Long Consulting Group, LLC.

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.We reject all of the company's comments for the following reasonsThe company's message contains several distortions of the facts, along with several accusations against us The most serious of these is the claim that we deliberately hid from them the fact that our property was recorded in two separate revocable trusts The company knew about the revocable trusts prior to contacting us The initial letters that we received from Long's Wellsboro office dated September 22, 2014, clearly stated at the top, following our names, the words "Trustee and Revocable Trust" in both my wife's letter and my letter There is no truth to the company's claim that we hid that information from them for devious purposes As further proof, the Long agent required us to provide copies of the title page (first page) and the signatory page (last page) for both of the revocable trusts Why would we hide any information about the revocable trusts? A second issue that needs to be addressed is the incorrect title that appeared on my wife's lease When we received the draft copies of the leases, we informed the Long agent that my wife's lease was incorrectly titled because it referred to my revocable trust instead of her own revocable trust The Long agent disagreed with us and stated that the title was correct according to Long's legal department Now we are being blamed for a mistake made by the company A third claim that needs to be corrected is the comment that we had prior knowledge regarding the numerous, additional title searches that were required by Long and [redacted] after we signed the leases on December 11, On January 14, 2015, after several attempts to learn why we had not been paid as promised, we contacted Long headquarters and were told at that time about the additional title searches We thought that a title search had been conducted prior to our signing of the leases, but it wasn't until days later that we were told the truth The fourth issue is the company's comment that we deliberately withheld the information concerning the trusts because we "did not want them to discover any title discrepancies on our property." The title to that property has been examined numerous times and there is currently a gas and oil lease recorded on it for [redacted] , now owned by [redacted] ***/*** In addition, in we established the two revocable trusts and the Tioga County property had extensive title searches prior to its inclusion in the trusts In order to resolve the problems with Long Consulting, and on the advice of our legal counsel, we do not plan to pursue this matter any furtherRegards, [redacted] ***

Long Consulting conducts tens of thousands of contacts on behalf of its clientele each year. All very similar to the one made here with the complainant. We have been at this for over years and have never been the subject of a complaint to the Revdex.com. We are a first class
service company that prides itself with our customer service expertiseThe allegations reported in the complaint are not a complete and accurate accounting of what took place. The general framework is accurate however; the testimony makes it seem as though we set out to deceive the owners (complainants) and that is no the case. The complainant were well aware of how the process worked and that the title to the property would undergo a more in depth review if they were willing to participate in the leaseIf the complainant did not like the results of the transaction they should be in touch with *** whom they have as a business partner. Long is simply a mediator of sorts to set the business up. In fact, case law indicates the complainant is guilty of misconduct and not *** or Long. They knew that the property mentioned was in a trust and they did not reveal that information as they knew it might reduce their financial gain under the terms of the lease agreement between them and ***. It appears that they may have wanted us not discover the title discrepancies on their property. Respectfully, *** ** Long

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.We reject all of the company's comments for the following reasons. The company's message contains several distortions of the facts, along with several false accusations against us.  The most serious of these is the claim that we deliberately hid from them the fact that our property was recorded in two separate revocable trusts.  The company knew about the revocable trusts prior to contacting us.  The initial letters that we received from Long's Wellsboro office dated September 22, 2014, clearly stated at the top, following our names, the words "Trustee and Revocable Trust" in both my wife's letter and my letter.  There is no truth to the company's claim that we hid that information from them for devious purposes.  As further proof, the Long agent required us to provide copies of the title page (first page) and the signatory page (last page) for both of the revocable trusts.  Why would we hide any information about the revocable trusts? A second issue that needs to be addressed is the incorrect title that appeared on my wife's lease.  When we received the draft copies of the leases, we informed the Long agent that my wife's lease was incorrectly titled because it referred to my revocable trust instead of her own revocable trust.  The Long agent disagreed with us and stated that the title was correct according to Long's legal department.  Now we are being blamed for a mistake made by the company.  A third claim that needs to be corrected is the comment that we had prior knowledge regarding the numerous, additional title searches that were required by Long and [redacted] after we signed the leases on December 11, 2014.  On January 14, 2015, after several attempts to learn why we had not been paid as promised, we contacted Long headquarters and were told at that time about the additional title searches.  We thought that a title search had been conducted prior to our signing of the leases, but it wasn't until 34 days later that we were told the truth.  The fourth issue is the company's comment that we deliberately withheld the information concerning the trusts because we "did not want them to discover any title discrepancies on our property."  The title to that property has been examined numerous times and there is currently a gas and oil lease recorded on it for [redacted], now owned by [redacted].  In addition, in 2011 we established the two revocable trusts and the Tioga County property had extensive title searches prior to its inclusion in the trusts.  In order to resolve the problems with Long Consulting, and on the advice of our legal counsel, we do not plan to pursue this matter any further. Regards, [redacted]