Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted] , and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: I was expecting an apologyMy story is very similiar to the previous complaintsI am moving on In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted] *
As we have already stated, the information that we gathered from [redacted] was used to perform fraud checks, which is a standard part of our operating procedure and common to businesses in our industryUpon review, [redacted] 's bank accounts failed to pass our funding criteria both times that she appliedWe are able and willing to delete any information pertaining to [redacted] 's accounts, her business, and her contact information should she so desire, and would like to reiterate that at no point were her accounts debited or her information shared with a third party
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted] , and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: [Your Answer Here]I still consider this fraud activity, at no point was I told you would access my personal information after getting everything was handed over all of my personal information including my tax id numb for the business I want results on this keep in mind part of my complaint is the amount of times I tried to reach [redacted] by email and yes by phone with no response then sd needed my passwords yet again I feel if this is not fraud activity should have been handled same day I met criteria the day they approved me an that should be enough I might want to point out the phrase where you listed I was approved is different then the merchant agreement I signed Telling me again this is fraud either they need to follow thru or prove to me they have wiped all my info off there system I still have intentions to pursue fraud of nothing is done to resolve on there end and uphold there end of the merchant agreement I have never known a bank to do this after a approval has been made and contract signed ? In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted]
The merchant *** *’s account of events is mostly
accurate; she was dealing with *** ***, one of our sales representatives,
who after speaking with her to determine if she would potentially qualify for
an advance and if she would be able to use it constructively, sent her
information
to ***’s underwriting departmentBased on her historical bank statements,
our underwriting department declined her account, but in order to obtain
funding for the merchant, we forwarded it to an out of house funder who
specializes in funding accounts that do not meet ***’s criteriaThe out of
house underwriter, *** ***, drafted an initial offer based on the account
details and credit information that our company had forwarded to him***
and ***’s accounts of events both confirm that she was sent a starter
offer, but declined on the basis that the rate was unfavorable, at which point
*** requested that the out of house underwriter augment the offer from the
$2K that had been offered to $3K with a more favorable rateUpon revision of
the offer, *** accepted the terms and authorized a bank login, a standard
part of industry operating procedure meant to verify the veracity of submitted
bank statements as well as determine whether an account can support advance
repayment termsUpon reviewing actual bank activity, the underwriter that
produced the offer determined that the volume of deposits in ***’s account
were insufficient to meet funding criteria, but offered to go forward with an
advance with a lower approval amountAn offer, as defined by the language of
the merchant’s signed contract, is subject to revision or revocation until the
point of being fundedOffers are produced before the step of bank login because
it is infeasible to perform login during the initial underwriting of every
single merchant accountThe crux of our service is the speed which sets it
apart from a traditional bank loan, and as such, secondary due diligence is
performed only after a merchant accepts an initial offer produced based off of
the information they submit with a completed applicationIn certain cases, the
historical account activity of a merchant is such that they are issued an offer
which, upon review of their current actual banking information, is determined
to be out of sync with their financial health, at which point it is either
revised or rescinded along the terms of the signed contractRather than issue
an advance that an underwriter does not believe can be repaid, which would
result in accumulation of fees and negative credit history, to modify or
rescind the offer is standard procedure, as it would be at any bank or
alternative funding companyAfter modifying the offer, the merchant rejected
it on the basis that it was less than she was expecting, at which point the
Underwriter was unable to do anything furtherAfter speaking with *** and
expressing her frustration, *** offered to check back with her at a later
date at which point her current balance and history might be strong enough to qualify
her for the amount she was originally looking for*** Capital was not
involved in the underwriting and production of this offer, apart from providing
the third party underwriter with account information so that they could produce
an offerWe apologize for the negative experience this merchant had, but as we
were not the issuers of the offers, having initially rejected the merchant’s
application, and the out of house underwriter was within their contractually
stipulated right to modify or rescind an offer based on secondary review of up
to date banking activity, there was little that we could do for the merchant
apart from encouraging the generation of a modified offer when secondary review
revealed bank activity out of line with what would have been sufficient to
support their initial offered amountIf the merchant would like to contact
*** to see if there is a chance for her to qualify for another advance, we
encourage her to do so, or if she still feels her grievance has not been
sufficiently addressed we would be willing to speak with her further to clarify
why we were unable to proceed with funding her accountIt is unfortunate that
*** was ultimately not able to obtain the capital she was looking for, but
with her accounts not satisfactorily passing secondary due diligence, there was
nothing we could do apart from trying to produce a revised offer and encourage
her to apply at a later date
While our rebuttal has been rejected, we would like to make it clear that should *** wish to contact us to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution to this issue, we would be happy to speak with herIt is unfortunate that we were not able to go forward with funding her account, but to reiterate, secondary review is not only part of our underwriting process, but is part of industry standard procedure, and had she been working with any other alternative financing company the same issues would have arisenOnce again, we are willing to speak directly with *** to resolve this issue should she wish to contact us
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
I was expecting an apology. My story is very similiar to the previous complaints. I am moving on.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
I was expecting an apology. My story is very similiar to the previous complaints. I am moving on.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]I still consider this fraud activity, at no point was I told you would access my personal information after getting everything was handed over. all of my personal information including my tax id numb for the business. I want results on this. keep in mind part of my complaint is the amount of times I tried to reach [redacted] by email and yes by phone with no response then sd needed my passwords yet again. I feel if this is not fraud activity should have been handled same day. I met criteria the day they approved me an that should be enough. I might want to point out the phrase where you listed I was approved is different then the merchant agreement I signed. Telling me again this is fraud. either they need to follow thru or prove to me they have wiped all my info off there system. I still have intentions to pursue fraud of nothing is done to resolve on there end and uphold there end of the merchant agreement. I have never known a bank to do this after a approval has been made and contract signed.
