Weekly Bulletin Board Complaints

1. This is interesting, but will leave out some details that may give the identity of the leasing company who has allegedly not returned $2293.86 for a lease that did not go through.

The event took place February 5,2003, and the last correspondence was on June 25,2003,when the applicant gave up.

He was told about us by a vendor who was trying to get him to lease a piece of equipment. He said the equipment was more than he could afford, that he was particularly not interested in leasing. He explained his poor experience, and at the end of the conversation, the vendor suggested contacting us. After receiving his documents, we made a presentation and the next day the leasing company said he would refund the deposit, less a fee.

At least communication, the fee was down to $125 and the applicant was willing to settle for that, not half of his claim, which was the first offer. We also assured him that his experience was with one of the 2% as most would return any fees if the lease did not go through. He said he would give it one more try.

2. The complainant stated to the leasing company they wanted their deposit back or the lease to fund. They were tired of waiting. They sent documents, including telling us they had gone through three “site inspections.” Again
repeating, either fund the lease or return our deposit.

After several inquiries, including an e-mail with the funder, there appeared to be some question as to the equipment, and why an employee of the vendor appeared during the site inspection to claim he was an employee of the lessee. In reality, the lease was funded after the second site inspection, but the leasing company run by a “CLP,” decided to look further ( the third site inspection he did himself) and afterwards asked the funding source to re-wind the funding and he returned the full funding amount. He told Leasing News, when this procedure was complete, he would be returning the full lessee deposit check, holding back nothing, as he felt lucky that he was not being put in a position to buy-back this deal in the near future. He didn't want any part of the advance rentals or any conflict, and basically wanted to try and forget all about it, feeling he was lucky to be able to walk away from a situation that he thought he would be buying back in the near future.

We did not explain the situation with the applicant, as they stated they would be satisfied if the deposit were returned and they would obtain a loan from their bank.

3. We have received several complaints about a specific
leasing company whose “telemarketers” call lessees from a list of UCC filings and “pretend” to be the “funder” of the transaction or “backer” of the leasing company who filed the UCC.
This is a very old technique, including finding names of companies and the signer on UCC's and contacting them by mail or by telephone. The leasing company said it came from a new “salesmen” and they would speak to him about this “misrepresentation.”

We told the leasing company that if we were to receive more complaints, we would print their name as perhaps this may not have been a “solo” event, but a sales technique they have been employing for a long time.