I had filed for a loan to purchase a limousine I was approved for the loan Once I was approved I completed an inspection of the vehicle and through research found the vehicle to be not as advertised When I was initially approved I was told to pay a 20% deposit for security Which I did, $ When I did not complete the loan they agreed to refund $and to keep the rest as I look for another limo Well, I found another limo was approved for funding and again found the vehicle to be in poor condition I have asked for my remaining $to be returned, but they state that when loans are not completed they do not refund money They state it has to be reviewed for days but will most likely not return my money I believe it would be reasonable for them to take an amount of money for their work, but not $ That seems unreasonable that they would not return that much money
Kristan *** has been doing a fabulous job working with our Small Veteran Owned Business - Historic John PFurber Farm - Weddings and EventsWe successfully paid off our working capital loan and now have a 150KW generator on lease being delivered next weekMore working capital is great as we grow and improve our businessThank you very much JD over at Buses and More (busesandmore dot com) for directing us to you! We now have a lifetime of opportunities togetherThanks to a great team at Innovative Lease Services!
The customer actually completed a financing contact with us in September of 2011 for a Bus so this is a repeat customer for ILS. We looked at a financing for them in 2013 and...
pre-qualified them for approval.
This Financing request actually started in August of 2014. The customer was looking for a Cash-Out financing by using titled vehicles he owned as collateral for the lease. ILS collected credit and collateral information and, after a credit and asset review, issued the customer a proposal for financing. This proposal (attached) included language identifying the additional collateral. The proposal clearly indicated that the collateral for the financing must be clear title. Customer signed the proposal and ILS drafted the proposal fee.
This was sub-prime credit where there was no chance of approval without the additional collateral. The collateral was the majority of the basis for the proposal and subsequent approval.
ILS then completed appraisals of the assets and prepared the documentation package for delivery to the customer. It is important to note that at this point ILS has incurred the majority of our costs in completing the transaction. As part of the package ILS requested copies of the titles from the customer. It was at this time the customer changed the story, indicating that the assets were not clear title, were in fact pledged to another finance company, and thus they could not be used to secure the note (this is a clear misrepresentation of the collateral).
2nd Approval
However, in an attempt to accommodate the customer, ILS sought to find an alternative approval, and thus could apply is proposal fees and recoup our expenses. To this end, ILS received pictures and condition reports on 2 additional vehicles the customer indicated he had "paid cash" for and owned. However, the customer could not provide any proof of purchase for these vehicles and thus since ILS could not prove the customer owned the vehicles they could not be used as collateral.
3rd Approval
ILS then processed a 3rd vehicle where the value provided for a $10k lease to the customer. The customer declined this financing.
So, ILS has earned the original proposal fee as outlined in the attached agreement. In fact, ILS has done 3 times the work on this transaciton that it normally would, all in an attempt to appease a customer that, really, misrepresented the assets to us. To be clear, ILS would never have provided a proposal to the customer based upon their credit. The proposal was structured based upon a reliance upon the value of the assets being pledged, assets that were not the customers to pledge in the first place. ILS expended significant time and resources in getting the customer approved based upon this mis-representation.
As for not responding to the customer, that is just not true Attached you can see just one of the email strings. This does not take into account the dozens of phone calls, other emails, etc.
The customer actually completed a financing contact with us in September of 2011 for a Bus so this is a repeat customer for ILS. We looked at a financing for them in 2013 and pre-qualified them for approval. This Financing request actually started in August of 2014. The...
customer was looking for a Cash-Out financing by using titled vehicles he owned as collateral for the lease. ILS collected credit and collateral information and, after a credit and asset review, issued the customer a proposal for financing. This proposal (attached) included language identifying the additional collateral. The proposal clearly indicated that the collateral for the financing must be clear title. Customer signed the proposal and ILS drafted the proposal fee. This was sub-prime credit where there was no chance of approval without the additional collateral. The collateral was the majority of the basis for the proposal and subsequent approval. ILS then completed appraisals of the assets and prepared the documentation package for delivery to the customer. It is important to note that at this point ILS has incurred the majority of our costs in completing the transaction. As part of the package ILS requested copies of the titles from the customer. It was at this time the customer changed the story, indicating that the assets were not clear title, were in fact pledged to another finance company, and thus they could not be used to secure the note (this is a clear misrepresentation of the collateral). 2nd ApprovalHowever, in an attempt to accommodate the customer, ILS sought to find an alternative approval, and thus could apply is proposal fees and recoup our expenses. To this end, ILS received pictures and condition reports on 2 additional vehicles the customer indicated he had "paid cash" for and owned. However, the customer could not provide any proof of purchase for these vehicles and thus since ILS could not prove the customer owned the vehicles they could not be used as collateral. 3rd ApprovalILS then processed a 3rd vehicle where the value provided for a $10k lease to the customer. The customer declined this financing. So, ILS has earned the original proposal fee as outlined in the attached agreement. In fact, ILS has done 3 times the work on this transaciton that it normally would, all in an attempt to appease a customer that, really, misrepresented the assets to us. To be clear, ILS would never have provided a proposal to the customer based upon their credit. The proposal was structured based upon a reliance upon the value of the assets being pledged, assets that were not the customers to pledge in the first place. ILS expended significant time and resources in getting the customer approved based upon this mis-representation. As for not responding to the customer, that is just not true Attached you can see just one of the email strings. This does not take into account the dozens of phone calls, other emails, etc.
