|
|
Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint Report
“Kit, normally I support your point of view and value your service. However, regarding the issue of Phoenix Alliance not returing a deposit to a customer, I am surprised and deeply disappointed in the role that you are assuming here. “You are not a regulatory agency, either government or private. Yours is also not a membership organization where dues paying members have signed a code of ethics and agreed to open their business affairs to the scrutiny of others and to appoint you as an arbitrator or ombudsman in affairs like this. “To my knowledge, you are also not operating as a law firm retained by the supposedly aggrieved party. “This is very disappointing. “ Steve Nardi Ramsgate Leasing Since establishing a web site over four years ago, Leasing News has printed both “alerts” and “Bulletin Board Complaints” in the newsletter and then posting on the internet .During this time we have been of assistance in over 600 complaints, most settled with the return of “advance rentals.” We also have “Letters of Engagements” available to spell out costs, commitment, and what may be retained or returned: http://www.leasingnews.org/Conscious-Top%20Stories/ The news media tradition of acting as an “ombudsman” goes back to the 19th century. Today radio, television stations, and the internet have its “ hot line” to not only “air” complaints, but to warn others, and also to obtain specific help. Our “Mission Statement” from our web site reaches high: “The Mission of ‘The World’ newspaper “’An institution which should always fight for progress and reform; never tolerate injustice or corruption; always fight demagogues of all parties; never belong to any party; always oppose privileged classes and public plunder; never lack sympathy with the poor; always remain devoted to the public welfare; never be satisfied with merely printing the news; always be drastically independent; never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.” October 30,1911 Frank J. Cobb, editor, “The World” His statement is a quote from the publisher Joseph Pulitzer's retirement speech on April 10,1907. These Weekly Reports have been “from time to time,” and the original purpose was to give readers an idea of what was happening, and often, leverage to help get an issue settled. There appears to be three groups: ones that live off “advance rentals,” those who return the money despite the circumstances, and the third, the old guard, who believe they are entitled to the money for the time they put into it, even though they can’t get the lease approved, or the lessee did not divulge the reason why they can’t get the lease approved. There are also other circumstances, such as: #1 Broker from Florida A super broker in the Northeast sent the broker from Florida a check for a medium four figure as commission, but the check bounced. The super broker has told the broker he is going to make the check good, and has been saying that for three months. A copy of the “NSF” check and other communication was submitted. The Superbroker told Leasing News the reason he did not have the money was because an attorney garnished his bank account. He said he had three commissions coming in from three deals, and as soon as they came in, he would make the check good. The Florida broker said he has been saying that for two months. Leasing News told the superbroker that if a cashier’s check was not sent by Federal Express within two weeks, we would publish the complaint. If sent, the broker said he would withdrawn the complaint. #2 Vendor was a Leasing Broker A growing trend of brokers not only going through legitimate dealer lease lines that are “more liberal” than going direct has changed into leasing brokers actually become equipment dealers. This involves a 938F Caterpillar. The seller went to a Colorado equipment appraiser, who recommended a leasing broker. To obtain a commission in the transaction, the appraiser bought the equipment and then sold it for a higher price to the Leasing Broker, who pretended to an equipment dealer, who sold the equipment to a legitimate dealership who utilized their bank to lease the equipment to the original seller of the equipment ( it was a form of a “sale/lease back.” Now, here is where it fell apart. The broker kept $8,500, paying only partial for the Caterpillar to the appraiser. The broker was then allegedly involved in a car accident and did not have the funds to pay the $8,500. The appraiser went to the legitimate dealership, who said they passed the title on to the bank. The bank then claimed they had “free title” to the equipment, and any dispute would be between the original owner and the dealer. The original owner received his money, as did the legitimate dealer, so they had no “gripe” nor did they want to get involved in the transaction. The appraiser wants his money back from the broker who was posing as a dealer to get the equipment financed. #3 Florida Super Broker “I was referred to you by Bob Baker of Wildwood FS Group. He strongly recommended I get in touch with you regarding ******. “They are currently holding almost $100,000 of my money and I am spearheading an effort to go after them. “I have talked to many people and done a lot of research. “I would like to talk to you and see if you can help us with a story to get possible injured parties to contact us for a class action CRIMINAL suit.” (name with held) #4 Leasing Company Concern “I have 12 examples but I will give you just one for your thoughts. ******** represented themselves to us as a "Lease Consultant" and not a broker. We were very concerned because if they were a broke they would have to deal with *********, they swore they were simply a consultant and simply charged the customer a small fee for their services. Along comes a deal to us called ******** for $60,000 who happens to also be a ******bank customer. We did our documents and sent them to the customer for signing. They signed our documents and we called them for the verbal. It was an equipment finance agreement with no buyout on the end. The customer asked us about the residual, we replied, there is no residual, the customer asked why they had to write a check to ********* for their pre-paid residual? We called *******r to discuss and they stated the customer was just confused and that was simply their consulting fee. When we called the customer again, they said they had something to fax us so they did. It was called a letter of intent which shows an 8% pre-paid residual charge. The letter also states that ********* is the lessor which they are not. The letter also states that the customer may pay the lease off in 12 months with 0 interest. This a 60 month non-cancelable lease. It's is all lies! We called this customer and ******* is putting a stop payment on the four thousand dollar check today, get the picture?” ( name with held ) #5 Two Complaints Against Same Leasing Company “These are two complaints against the same leasing company located in Orange County, California. One is for $300,000: ********* has dragged its heels on our due diligence, and is failing to respond to phone calls regarding initiating the borrowing process. We paid a $5,000 due diligence fee to get this process going, and we are now concerned that this lease will not be executed and that we are going to lose our $5,000. “This non-performance is particularly disappointing as we are under strict pressure by our venture capital investors (including ****************) to maintain certain targets. We are in the midst of seeking additional VC financing. The funds anticipated through this lease were incorporated in our plans, and our inability to execute this lease and meet our targets could possibly compromise this fundraising effort.” The second stems from a submission in April, 2004 and signing of a lease contract on July 19,2004, and then a second leasing contract, signed in August with a check of almost $20,000. There is correspondence where the leasing company did not receive the documents, and then did, and a note signed August 18th asking the status of the funding. |
|