?
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]’s account was initially approved for an advance
of $11,000 after review of her application and bank statements. However, as a
countermeasure against fraud, a final bank login is performed as a standard
part of our underwriting processes. Should accounts not align with what...
was
indicated by a customer’s bank statements, an approval can be rescinded. This
was indicated in the approval notice given to [redacted], which can be seen
copied here:
“We are pleased to inform you that your application
for Amazing Days Elderly Care Center LLC has met Pearl Capital
Underwriting Criteria, and has been approved for an advance pending Bank Login, Voided Check, Drivers License and Landlord
Verification, with the following options:$4,500, $6,525 payback, $99
daily payment, eligible for additional funding after 50 days.”
Upon logging in to [redacted]’s account, she had a negative
account balance as well as a small number of recent deposits, which constituted
grounds for rescinding her approval. As she stated in her complaint, she did
follow up with her representative [redacted] in order to re-apply for financing, but
again failed to meet funding criteria upon bank login. At no point was her
information shared with a third party, and at no point were any funds debited
from her account. While it is frustrating to be denied after receiving an
approval, all approvals are funded pending final antifraud measures to ensure
that fraudulent accounts are not funded and that funding provided is in line
with the financial health of each business we work with. Based off of the high
volume of submissions we receive, performing final steps including bank login
and landlord verification for every account we look at would be impractical,
therefore it takes place only after a customer qualifies for and accepts their initial
funding offer. Should [redacted] wish, we would be willing to write a formal
explanation of why her account was denied if she is still unclear. We apologize
for any inconvenience she may have experienced, but as she did not meet eligibility
for funding, she was never issued an advance and never had her account debited
by our company.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]I still consider this fraud activity, at no point was I told you would access my personal information after getting everything was handed over. all of my personal information including my tax id numb for the business. I want results on this. keep in mind part of my complaint is the amount of times I tried to reach [redacted] by email and yes by phone with no response then sd needed my passwords yet again. I feel if this is not fraud activity should have been handled same day. I met criteria the day they approved me an that should be enough. I might want to point out the phrase where you listed I was approved is different then the merchant agreement I signed. Telling me again this is fraud. either they need to follow thru or prove to me they have wiped all my info off there system. I still have intentions to pursue fraud of nothing is done to resolve on there end and uphold there end of the merchant agreement. I have never known a bank to do this after a approval has been made and contract signed.
?
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]’s account was initially approved for an advance
of $11,000 after review of her application and bank statements. However, as a
countermeasure against fraud, a final bank login is performed as a standard
part of our underwriting processes. Should accounts not...
align with what was
indicated by a customer’s bank statements, an approval can be rescinded. This
was indicated in the approval notice given to [redacted], which can be seen
copied here:
“We are pleased to inform you that your application
for Amazing Days Elderly Care Center LLC has met Pearl Capital
Underwriting Criteria, and has been approved for an advance pending Bank Login, Voided Check, Drivers License and Landlord
Verification, with the following options:$4,500, $6,525 payback, $99
daily payment, eligible for additional funding after 50 days.”
