|
|
Weekly
Bulletin Board Complaint Report---Five Christopher Menkin, editor SC
Superbroker SC Superbroker, Southern California Town, California These three or four complaints ( one is really an
“alert” ) are listed chronologically
as received by Leasing News. Much
time was spent in talking to all the parties involved; many telephone
calls, e-mail, re-verification, in an attempt to be both “accurate and
fair.” After
review with our legal counsel, Ken Greene, we determined not to use names
at this time, and as you read, you may understand our position on this. Mr.
Greene told us he was prepared to defend whatever we printed, as we
were presented
facts to the best of our knowledge, but we would rather “err” on the
side of keeping a company in business, especially when we feel we have
“reasonable doubt.” The first comes from Applicant 1 at *******. June
18,2003 “After
doing some research for help I had come across Leasing News. “Our
request for equipment funding had been placed with SC Superbroker through
another company. We had signed
a proposal with SC Superbroker and sent in an advance payment of $2,230.00
to SC Superbroker. “We
had additional requests from SC Superbroker for financial docs. We had sent those to them. Over time SC Superbroker
did not finalize any lease so we were able to obtain financing from
our bank. After this SC Superbroker
called said the lease was finalized, I told them we had it done through
our bank. We never received or
signed any loan/lease docs. “We
feel we should received a refund for the advance payment. “SC
Superbroker is not returning our phone calls or taking our phone calls
and as
of yesterday the receptionist said they could not locate dour file. “I
have been dealing with ********(sic) and Superbroker Ops Person. “This
has been going on for several months...” He
said he was dealing with Broker 1, *********, who
brought him to SC Superbroker. And the last he had heard from
Mr. Broker 1, he was approved at a different rate with three
payments up front. Leasing
News contacted Broker 1, Broker
1 Leasing, State, who confirmed
the story and was told three times by Superbroker Ops Person at SC
Superbroker, that the money would be returned.
Superbroker Ops Person was
listed in the SC Superbroker Voice Mail Box listing, and it referred us
to another telephone number. Superbroker Ops Person said he no longer
worked for
SC Superbroker and *******( the
owner) had promised he
would return the deposit to Applicant 1 when he was associated with
SC Superbroker.. Mr.
*******said it was not true, Superbroker Ops Person did not work there,
even though
his name was on the voice mail box directory, that he had
done that as a favor to Superbroker Ops Person to list his telephone
number. He
said he never told anyone he would send the money back as he had signed a “proposal” letter, and had approved
the lease. Applicant 1 said he had never received any lease
papers form SC Superbroker, and referred me to the original vendor. The vendor said he had had many conversations
with SC Superbroker, but they never produced a lease contract, and
were also talking about changing the terms and conditions. During
the course of the conversation, I believe he said that Applicant 1 had
gone elsewhere for the equipment. *******said
he would never deal with the broker again, and had raised his
minimum acceptance to $50,000, as he did not want to deal in the small
ticket market due to all the time his company spent on this transaction
for *******. He was adamant that
since the applicant had
backed out of an approval as per the proposal was not entitled to
the return of the money. We
asked *******for a comment, and he responded by e-mail: “There
are numerous lies and mistakes in the fore mention article. Kit remember
I have all the paper work for this and you will be held liable.” ******* While
it appeared there were three others who said they were aware of a
lease, according to the proposal, not being approved, this basically becomes
a “he said, “ “they said,” and in the many talks with the broker, vendor,
and other leasing company, it sounded suspicious, or that there was
more to the story that was not being told. The applicant was furious. In reality, if it were not for the next two
complaints against the
same “super broker,” we would not have spent so much time trying to
prove the complaint’s argument. We
would like to follow the American
Way, “ a person is innocent until proven guilty.” July
29, we received the following: VENDORS
& BROKERS BEWARE. A CA. COMPANY CALLED SC SUPERBROKER CORP.TEL;***********
BASED IN**************** IS TAKING UPFRONT PAYMENTS FROM UNSUSPECTING
CUSTOMERS FOR LOANS OR LEASE'S THEY WILL NOT FUND.WE KNOW OF TWO CASES.
