we were to print the complaint, the broker sent a cashier's check by Federal Express, return all advance money. 4. A telephone call from an applicant regarding finding his “leasing company” listed on our complaint bulletin board, and the party had not returned his $8,000. He wanted to know more about the original complaint. We told him what we required, and he stated he was going to let the “leasing company” know he would be filing a complaint. We have not heard back or received the documents we requested. 5. Physician found Leasing News by going on Google and typing in “where to file fraudulent leasing complaint.” He said we came up number one. We explained the procedure, advised he tell the party he would be filing a complaint. Have not heard back from the Physician. This was three weeks ago. 6. It appears the person named in the alleged false employment application was arrested as we received a copy of the public arrest document from a reader. It appears Rick Wilbur dodged another bullet. Richard Wilbur Managing Partner Media Capital Associates, LLC rick@mediacap.com (480) 941-8558 ext #104 |
|