Upon logging in to [redacted]’s account, she had a negative
account balance as well as a small number of recent deposits, which constituted
grounds for rescinding her approval. As she stated in her complaint, she did
follow up with her representative [redacted] in order to re-apply for financing, but
again failed to meet funding criteria upon bank login. At no point was her
information shared with a third party, and at no point were any funds debited
from her account. While it is frustrating to be denied after receiving an
approval, all approvals are funded pending final antifraud measures to ensure
that fraudulent accounts are not funded and that funding provided is in line
with the financial health of each business we work with. Based off of the high
volume of submissions we receive, performing final steps including bank login
and landlord verification for every account we look at would be impractical,
therefore it takes place only after a customer qualifies for and accepts their initial
funding offer. Should [redacted] wish, we would be willing to write a formal
explanation of why her account was denied if she is still unclear. We apologize
for any inconvenience she may have experienced, but as she did not meet eligibility
for funding, she was never issued an advance and never had her account debited
by our company.
As we have already stated, the information that we gathered from [redacted] was used to perform fraud checks, which is a standard part of our operating procedure and common to businesses in our industry. Upon review, [redacted]'s bank accounts failed to pass our funding criteria both times that she applied. We are able and willing to delete any information pertaining to [redacted]'s accounts, her business, and her contact information should she so desire, and would like to reiterate that at no point were her accounts debited or her information shared with a third party.
The merchant [redacted]’s account of events is mostly
accurate; she was dealing with [redacted], one of our sales representatives,
who after speaking with her to determine if she would potentially qualify for
an advance and if she would be able to use it constructively,...
sent her information
to [redacted]’s underwriting department. Based on her historical bank statements,
our underwriting department declined her account, but in order to obtain
funding for the merchant, we forwarded it to an out of house funder who
specializes in funding accounts that do not meet [redacted]’s criteria. The out of
house underwriter, [redacted], drafted an initial offer based on the account
details and credit information that our company had forwarded to him. [redacted]
and [redacted]’s accounts of events both confirm that she was sent a starter
offer, but declined on the basis that the rate was unfavorable, at which point
[redacted] requested that the out of house underwriter augment the offer from the
$2K that had been offered to $3K with a more favorable rate. Upon revision of
the offer, [redacted] accepted the terms and authorized a bank login, a standard
part of industry operating procedure meant to verify the veracity of submitted
bank statements as well as determine whether an account can support advance
repayment terms. Upon reviewing actual bank activity, the underwriter that
produced the offer determined that the volume of deposits in [redacted]’s account
were insufficient to meet funding criteria, but offered to go forward with an
advance with a lower approval amount. An offer, as defined by the language of
the merchant’s signed contract, is subject to revision or revocation until the
point of being funded. Offers are produced before the step of bank login because
it is infeasible to perform login during the initial underwriting of every
single merchant account. The crux of our service is the speed which sets it
apart from a traditional bank loan, and as such, secondary due diligence is
performed only after a merchant accepts an initial offer produced based off of
the information they submit with a completed application. In certain cases, the
historical account activity of a merchant is such that they are issued an offer
which, upon review of their current actual banking information, is determined
to be out of sync with their financial health, at which point it is either
revised or rescinded along the terms of the signed contract. Rather than issue
an advance that an underwriter does not believe can be repaid, which would
result in accumulation of fees and negative credit history, to modify or
rescind the offer is standard procedure, as it would be at any bank or
alternative funding company. After modifying the offer, the merchant rejected
it on the basis that it was less than she was expecting, at which point the
Underwriter was unable to do anything further. After speaking with [redacted] and
expressing her frustration, [redacted] offered to check back with her at a later
date at which point her current balance and history might be strong enough to qualify
her for the amount she was originally looking for. [redacted] Capital was not
involved in the underwriting and production of this offer, apart from providing
the third party underwriter with account information so that they could produce
an offer. We apologize for the negative experience this merchant had, but as we
were not the issuers of the offers, having initially rejected the merchant’s
application, and the out of house underwriter was within their contractually
stipulated right to modify or rescind an offer based on secondary review of up
to date banking activity, there was little that we could do for the merchant
apart from encouraging the generation of a modified offer when secondary review
revealed bank activity out of line with what would have been sufficient to
support their initial offered amount. If the merchant would like to contact
[redacted] to see if there is a chance for her to qualify for another advance, we
encourage her to do so, or if she still feels her grievance has not been
sufficiently addressed we would be willing to speak with her further to clarify
why we were unable to proceed with funding her account. It is unfortunate that
[redacted] was ultimately not able to obtain the capital she was looking for, but
with her accounts not satisfactorily passing secondary due diligence, there was
nothing we could do apart from trying to produce a revised offer and encourage
her to apply at a later date.