THEY KEPT THE UP FRONT PAYMENTS AND REFUSED TO REFUND OR RETURN PHONE
CALLS. APPLICANT
2*********** APPLICANT
3 ********** . I
HAVE THEIR PERMISSION TO USE THEIR NAMES. IF
THROUGH YOUR PUBLICATION YOU CAN HELP,IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED THANK
YOU,BROKER 2 Phone
= ***** Fax = ******* *****@******** THANK
YOU FOR CALLING.I AM A BROKER WITH ******** IN ******. I REFERRED BOTH
DEALS TO SC SUPERBROKER ON THE PROMISED UNDERSTANDING THEY WOULD BE
GIVEN A FAIR RATE OR THEIR MONEY WOULD BE RETURNED.IN BOTH CASES THEY
WERE PRESENTED WITH FAR HIGHER RATES THAN ORIGINALLY QUOTED.THEY ALSO
PROMISED MR. APPLICANT 2A REFUND FOR THE PAST MANY MONTHS. YOU
CAN CONFIRM MY STORY WITH THE CUSTOMERS. *******
WITH ***** BROKERAGE IN ****** WHO EVENTUALLY FUNDED MR APPLICANT 2WILL
ALSO CONFIRM. HE TRIED TO INTERVENE TO GET MR. APPLICANT 2HIS MONEY
WITHOUT SUCCESS.TEL********* AGAIN
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN TRYING TO GET SOME FAIRNESS FOR SOME
HONEST HARD WORKING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. BROKER
2 Applicant
2 provided by fax a copy of the
“proposal” dated January 15,2003 and later a copy of a check for $2,558. He said he had lost a hauling contract due to
all the
time involved, had actually visited SC Superbroker’s office as he was
also located
in California, and was promised on several occasions by people in the
SC Superbroker office his money would be returned. He said he keep calling,
but they would not return his telephone calls. On
the Applicant 2 Applicant 2complaint, the proposal had a 60 month lease factor of .0256634 and a penciled note
of a 48 month payment with a lease factor of .0396446 ( if the truck
cost remained the same.) It was not initialed. *******said
he approved the lease, but Broker 2 took the lease elsewhere, and
referred to a paragraph in his proposal: “If
SC SUPERBROKER does not approve this application, the deposit will be
refunded interest, less the cost of the credit verification, documentation,
appraisal costs, legal and underwriting fees, and all out of pocket
expenses that occur in the process of approving the applicant, etc. The applicant hereby authorizes SC SUPERBROKER to expend these funds
in the approval process.” In
a telephone conversation, *******threated to sue Leasing News if we
printed this
complaint. We spoke to Mr. Applicant
2 again, then sent an e-mail to ******: “I
will recommend to the other to bring the issue to small claims court, then
when he files it will all be public information as it appears you will
not refund
his deposit either.” “I
don't understand what your saying here. Applicant 2’s check is already on
the way to him.” August
5th Mr. Applicant 2received a check for $2,000, not his $2,558
deposit. We
assumed SC Superbroker kept $558 as per their paragraph about credit,
documentation, and other costs. Mr. Applicant 2said he did not agreed
to that, had lost a hauling contract, had called many times for eight
months, and
was still angry in the length of time and response and wanted Leasing
News to
post the complaint. Leasing
News spoke to Broker 2 about the length of time between the
Applicant 2lease and the next complaint, and he said during this time he
had funded other leases with SC Superbroker, that ******** and
Superbroker Ops Person had said they would return Applicant 2’s check,
and that
Mr. Applicant 2actually visited the SC Superbroker office and was
told he would get his check back ( He said, the entire $2,558, as
that was what the dollar amount on the check.) We
felt the super broker made a gesture by returning a good portion of the
money, and there was nothing in the contract regarding a time limit. Applicant
2 had the truck, and at a lower cost than the Super Broker had originally
offered, and under the advisement
of Ken Greene, we’ll leave
it at that for the time being. The
third complaint is from Applicant 3 of ***** LCC, *******, On
the Gulf of Mexico in the United States. for six barges dated June 21,2003. It concerns a $1,000 deposit. During the course of the many conversations
and e-mail, Leasing News suggested to settle the matter for $500, but
***** refused, again referring to the paragraph in
his proposal. The
proposal was for six barges at a total dollar amount of $115,800 with a
ten percent ( $11,580) purchase option at a .0221588 lease factor for
sixty months. SC Superbroker
presented to Applicant 3 a lease from The Funder in ********, California
for three barges at $50,000+ with a 60 month lease factor of $025560 and
purchase option “Market Value” (est. market value $40,000 + for 3 barges.” E-mail
from *****: “He
Agreed to the new rates... the terms aren't in question. He called us
to get those rates and have another set of documents prepared. And we did...
the last time I spoke to Broker 2 he said he understood and agreed
with our decision due to the fact that we reopened and did this deal
4 times for the client and that the client agreed with the new terms. The new docs were for the FULL AMOUNT REQUESTED.
