Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
As noted in our original response, Swift has only placed a soft inquiry on Mr. [redacted]'s Trans Union credit file as part of the process to determine offer eligibility. This process does not impact the credit score and was conducted with consent as noted in our records. Swift did not place a hard inquiry on the Trans Union credit report at any time. Additionally, Swift does not access any credit information from any other consumer reporting agency. Our soft inquiry with Trans Union was conducted in accordance with our product processes and disclosures. I am unsure how best to direct Mr. [redacted] to investigate the inquiries he has mentioned but I can confirm that Swift Capital has not made those inquiries.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I have numerous problems with Swifts rebuttal. First off, Swift claims that this "working capital" is not a loan, but rather a "future receivable advance". However, it depends on who they are talking to. When they speak to [redacted], individually, it is a loan that [redacted] needs to pay back. When they speak to [redacted], as the president of Trailer Movers Inc., then it is an advance that is taken from receivables. They are having their cake and eating it to. If this is classified as a loan, then the interest rates are illegal and the entire balance should be wiped away. If this is classified as a receivable advance, then the agreement is not in default, as Swift has gotten paid 10% of Trailer Movers Inc. receivables since the contract date.
I agree, It is important to detail the events. However, the events detailed should be of the true variety. End of July 2016, we requested Swift to lower the payments as receivables had dropped and could not afford to pay $1066 a day any longer. The reason we contacted them was because we did not have the funds to cover payments. It took Swift 5 days to respond to our request. They only responded when payments started to bounce. Had Swift responded in a timely manner and we got this adjusted back in July/early August back down to 10% of our receivables, payments never would have bounced. It was not shortly after the payments bounced that we contacted Swift, it was PRIOR TO. Further, after payments started bouncing they then did request bank statements. However, as EVERYBODY KNOWS, and is common sense, bank statements show what happened in the PAST. We provided the previous 3 months bank statements, to which they replied, "your receivables did not decrease, so we will not lower payments." At which point they tried to take payments again. Which is stupid, because the previous bank statements showed when they were taking the money, and we WERE making over $10660.00 a day. We told them, we are making a lot less NOW, and in the FUTURE..which cannot be proven by bank statements until AFTER the month is over.
BEFORE the month was over, Swift sent letters to our customers telling them that any receivables owed to Trailer Movers Inc. should be directed towards Swifts behalf. Upon receipt of these letters, that were sent directly to our customers, our customers refused to work with us as it would bring unnecessary liability to them, from Swift if they paid us, and from us if they paid Swift. At that point, we told Swift that we need those letters retracted or our receivables are ZERO$. They refused, but kept attempting to take money from the bank account even though we have not been getting any receivables.
Finally, at the beginning of November we agreed that IF our customers would work with us again, I would pay 10% of our receivables directly to Swift, by way of check once Swift sent the retraction letters. I then did not hear from Swift for nearly A MONTH!!!! Finally, in the middle of December Swift sent ME a letter retracting the previous letters. I immediately sent them to our customers. However, the response was either, we have moved forward with other companies, and have no openings at this time, OR, we need the letter sent certified mail DIRECTLY from Swift. To date, the customers who may have had openings are still waiting for a letter from the company(they say I could have easily typed that letter myself and sent it). My other customers have moved on, and I would need to wait until openings come back for vendors. Possibly after the holidays is what they are telling me.
In closing, if this is a business receivable advance, Swifts delaying tactics of lowering the daily payments caused bounced payments, and then their tactics of sending letters to our customers, PUT ME OUT OF BUSINESS. Possibly temporarily, but Swift has to date(December 27) NOT SENT ANY RETRACTION LETTERS DIRECTLY TO MY CUSTOMERS. If that is the case, Swift will need to wait to receive payments on the remaining balance until I receive work. I am also requesting any excess fees be waived, as had Swift not delayed back in July, then they would still be receiving payments. If Swift would like to call this a loan, and make [redacted] personally responsible for a corporate future receivable sales agreement, then the interest rate is illegally usurious, and the entire balance should be zeroed out.
Swift values each customer relationship and strives to be transparent in all communication with both existing and potential customers. As indicated in Mr. [redacted]’s complaint, he contacted Swift in response to a renewal offer. During our assessment of the business bank account...
