Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint

#1

This is the sixth complaint against this company.  One has been printed in the Bulletin Board Complaint, three were resolved, one

advance rental payment was returned, and this one still is

not resolved.

It regards a $320,000 Recreational Vehicle for a company that sells

at fairs and rodeos, driving across the West Coast and this special diesel unit fits his needs.

Vendor RV had an approval from LEASING COMPANY for $400,000, so Applicant drove down to *******, *********, looked at units, chose the Monica Dynasty, requested some changes such as an alarm system, and other modifications, which were to take eight weeks to accomplish.

He signed a one page form and Vendor video taped this all as Vendor RV Center was putting out money and time for the changes.  Applicant provided an insurance certificate.

During the next four weeks, Applicant and Vendor RV Center, learned LEASING COMPANY was "shopping" the deal for a "take out. "  Mr. Applicant remembers getting  a call from ***** ( who is a reader of Leasing News, and verified the story last year ) as Leasing Company sent him the deal to put together.  It seems Leasing Company was sending the deal other places, and Vendor never got confirmation that money was available.  He then

got worried.  They had four other RV applications with LEASING COMPANY at the time and found out that LEASING COMPANY was "shopping" the deals and never had "take outs."

It was at this time that Leasing News got involved, and we helped get them all resolved, except for Applicant.

We requested a statement, many times, and this is the latest one

we have received from their attorney:

“Your client mentions in his email below that he was in fact approved.  After LEASING COMPANY did all of the underwriting and diligence, he decided to hold off, and told Mr. ***** last year that once the new models came in, he would be interested in going through with the financing.  There was no change in terms, no misrepresentation, and no overreaching.  The agreement signed by the parties provides that if the lessee chooses to walk away, the deposit is retained by the lessor.  So you are not correct in saying that if the lease had been approved he would have the RV, because it was, and he doesn't, only on account of his desire to delay until this year.  If the credit remains the same, LEASING COMPANY will be able to re-approve the transaction.

“I'm not sure what significance any video would have, except to authenticate Mr. and Mrs. Applicant's signature on the commitment agreement.  LEASING COMPANY has gone to substantial expense and effort in approving an RV, not an easy piece of equipment to finance, and now it appears that the Applicant's have merely changed their mind.  What do you do in situations like this?”

We get the facts. We understand Mr. ***** is representing

his client, and what his client tells him.  We have e-mail from **** and ******, and the vendor. In addition, I have talked directly with *****and ******.  Leasing Company, at one time, confirmed with on the telephone that he was looking for a "take out;" he did not have a funder who had approved

the transaction.  We discussed ****** who's owner at the time, ***** was looking for a buyer of his company---which basically were his accounts and vendors.

We have supportive documents that we can put on line.  As a final note: the company involved in this complaint remains a member of the National Association of Equipment Leasing Brokers, and if this is not resolved soon, we will print the names of all parties and go into the status of posted Bulletin Board Complaint.

We have advised both the applicant and leasing company to both come

to a compromise, which they both now are considering.

#2

No Names, Please!!!!

“We received a fax from ****************** (XYZ) about three weeks ago.  Their diamond rates looked too good to be true, but we signed up anyway.  I figured, at the worst, these rates were a "bait and switch" ploy. 

We sent in one deal.. .After 2-3 days, they finally came back with an approval on a deal that clearly met their criteria for the “diamond,” and approved it for the "ruby" program.  I advised them that there was no deal with the latter pricing and they sent a fax back changing it to "diamond".  

http://www.two.leasingnews.org/temporary/Diamond%20Program.htm 

We sent them a "doc prep form" for the deal and at the same time, became aware of  their reported insidious dealings.  I immediately withdrew the application of my customer, and withdrew my company as one of their approved brokers.

We quickly obtained an approval for our lessee with another company and sent them documents. I received a call from the lessee on Tuesday evening, 4/6.  He indicated that he was confused in that he received the documents from our company that morning, but had received another set of documents from the Other Leasing Company the day before.  He had thought they were from our company and signed the papers, and sent in advance payments and a voided check for ACH.  

I asked that he send me the faxed copies of the papers he had signed for the Other Leasing Company.  Before I received those the next morning, I called XYZ and spoke to XYZ Rep. who vehemently indicated that he did as we requested and withdrew both the approved lease transaction for our lessee, and our approval as a broker, and that he  had never heard of the Other Leasing Company. Capital. This was obviously a fictionalized version. 

Of course, I had my customer immediately call his bank, stop payment on the checks, with a cover letter to The Other Leasing Entity.  Upon receiving the copies of the lease papers from The Other Leasing Entity the next morning, our lease administrator recognized them as being exactly the same contract that XYZ employs.  Gee, what a shock! It sure appears that someone from XYZ sent our doc prep form to the Other Leasing Company..  For the record, we pulled a Better Business Bureau on The Other Leasing Entity and found a complaint alleging that they approved lease transactions, received documents, changed terms, then did not return advance payments.

Anyway, the old adage that if ”it looks too good to be true, it probably isn't " still holds.  In my eagerness to secure funding at better rates for my best customers, I did not perform any due diligence on XYZ thinking that if they were members of ******, that they were legitimate. 

For the record, I called the Other Leasing Company contact, *******, and left two voice mails.  The phone is answered by an answering service.

Thanks,

Bob Borden

(  The other parties deny any sharing and state it was a coincidence. Let's

leave it at that, unless there become a pattern to such occurrences.  Editor

---- 

#3

The applicant said he was sent  an “approval,” so he completed the leasing application for a small computer system.  It was a “corporate only.”  He also informed along with the application that he was no longer the president as he had brought in other “investors.”  The vendor shipped the computers on the acceptance of the “approval” form from the “leasing company.”

To draw up the documents, the applicant was instructed  to send in two lease payments, plus document fees, which he did.  When the leasing documents arrived, they called for him to sign a personal guarantee as president.   He states the original approval had nothing about a personal guarantee being involved, and he was not the president, as he informed them with a full application.  He also owned only 20% of the company, as investors were brought in for an infusion of capital.

After he told that to the broker, he was informed later than all the principals owning more than 10% would have to sign for the computer system.  He then asked for his money back.

The broker involved said the applicant was “pulling a fast one.”  The original “approval” form does not specifically state that, but has a clause that any additional information required may change the terms and conditions.  He said since there was a change in management, personal guarantee were then required.  He does not want to return the money. He says he is entitled to it for all the

time he spent.

(Leasing News knows the funder involved, and is speaking directly

with them, as they should also stand up to the plate with the broker

and/or applicant, in the return of the advance rental.

(Leasing News is working on a generic form, which Attorney Ken

Greene has completed.  We are awaiting all the signed forms

back from the sponsors to go to the next step of review. Editor)