Please get copy
of last set of docs from client. As
for the rate increase, the client
stated that he agreed to new terms and only issue was to get the 6
barges done... WE DID IT!!! WE were the only one to issue an approval to
him. NO ONE ELSE wanted to help
him. Do you have any idea how many hours
we've invested into this transaction. WE opened and closed it 4 times
and doc'd it at least twice. After the last time he asked us to make
doc's, we asked him if he was sure he wanted to go through with the deal
and he stated everything was fine. He NEVER returned the doc's and that's
why the deal never got finished. We've
done everything we said we
would do and MORE!!!!” From
Mr. Applicant 3: “Broker
2 was the broker. “I
did not sign the lease with The Funder because it was not what I agreed
to on the SC Superbroker agreement.
The Agreement I agreed to was for
6 barges with the total cost per barge being $27,590. The Funder lease
was only for three barges with the total price per barge being $43,653.40.
I am not going to pay $43,653. per barge. “I
did not wait all this time to make a complaint. I have been complaining
to Broker
2 since Sept. of 2002. I made numerous attempts to get my deposit back
from Broker 2 and SC Superbroker . They both promised me my money several
times over the last year. SC Superbroker
told me my check was in the
mail 3 times. SC Superbroker deliberately
tried to sneak a contract by me
that I did not agree to hoping I would not notice. I'm sure you've heard of
bait and switch. That’s all they are doing.” *******again
said he spent a lot of time on this, and to the offer of
a settlement of $500, he said “no way.” Applicant
3 did confirm: “They
did make other verbal offers to me. I declined them all cause none came
even
close to the original. The only thing I agreed to was the document I
sent
to you that I signed. The only contract I even saw was the The Funder contract
I sent to you that I did not sign or agree to. As
far as his comment about No One Else wanted to help me....I told them
from
the start I was not in desperate need for this lease and terms was a
major
factor. I have owned these barges since they were built. I also own
the
company who built them. They are worth $26,000 each. They only cost
me $19,300
each. Why would I agree to pay $40,000 each? Feel free to check my credit
and you will see I don't need any help from SC Superbroker . I own four
different companies and make a good living (without having to rip people
off).” ******’s
reaction: “If
this is true he lied to us and would of committed fraud. He NEVER told
us he owned the company that manufactured the barges. He said be purchased
them from a 3rd party. There's
nothing to settle. We haven't heard from Mr. Applicant 3 is over a year. He's never even asked for his money back. We
told him the last time
we did doc's that there's no refund for him. This has been perpetrated
by Broker 2. He's using you to
try to cause us trouble. We
no longer accept his business. He
obviously knew that Mr. Applicant 3 was the
manufacture of the equipment and tried to deceive everyone. “ From
Broker 2: “Sounds
like *******will not or can not pay these folks
back. Applicant 3 is right, both of us were promised on
numerous occasions as was Mr. Applicant 2the "the check was
in the mail". My fear is
there are others out there.
“We
told Superbroker Ops Person from the outset the barges were manufactured
by Mr. Applicant 3's other company. He then requested
and received taxes from that Corporation. Mr.
Applicant 2is a sad case in that we were all misled up until
the end. Because of the ongoing delays, he lost his
haul contract for the new trailer but has since found
new work for it.” Leasing
News again tried for a settlement of $500.
Mr. SC
Superbroker said “no” again. “You
are so wrong!!! All other proposals I've seen from other finance companies
that outline (as you call it) have the credit process fees range
from $1,750- $2,500. I only have
$1,000 and I've approved the deal
and have doc'd it twice. I've
showed you all the reasons why were right
but you won't listen to them. He
signed the proposal saying we can
change the terms. He signed the proposal saying he will pay for underwriting
cost and time. He signed the
proposal saying that ALL deposit
become the property of SC SUPERBROKER once an approval is given either
Verbally or in Written!!!! What else do you need.