The applicant applied with us for financing a limousine. We reviewed the credit package and provided the customer with a proposal contract which he executed. This was a very tough credit applicant that required a lot of hands on work to get approved. Thus, the...
executed contract allows for us to retain the monies collected in the case the customer does not complete a transaction. Of course, if we are unable to complete it for any reason the monies are refunded in full. The customer was approve in accordance with the proposal agreement. The customer subsequently selected two separate vehicles which we ran through the Vendor and Asset approval process as well as created two separate documentation packages. This is again a labor intensive process. As the customer ultimately did not complete the financing with us, at his direction. We refunded to the customer all monies collected less the administration and documentation fees.
The applicant applied with us for financing a limousine. We reviewed the credit package and provided the customer with a proposal contract which he executed. This was a very tough credit applicant that required a lot of hands on work to get approved. Thus, the executed...
contract allows for us to retain the monies collected in the case the customer does not complete a transaction. Of course, if we are unable to complete it for any reason the monies are refunded in full. The customer was approve in accordance with the proposal agreement. The customer subsequently selected two separate vehicles which we ran through the Vendor and Asset approval process as well as created two separate documentation packages. This is again a labor intensive process. As the customer ultimately did not complete the financing with us, at his direction. We refunded to the customer all monies collected less the administration and documentation fees.
Quick and easy to work with! Innovative leasing helped me take my business to the next level. They were honest and straight forward with all my terms and options. They pretty much did all the hard work for me! Thumbs up!
I had filed for a loan to purchase a limousine I was approved for the loan Once I was approved I completed an inspection of the vehicle and through research found the vehicle to be not as advertised When I was initially approved I was told to pay a 20% deposit for security Which I did, $ When I did not complete the loan they agreed to refund $and to keep the rest as I look for another limo Well, I found another limo was approved for funding and again found the vehicle to be in poor condition I have asked for my remaining $to be returned, but they state that when loans are not completed they do not refund money They state it has to be reviewed for days but will most likely not return my money I believe it would be reasonable for them to take an amount of money for their work, but not $ That seems unreasonable that they would not return that much money
Kristan *** has been doing a fabulous job working with our Small Veteran Owned Business - Historic John PFurber Farm - Weddings and EventsWe successfully paid off our working capital loan and now have a 150KW generator on lease being delivered next weekMore working capital is great as we grow and improve our businessThank you very much JD over at Buses and More (busesandmore dot com) for directing us to you! We now have a lifetime of opportunities togetherThanks to a great team at Innovative Lease Services!
The customer actually completed a financing contact with us in September of 2011 for a Bus so this is a repeat customer for ILS. We looked at a financing for them in 2013 and...
pre-qualified them for approval.
This Financing request actually started in August of 2014. The customer was looking for a Cash-Out financing by using titled vehicles he owned as collateral for the lease. ILS collected credit and collateral information and, after a credit and asset review, issued the customer a proposal for financing. This proposal (attached) included language identifying the additional collateral. The proposal clearly indicated that the collateral for the financing must be clear title. Customer signed the proposal and ILS drafted the proposal fee.
This was sub-prime credit where there was no chance of approval without the additional collateral. The collateral was the majority of the basis for the proposal and subsequent approval.
ILS then completed appraisals of the assets and prepared the documentation package for delivery to the customer. It is important to note that at this point ILS has incurred the majority of our costs in completing the transaction. As part of the package ILS requested copies of the titles from the customer. It was at this time the customer changed the story, indicating that the assets were not clear title, were in fact pledged to another finance company, and thus they could not be used to secure the note (this is a clear misrepresentation of the collateral).
