Complaint Bulletin Board Weekly Report

The purpose of the Bulletin Board is to post legitimate complaints. Often Leasing

News acts as an ombudsman, a third party that helps negotiate a settlement. When

it is resolved, it no longer is a complaint and is not posted.

Readers have not been seeing many postings, as many of the complaints get

“resolved.”

(These “cases” have been altered to hide the identity of the people involved.)

Last week we were successful in returning a $2,400 advance rental to an applicant

who did not receive an approval on a lease he had signed a commitment. While

it was not requested, the check was sent back next day Federal Express.

A printer claimed a $862 deposit was not returned to him from a commitment letter signed in November. The complaint was made in March, and took this

time to contact all the parties, re-interview the lessee, the salesman who had

left the original company, the company, the vendor, the lessee, and another

leasing company. What makes this a real comedy of errors is the applicant

not only could not prove his case, but the vendor of the equipment admitted

to receiving a second approval, but by this time, the lessee had found a third

party, who consummated the lease, and the vendor delivered, but the equipment

did not work as promised, so it was returned. And the original applicant

wanted his money back from the first broker, who he had signed a commitment

letter. We decided this was a “civil issue” at best. The broker appeared to

be in the right with his commitment letter.

Two separate brokers were involved in submitting a million dollar lease to a company who is not a member of any leasing association, has no website, or any

means to indicate they could consummated a million lease. After two months,

the applicant wanted an answer, then the so called funder produced a letter

that the applicant had no complaint, then the applicant said it wasn’t partially

true. We advised the applicant there was a two part situation: one, getting the deposit back; two, getting the lease approved. Perhaps the two should not

be mixed. The commitment letter also had an out for keeping a fee, plus it appeared both brokers belonged to the National Association of Equipment Brokers(NAELB). We suggested that the brokers seek legal advice from their association, if this could not be resolved. The applicant did not want to make a formal complaint to Leasing News, at this time.

A broker/lessor made two separate complaints about two commissions from two separate funders. The funders had a different story than the broker/lessor, which

appeared to have merit. Since all parties belonged to the United Association

of Equipment Leasing(UAEL), it was suggested that the UAEL Standards

and Ethics Committee make a judgment on the matter, as a committee of

their peers might be able to sift out who was right and who was wrong.

Part of the issue also centered around “ethics” and this venue would

be less expensive and would understand the complexities of the

transactions. The funder was in accordance with this procedure. We are not aware

of the status of the original complaint, except it was not clear enough

to print on the Leasing News Bulletin Board.

A $1800 deposit for a limousine was held by a company, which started out

as a lease and became a finance through CIT. The applicant could not

pay the up-front sales tax or money “down,” and asked to have its

deposit returned. The “broker” allegedly hired an attorney. In

discussing the matter for over a month, it was learned the attorney

was a golfing buddy of the broker, and after persuasion, the broker

agreed to refund the deposit in three monthly installments. The attorney

now wants the original applicant to sign a settlement agreement not to

discuss the matter or fly a “class action case” and the three page agreement

is a condition to obtain the original deposit back in three equal installments

(the broker was not licensed in California for automobile or equipment

leases, and this, including having the funder testify before the department

of corporations, was instrumental in the attorney recommending

the deposit be returned ( the commitment letter was explicit

to terms and conditions which were not met, by the way. )

The lease had ended, but the lessee said the purchase option was a $1.00.

The actual contract had “fair market value” on its face. The original cover

letter sent by the lessor had “fair market value” in the description of

the proposal. The price for the equipment was a “wholesale,” or

“low value” amount, and the lessor had offered terms. The lessee

was advised to see if the lessor would take a “cash price” today,

lower than the offer, and if not, to take the terms as he would

have a tough time proving that it was a $1.00 purchase option

based on the papers that he submitted. He was advised the

attorney fees would undoubtedly be more than the “fair market

value” purchase option. We did not contact the lessor.

(This e-mail was received ( it has been altered to disguise the identity)

We had competition from a broker, who told our client to visit your website, Leasing News, and was told to read the complaint board. I lost a deal called *****************. I am personally trying to do damage control on the second deal from the same broker. Obviously, this is hampering my business especially since those complaints were long ago at my previous company. With this tough economy and the cut throat industry we are in, its hard enough to just get by. Now I have a competitor that is using your website as a sales tool. Do you still

have to post the complaint?

(The question is how long should we post the complaint:One year, two years, three years, five years? We will reach a five-year point. There are people on the list who have repeated their pattern. Don’t have an answer to the question, but

if you have an opinion, would like to hear from you—perferably “on the record.” editor.)