You should run this past
your superiors before printing this” Since
The Funder was involved, we contacted The Funder of
the company, who said he was quite aware of
Applicant 3, and
requested we wait to see if he could make a settlement with SC Superbroker SC
Superbroker on another matter, and if he could not, would give us a
statement to
utilize as an “alert” on Leasing News. In
the meantime, we advised Broker 2 to join the National Association of
Equipment Leasing Brokers for the “fellowship, education, and for funder
comfort level.” August
13, he responded: “I am new member. Thanks for the push.” It
is most likely the case that the Super Broker spent more than $1,000
in cost and
time on this; the lessee is quite wealthy; he also was the manufacturer of
the equipment and whether explained or not in the deal, he was quite well
off, and to pursue the matter of $1,000, especially to be sued over this,
Ken Greene said was not a good business decision on our part. At
first, the Funder wanted to make a comment, but after reviewing the
matter with
its leasing counsel: “We
wrote our piece with the intention of protecting our reputation and
clearing our name rather than going on the offensive... We agree with
you and Ken Greene that there is a significant amount of hearsay in
these stories.” The
Funder’s “alert” with names removed:: “
(We) booked a lease from SC Superbroker in ***** of last year and the
lessee became very upset that SC Superbroker wouldn’t return a separate
commitment fee for an additional financing request that didn’t get done
(this second transaction was not reviewed by us.). “After
a lot of discussion we acted in good faith and took the unusual step
of fronting the refund of this $10k plus commitment fee to the lessee
ourselves. We did this to keep a good relationship with the lessee.
“We have yet to be repaid in full from SC Superbroker.
We have heard from several sources that SC Superbroker is using The
Funder credit policy changes as an excuse for not returning commitment
fees, these claims are entirely untrue.
To have someone say bad things about us when we have gone the
extra mile to correct bad a situation with a lessee is completely unacceptable
to us. The SC superbroker should not point to us
if they are withholding money that an applicant rightly deserves.” Coda: Here were three complaints and an “alert.”
If Leasing News receives more
complaints about “Advance Rentals” being held by this company, we may
inform readers about the name of the SC superbroker and his company
as it will show a pattern. In
the meantime, we wish the company the best and hope it walks the narrow
path. Fourth
Complaint: “These
guys marketed us hard to do our turn downs.
It appears that they were using a NAELB (National Association
of Equipment Leasing Broker) list. “They
received commitment Fees on three of my lessee and promised to send
out docs and after two weeks, nothing. They rarely answer the phone
or talk to your now. They
say they are sending the docs, but that was over two weeks ago.” (
Name With Held ) Leasing
News has not received any complaints about this company at this time. In
their “Lease Proposal” letter it states, “Should the proposed Lessee
not honor any approval, with terms listed on commitment with 60 days
of the date of the approval then the Proposal Deposit becomes non refundable
and goes to the account of ************* or its assignee as liquidated
damages.” Since
the document was accepted on July 27, 2003, the company has until September
29th, Monday, as the paragraph continues, “ Should our credit
department decline the proposal,
the entire amount of the Commitment Deposit should be refunded to the
Lessee with 72 hours.” This
goes back to the NAELB “philosophy”
of asking the Bonanno Question: “Is
the funder/super broker a member of NAELB?”
The gist being if they are
not, you are basically on your own. Ironically,
the present NAELB legal counsel Barry S. Marks covers this exact subject
of commitment letters and time period in his book: “Power
Tools for Successful Leasing” The
acclaimed book adopted for Equipment Leasing Association workshops,
and on the recommended reading list for CLP and CAUCUS certification
programs, as well as Leasing News book recommendation. Technology
Leasing: Power Tools for Lessees--(c) 2002, the unique lessee focused
book on the recommended reading list for CAUCUS certification. Both
titles are available through year-end at the reduced price of $59.95
each, with shipping and handling waived. Orders
may be placed by phone (815.753.1116), secure fax (630.365.5602) or
email (phdleasing@fastmail.fm) In
addition, over 70 leasing web sites and a dozen leasing articles are
available for complimentary download at www.leasingpress.com
James
M. Johnson, Ph.D. Barry
S. Marks, Esq. This
perhaps would have saved the broker a lot of time, his customer, his
vendor, his
frustration, and for $59.95 ( ask them to waive the shipping and handling and
I bet they will, especially for an NAELB member ,) this is money very well
spent. The book is not only for
the sales department, but is recommended reading
for all those employed in the leasing industry. |
|
