Weekly Bulletin Board Complaint

#1—

This company is well-known to Leasing News and readers, and let us just say they are located in California, and if we gave a closer geography, most would guess who it is.

“I faxed both checks last week, but I will send again the check #5559 for $15,380, which cleared, representing "first and last"

“With respect to the "bounced check" I provided you yesterday: 1)copy of the returned check #5560 for $72,775. (front and back) and 2) a statement from the customer's bank (*****) as to why they are returning the check to him. See "REASON FOR NON PAYMENT" - STOP PAYMENT and the $$ amount which matches the check...

***** does not dispute putting a stop payment on the check.

“The docs were standard for a $1. out 60 month term. First and last were paid up front as well as a 25 % security deposit which was to be placed in a CD with interest paid to the customer. There were no other "side agreements" or representations , in fact there was really no communication between ***** and the customer until recently. Since I was the one in the role of "broker" working with what I thought was a reputable funding source; I have been spending an inordinate amount of time just trying to get someone to respond - without much success - to get the customers $$ back so he can go on running his business.

“There really has not been anything on ****** part disputing anything, other than "we cant give you the money right now" or "we should have it for you in three weeks". There have been so many promises as to when docs would go out to when they will be able to fund and all just "go by the wayside". Professionally speaking - its been a real setback.

“...They didn't fund the deal on a timely basis, and we are just trying to get the deposit returned. The customer did not agree to loan ***** money for two months...”

Leasing News has a copy of the “non-sufficient funds” for the $72,775.00 check, which money is to be wired today ( Thursday) to the customer. If not, we will print the complaint in Leasing News.

#2---It is difficult to name names again, as the several complaints we are presently working on involve three other leasing companies posted on our Complaint Bulletin Board. The complaints resolve around the same issue: not returning “advance rentals.” We are at a point that we have been instrumental in returning over $800,000 in money kept by leasing brokers.

Our failures are posted in the Complaint Bulletin Board. Two of the current complaints are the fifth for one already listed, and one is the fourth for one that already has two complaints posted.

The Better Business Bureau has given them an “F,” and if a search is done on Goggle or Yahoo, our complaint comes up number one.

These companies continue their practice ( both are located in Southern California.) Leasing News has lost our ability to negotiate the return of the money as they are already “on line.” Putting them a third time and gong through the excuses. Unfortunately, the people who made the complaint are located out of California so that leaves the cost of legal pursuit a poor business decision, evidently.

The people who have the new complaints did find us from their browser search, unfortunately after they realized their money was not going to be returned.

“Thank you very much for your reply, “ one wrote us.” I will be out of the office until Friday and will forward the information to you then. I don't understand how a company could continually get away with illicit activities such as these without any government intervention. I really appreciate any help you could provide.”

From a reader:

“The two sales reps from ******* Leasing (****** and *****) and the former partner of ******** opened a leasing company in ***** *****, CA called ******. " Interesting how you broke this ******* Leasing story.. Please do not post this... If you investigate, this could get even more interesting. Keep up the good work.”

The other complaint is for a company located in the Northwest.

A broker who “pulled” the same routine on “used equipment.”

This time it was for an oil driller in South America, and the complainant says he has lost the contract.

The fourth again is for a “leasing company” in Florida, doing the “same old, same old,” in our opinion they have been doing for thirty years.

None of these companies mentioned above belong to a leasing association.

#3

We have looked into several claims regarding residuals on non-recourse leases assigned to Colonial Pacific Leasing, who eventually became a part of GE Capital. They appeared to be disputes, especially on early terminations.

This has also occurred to a Tilden Financial Group assignment of a $178,000 lease, which was eventually transferred to Colonial Pacific in Oregon and then again to the old LeaseAmerica group in Des Moines, IA.

When the lease expired, the original discounter of the lease went to the customer and was informed that they had purchased the lease and had documents showing that GE Capital “would pay-off the lease and convey title from the security deposit proceeds,” which they held, more than sufficient to pay off the lease.

This transaction is in dispute with counsels positioning themselves, including threats of a “class action suit,” believing there are others in the same “boat.” According to the original complaint, “GE has refused to pay and only offers a substantially lower nuisance-value settlement.”

GE does not comment on pending litigation or such suits, and the person who submitted this to Leasing News has asked us to not name names or print documents provided to us as they are hoping for a better settlement on the matter than proceeding with litigation. They are interested in learning if others have had a similar experience.