2nd Approval
However, in an attempt to accommodate the customer, ILS sought to find an alternative approval, and thus could apply is proposal fees and recoup our expenses. To this end, ILS received pictures and condition reports on 2 additional vehicles the customer indicated he had "paid cash" for and owned. However, the customer could not provide any proof of purchase for these vehicles and thus since ILS could not prove the customer owned the vehicles they could not be used as collateral.
3rd Approval
ILS then processed a 3rd vehicle where the value provided for a $10k lease to the customer. The customer declined this financing.
So, ILS has earned the original proposal fee as outlined in the attached agreement. In fact, ILS has done 3 times the work on this transaciton that it normally would, all in an attempt to appease a customer that, really, misrepresented the assets to us. To be clear, ILS would never have provided a proposal to the customer based upon their credit. The proposal was structured based upon a reliance upon the value of the assets being pledged, assets that were not the customers to pledge in the first place. ILS expended significant time and resources in getting the customer approved based upon this mis-representation.
As for not responding to the customer, that is just not true Attached you can see just one of the email strings. This does not take into account the dozens of phone calls, other emails, etc.
The customer actually completed a financing contact with us in September of 2011 for a Bus so this is a repeat customer for ILS. We looked at a financing for them in 2013 and pre-qualified them for approval. This Financing request actually started in August of 2014. The...
customer was looking for a Cash-Out financing by using titled vehicles he owned as collateral for the lease. ILS collected credit and collateral information and, after a credit and asset review, issued the customer a proposal for financing. This proposal (attached) included language identifying the additional collateral. The proposal clearly indicated that the collateral for the financing must be clear title. Customer signed the proposal and ILS drafted the proposal fee. This was sub-prime credit where there was no chance of approval without the additional collateral. The collateral was the majority of the basis for the proposal and subsequent approval. ILS then completed appraisals of the assets and prepared the documentation package for delivery to the customer. It is important to note that at this point ILS has incurred the majority of our costs in completing the transaction. As part of the package ILS requested copies of the titles from the customer. It was at this time the customer changed the story, indicating that the assets were not clear title, were in fact pledged to another finance company, and thus they could not be used to secure the note (this is a clear misrepresentation of the collateral). 2nd ApprovalHowever, in an attempt to accommodate the customer, ILS sought to find an alternative approval, and thus could apply is proposal fees and recoup our expenses. To this end, ILS received pictures and condition reports on 2 additional vehicles the customer indicated he had "paid cash" for and owned. However, the customer could not provide any proof of purchase for these vehicles and thus since ILS could not prove the customer owned the vehicles they could not be used as collateral. 3rd ApprovalILS then processed a 3rd vehicle where the value provided for a $10k lease to the customer. The customer declined this financing. So, ILS has earned the original proposal fee as outlined in the attached agreement. In fact, ILS has done 3 times the work on this transaciton that it normally would, all in an attempt to appease a customer that, really, misrepresented the assets to us. To be clear, ILS would never have provided a proposal to the customer based upon their credit. The proposal was structured based upon a reliance upon the value of the assets being pledged, assets that were not the customers to pledge in the first place. ILS expended significant time and resources in getting the customer approved based upon this mis-representation. As for not responding to the customer, that is just not true Attached you can see just one of the email strings. This does not take into account the dozens of phone calls, other emails, etc.
The applicant applied with us for financing a limousine. We reviewed the credit package and provided the customer with a proposal contract which he executed. This was a very tough credit applicant that required a lot of hands on work to get approved. Thus, the...
executed contract allows for us to retain the monies collected in the case the customer does not complete a transaction. Of course, if we are unable to complete it for any reason the monies are refunded in full. The customer was approve in accordance with the proposal agreement. The customer subsequently selected two separate vehicles which we ran through the Vendor and Asset approval process as well as created two separate documentation packages. This is again a labor intensive process. As the customer ultimately did not complete the financing with us, at his direction. We refunded to the customer all monies collected less the administration and documentation fees.
The applicant applied with us for financing a limousine. We reviewed the credit package and provided the customer with a proposal contract which he executed. This was a very tough credit applicant that required a lot of hands on work to get approved. Thus, the executed...
contract allows for us to retain the monies collected in the case the customer does not complete a transaction. Of course, if we are unable to complete it for any reason the monies are refunded in full. The customer was approve in accordance with the proposal agreement. The customer subsequently selected two separate vehicles which we ran through the Vendor and Asset approval process as well as created two separate documentation packages. This is again a labor intensive process. As the customer ultimately did not complete the financing with us, at his direction. We refunded to the customer all monies collected less the administration and documentation fees.
Quick and easy to work with! Innovative leasing helped me take my business to the next level. They were honest and straight forward with all my terms and options. They pretty much did all the hard work for me! Thumbs up!