statements provided by Mr. [redacted], it was determined that his business did not meet the minimum eligibility criteria for renewal. Mr. [redacted] was advised to seek renewal again if his situation improved. The customer contacted Swift again approximately 30 days later again seeking additional funds. Upon initial review, Mr. [redacted] was advised that his request had been pre-qualified. Pre-qualification is subject to underwriting review and approval. Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted]’s request for additional funding was declined in accordance with guidelines. Mr. [redacted] has highlighted an opportunity to improve both process and communication at Swift. Steps have been taken to enhance quality monitoring to ensure this type of experience is not repeated. Should additional information be needed, I may be contacted directly.Sincerely,[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
As noted in our original response, Swift has only placed a soft inquiry on Mr. [redacted]'s Trans Union credit file as part of the process to determine offer eligibility. This process does not impact the credit score and was conducted with consent as noted in our records. Swift did not place a hard inquiry on the Trans Union credit report at any time. Additionally, Swift does not access any credit information from any other consumer reporting agency. Our soft inquiry with Trans Union was conducted in accordance with our product processes and disclosures. I am unsure how best to direct Mr. [redacted] to investigate the inquiries he has mentioned but I can confirm that Swift Capital has not made those inquiries.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I have numerous problems with Swifts rebuttal. First off, Swift claims that this "working capital" is not a loan, but rather a "future receivable advance". However, it depends on who they are talking to. When they speak to [redacted], individually, it is a loan that [redacted] needs to pay back. When they speak to [redacted], as the president of Trailer Movers Inc., then it is an advance that is taken from receivables. They are having their cake and eating it to. If this is classified as a loan, then the interest rates are illegal and the entire balance should be wiped away. If this is classified as a receivable advance, then the agreement is not in default, as Swift has gotten paid 10% of Trailer Movers Inc. receivables since the contract date.
I agree, It is important to detail the events. However, the events detailed should be of the true variety. End of July 2016, we requested Swift to lower the payments as receivables had dropped and could not afford to pay $1066 a day any longer. The reason we contacted them was because we did not have the funds to cover payments. It took Swift 5 days to respond to our request. They only responded when payments started to bounce. Had Swift responded in a timely manner and we got this adjusted back in July/early August back down to 10% of our receivables, payments never would have bounced. It was not shortly after the payments bounced that we contacted Swift, it was PRIOR TO. Further, after payments started bouncing they then did request bank statements. However, as EVERYBODY KNOWS, and is common sense, bank statements show what happened in the PAST. We provided the previous 3 months bank statements, to which they replied, "your receivables did not decrease, so we will not lower payments." At which point they tried to take payments again. Which is stupid, because the previous bank statements showed when they were taking the money, and we WERE making over $10660.00 a day. We told them, we are making a lot less NOW, and in the FUTURE..which cannot be proven by bank statements until AFTER the month is over.
BEFORE the month was over, Swift sent letters to our customers telling them that any receivables owed to Trailer Movers Inc. should be directed towards Swifts behalf. Upon receipt of these letters, that were sent directly to our customers, our customers refused to work with us as it would bring unnecessary liability to them, from Swift if they paid us, and from us if they paid Swift. At that point, we told Swift that we need those letters retracted or our receivables are ZERO$. They refused, but kept attempting to take money from the bank account even though we have not been getting any receivables.
Finally, at the beginning of November we agreed that IF our customers would work with us again, I would pay 10% of our receivables directly to Swift, by way of check once Swift sent the retraction letters. I then did not hear from Swift for nearly A MONTH!!!! Finally, in the middle of December Swift sent ME a letter retracting the previous letters. I immediately sent them to our customers. However, the response was either, we have moved forward with other companies, and have no openings at this time, OR, we need the letter sent certified mail DIRECTLY from Swift. To date, the customers who may have had openings are still waiting for a letter from the company(they say I could have easily typed that letter myself and sent it). My other customers have moved on, and I would need to wait until openings come back for vendors. Possibly after the holidays is what they are telling me.
In closing, if this is a business receivable advance, Swifts delaying tactics of lowering the daily payments caused bounced payments, and then their tactics of sending letters to our customers, PUT ME OUT OF BUSINESS. Possibly temporarily, but Swift has to date(December 27) NOT SENT ANY RETRACTION LETTERS DIRECTLY TO MY CUSTOMERS. If that is the case, Swift will need to wait to receive payments on the remaining balance until I receive work. I am also requesting any excess fees be waived, as had Swift not delayed back in July, then they would still be receiving payments. If Swift would like to call this a loan, and make [redacted] personally responsible for a corporate future receivable sales agreement, then the interest rate is illegally usurious, and the entire balance should be zeroed out.
Regards,
[redacted]
Swift values each customer relationship and strives to be transparent in all communication with both existing and potential customers. As indicated in Mr. [redacted]’s complaint, he contacted Swift in response to a renewal offer. During our assessment of the business bank account...
statements provided by Mr. [redacted], it was determined that his business did not meet the minimum eligibility criteria for renewal. Mr. [redacted] was advised to seek renewal again if his situation improved. The customer contacted Swift again approximately 30 days later again seeking additional funds. Upon initial review, Mr. [redacted] was advised that his request had been pre-qualified. Pre-qualification is subject to underwriting review and approval. Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted]’s request for additional funding was declined in accordance with guidelines. Mr. [redacted] has highlighted an opportunity to improve both process and communication at Swift. Steps have been taken to enhance quality monitoring to ensure this type of experience is not repeated. Should additional information be needed, I may be contacted directly.Sincerely,[redacted]