Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint

    by Kit Menkin

Prospects, funders, vendors send us e-mails regarding

whether they should enter into a transaction or ask

us about “common practices.”

Our first reaction is routine:  a)See if they belong to

a leasing association ( this is an indication they

are serious about their profession, plus often leasing

associations will know about their members. b) visit

their web site, as it will list organizations they belong

to, perhaps even have references or other information

which makes them appear “legitimate.” c) Visit bbb.org

and learn what the Better Business Bureau has to say.  

As a rule of thumb, if they fail one of the above, be

very careful.  If they fail two, ask who their funding

source are and ask them for references.  If they fail

all, run away.

Normally, we do not report complaints that are “satisfied.”

From time to time, we report cases we are working on.

If they are settled, we don't write about it.  If they are

not, they get posted to the Complaint Bulletin Board,

and it is up to the readers to decide whether they

want to do business with companies that do not

return deposits or advance rentals.  We also get

other types of problems, such as:

#1---

This complaint was filed against a leasing company in Arizona

for not funding a transaction for $9,984.  The lease contract

was signed.  The leasing company stated that the vendor wanted

to be paid in advance before shipping, and that while they gave

evidence they were able to pay after acceptance, they are at a

stalemate with the vendor over terms and conditions.

The leasing company was willing to put the transaction on

a credit card, but the vendor wanted the points it would

cost to accept this as the price worked out with the lessee

was “bare bone profit.”

Leasing News was able to verify the approval of the lease by

the funder, the correction of all documents, and convinced the

vendor to ship as they would be paid in five days---

which they were.

#2  This one is reportedly settled, check sent, but at this

time not received by the applicant. We believe “the check

is in the mail,” although we had requested “next day delivery.”

This complaint was against a very well known Southern California

leasing company, who we have received numerous complaints,

but all satisfied to date.  This lease from a West Palm Beach. Florida

applicant was for over $300,000, approved in May, and lease

signed July 19,2004 for monthly payments of $7,497.65 with

miscellaneous charges including a $2,500 “doc fee.”  The check

was dated August 1,2004 for $17,495.30.

There is correspondence that the first set of documents were lost

by Federal Express, or then found, but the crux of the matter,

the equipment was delivered, vendor not paid, and lease never

started.  August 26^th the applicant contacted Leasing News.

After much discussion, it was learned the contract was signed “to

take the deal off the street” and it was never executed.  Over

a month of conversations, primarily with the leasing company

trying to put the deal together, they agree to return the money.

The vendor had never been sent a purchase order or told

to deliver.  The applicant went to his bank, who paid the vendor.

However, he wanted his “deposit” back.

Supposedly it is in the mail.

#3  This complaint is against the same leasing company in Southern

California.  In the early days of leasing news, many of the complaints

came from referrals of brokers trying to help a potential customer

out of their dilemma.  Today, most come direct; however, this one

was referred to us by a very reputable representative of a major

company specializing in  this type of financing. This applicant was a Venture backed company seeking $300,000 of “general office equipment” as their next round of financing was under way.  The actual commitment letter was signed July 27,2004. He was promised “quick action” and ask controller,

he said he fulfilled immediately.

September 14^th, he sent Leasing News a copy of all the documents

he signed, with a copy of the “Processing Fee $4,500”

The controller's comment:

“******* has not returned several phone calls; their non-responsiveness has me concerned.

“****** has dragged its heels on our due diligence, and is failing to respond to phone calls regarding initiating the borrowing process. We paid a $4,500 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 $4,500. 

“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.

“Bottom line – we'd like to continue to work with ********, but we cannot allow them to delay this process inevitably, force us to seek alternatives, then keep our money.  That is not professional or reputable behavior. 

“Also, any commentary on the reputation of ********* would be very valuable.”

Almost a month later, or to be more correct, on October 8^th,

“...looks like we are not approved yet.”

October 11^th:

“At this point, they're still working with us, but

slowly.  I appreciate your help.  Right now, it looks like your prodding

has helped.”

The Leasing Company states the applicant has not provided a current audited financial statement, which is holding up the process.

#4   In August, a company in Arizona was approved for a $45,500

Kenworth Truck & Boom.  The lease was signed September 10^th

with a commitment fee for $4,859.99.  October 6, the company

contacted Leasing News because the lease was never funded,

and the leasing company said they sent the check on September

21^st, but they never received it.

They found Leasing News because they did a web search and found

the company on the Complaint Bulletin Board.  They faxed us

all copies of documents they signed, plus e-mail that the company

had sent the check, the latest on September 27. 

After hearing from Leasing News that another complaint would

be posted if the check were not sent, they said they would

cancel the first check and issue a new one. Today we received an

e-mail from the lessee that included a copy of an airborne express number so they could track the return of their check.