|
|
Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint Report http://www.utdallas.edu/police/wavs/DragnetTheme.WAV As explained several times before, this was originally to be weekly, but did not happen. The “name” of the report has continued and perhaps should be changed to “occasional.” The main purpose was to help in negotiations and to show both sides what might be appearing in print. Our goal is to be an ombudsman and “settle disputes.” Often they are in discussions for weeks, and not uncommon, months. Perhaps another goal is to show to readers what is happening in their industry. Often these experiences may be helpful to avoid. We specifically do not name names, companies, and try to avoid locations. In talking to our Leasing News advisor Teresa Kabot, she was surprised to learn we have settled over 300 claims against primarily brokers for keeping advance rentals in the last four years. The readers don't see them as they send the money back rather than have the complaint posted, and/or a compromise is reached--- mostly they send the entire advance rental back as it is often illegal, and definitely, unethical to keep the money without an agreement that allows you to earn it, if the lease does not fund. It is not surprising that so many leasing brokers are angry with us, and thus the reaction by members of the National Association of Leasing Brokers (NAELB): Las Vegas Conference “Mike Meacher ( past NAELB president) sponsored a "shoot" at a rifle range outside of Las Vegas and the targets with your photo apparently were very popular. I felt it was petty and it certainly did not help the healing process to use your photo on the targets for Uzi's and 9MM Glocks with a badge that said ‘Sheriff, Judge and Jury'. “ (name with held ) -- “Mike Meacher took a bunch out to the range which he is part owner of. ****** told me that when the target with your face came up people were told to shoot if they wanted to. (My friend) did not shoot and felt it was in extremely poor taste. Some were laughing that they wanted to kill Menkin. He was turned off by the group.” (name with held ) #1 A leasing broker believes a funder gave his lease to their direct sales force. He submitted a lease, had it approved, but unknown to him, a direct salesman also contacted the same lessee with a lower rate. Somehow, when the broker was away, perhaps at the NAELB conference, the contracts arrived to the lessee, who noted the terms were changed and monthly payment, too. The direct salesman told him to sign “or else,” reportedly using “foul” language and threats to sign the lease or lose it. So the lessee signed the lease, and it was funded as they had the equipment. When the broker found out, he hit the roof, and talked to the lessee, plus learned the rate was much higher than he quoted as the terms had been changed (an old trick.) He wanted the lease “unwound” or his $3,500 commission he would have earned. The president of the company along with the broker manager looked into the complaint. Allegedly the applicant had been on their list of calls since the year 2000, and the person who closed it was a “part-time college student.” He was reportedly “severely reprimanded” for his language and the way the transaction was handled. The funder agreed to unwind the lease It is the common practice in the industry should a funder receive the same application from two brokers or more, or with their own “in house” sales department, the person who gets the lease signed, gets the commission. There are several funders who have their own vendor and direct sales departments, who specifically go way out of their way to keep them distinct, not share information, but things like this do happen. The head of the broker division has an excellent reputation and the president of the company got personally involved as he was concerned about his company's reputation. “...the matter has not been settled. Once the lessee receives documentation that reflects the rate and payment quoted by us, and once we receive our commission, we will consider the matter closed. We will deal directly with ******** going forward and appreciate your assistance.” ( name with held ) http://www.utdallas.edu/police/wavs/ #2 This started June, 2003 and after complying with all requests for financial information, he was told he was approved, and therefore signed a proposal for $200,000 for two pieces of equipment in July,2003. One of the units that sold for $49,500 was leased on August 6,2003 and what remained was a $150,000 unit. During this time, the applicant was renting the unit from the vendor, but could not afford the high monthly payments. On December 3,2003 a commitment letter was signed that required “vendor recourse” and “additional collateral.” Several pounds of documents were faxed to us from both sides. The broker says the lease was approved, but the applicant says it was never funded, that he lost two city contracts because he did not have the equipment, plus other opportunities, plus had an attorney involved and backed off when he realized what the time would cost him plus out of pocket expense. The original “commitment fee:” was $20,730.60, with $3,094.38 to be refunded. The agreement states, “In the event that the lease fails to commence, through no fault of Lessee, the Commitment Fee will be refunded minus any expenses, not to exceed Ten Percent(10%) of the equipment cost, within seven (7) business days. Expenses and fees incurred are non-refundable.” The broker claims his expenses equal the balance of the commitment fee, or $17,636.22. He claims his Dun and Bradstreet, credit costs, telephone and delivery costs are not close to this, but his commission would be, so he believes he has “earned it.” The fact that it also exceeds ten percent of the equipment cost was not discussed. The lessee claims the lease was not funded, and he agreed to deduct the $750 documentation fee charged in the signing of the lease contract. He says the rental cost exceeded his profits on the jobs he performed, plus he lost jobs because he did not have the equipment, plus all the delays, lies, and “torture” should be included, but he just wants his money back as they did not fund the transaction. They can keep the $750 documentation fee. “I really don't know how to thank you; I have not been able to get any rise out of them. Thank you for your referral too “They can contact me, they have my e mail I don't want phone calls from them. I want my money back. If I need to contact the attorney I'm sure he will want to go for the entire lost opportunity also. I had signed municipal contracts that I had to back out of appx. $750,000.00. Both I and my attorney wrote to them begging them to act so that NLB would not to remove the equipment from me in February of 2004. They did not respond. “I am willing to settle this if they refund $16,931.60 “ (name with held ) http://www.utdallas.edu/police/wavs/Dragnetfreeze.WAV #3 A broker in *********does not want to return the “advance rental” to a proposal where he did obtain an approval, but not according to the terms and conditions of the proposal. The broker states the applicant told him he had good credit, but when he found out the Beacon score was below 600 and he would not qualify for the rate quoted. The applicant stated his company had excellent credit, that there were a lot of inquiries as he had just bought a new house, and the mortgage company shopped for the best rate, plus he was in the process of moving, putting many things on his credit cards. The applicant did not want to pay a “high rate,” eventually going to his own bank. The broker says the applicant lied and therefore he is not going to return the advance rental. “Who gives you the right to get involved in this? It's none of your business. I earned that money. This is none of your business. Don't call or send me another e-mail.” (name with held ) http://www.utdallas.edu/police/wavs/nobadges.wav |
|