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted] , and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: I was expecting an apologyMy story is very similiar to the previous complaintsI am moving on In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted] *
As we have already stated, the information that we gathered from [redacted] was used to perform fraud checks, which is a standard part of our operating procedure and common to businesses in our industryUpon review, [redacted] 's bank accounts failed to pass our funding criteria both times that she appliedWe are able and willing to delete any information pertaining to [redacted] 's accounts, her business, and her contact information should she so desire, and would like to reiterate that at no point were her accounts debited or her information shared with a third party
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted] , and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: [Your Answer Here]I still consider this fraud activity, at no point was I told you would access my personal information after getting everything was handed over all of my personal information including my tax id numb for the business I want results on this keep in mind part of my complaint is the amount of times I tried to reach [redacted] by email and yes by phone with no response then sd needed my passwords yet again I feel if this is not fraud activity should have been handled same day I met criteria the day they approved me an that should be enough I might want to point out the phrase where you listed I was approved is different then the merchant agreement I signed Telling me again this is fraud either they need to follow thru or prove to me they have wiped all my info off there system I still have intentions to pursue fraud of nothing is done to resolve on there end and uphold there end of the merchant agreement I have never known a bank to do this after a approval has been made and contract signed ? In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted]
The merchant *** *’s account of events is mostly
accurate; she was dealing with *** ***, one of our sales representatives,
who after speaking with her to determine if she would potentially qualify for
an advance and if she would be able to use it constructively, sent her
information
to ***’s underwriting departmentBased on her historical bank statements,
our underwriting department declined her account, but in order to obtain
funding for the merchant, we forwarded it to an out of house funder who
specializes in funding accounts that do not meet ***’s criteriaThe out of
house underwriter, *** ***, drafted an initial offer based on the account
details and credit information that our company had forwarded to him***
and ***’s accounts of events both confirm that she was sent a starter
offer, but declined on the basis that the rate was unfavorable, at which point
*** requested that the out of house underwriter augment the offer from the
$2K that had been offered to $3K with a more favorable rateUpon revision of
the offer, *** accepted the terms and authorized a bank login, a standard
part of industry operating procedure meant to verify the veracity of submitted
bank statements as well as determine whether an account can support advance
repayment termsUpon reviewing actual bank activity, the underwriter that
produced the offer determined that the volume of deposits in ***’s account
were insufficient to meet funding criteria, but offered to go forward with an
advance with a lower approval amountAn offer, as defined by the language of
the merchant’s signed contract, is subject to revision or revocation until the
point of being fundedOffers are produced before the step of bank login because
it is infeasible to perform login during the initial underwriting of every
single merchant accountThe crux of our service is the speed which sets it
apart from a traditional bank loan, and as such, secondary due diligence is
performed only after a merchant accepts an initial offer produced based off of
the information they submit with a completed applicationIn certain cases, the
historical account activity of a merchant is such that they are issued an offer
which, upon review of their current actual banking information, is determined
to be out of sync with their financial health, at which point it is either
revised or rescinded along the terms of the signed contractRather than issue
an advance that an underwriter does not believe can be repaid, which would
result in accumulation of fees and negative credit history, to modify or
rescind the offer is standard procedure, as it would be at any bank or
alternative funding companyAfter modifying the offer, the merchant rejected
it on the basis that it was less than she was expecting, at which point the
Underwriter was unable to do anything furtherAfter speaking with *** and
expressing her frustration, *** offered to check back with her at a later
date at which point her current balance and history might be strong enough to qualify
her for the amount she was originally looking for*** Capital was not
involved in the underwriting and production of this offer, apart from providing
the third party underwriter with account information so that they could produce
an offerWe apologize for the negative experience this merchant had, but as we
were not the issuers of the offers, having initially rejected the merchant’s
application, and the out of house underwriter was within their contractually
stipulated right to modify or rescind an offer based on secondary review of up
to date banking activity, there was little that we could do for the merchant
apart from encouraging the generation of a modified offer when secondary review
revealed bank activity out of line with what would have been sufficient to
support their initial offered amountIf the merchant would like to contact
*** to see if there is a chance for her to qualify for another advance, we
encourage her to do so, or if she still feels her grievance has not been
sufficiently addressed we would be willing to speak with her further to clarify
why we were unable to proceed with funding her accountIt is unfortunate that
*** was ultimately not able to obtain the capital she was looking for, but
with her accounts not satisfactorily passing secondary due diligence, there was
nothing we could do apart from trying to produce a revised offer and encourage
her to apply at a later date
While our rebuttal has been rejected, we would like to make it clear that should *** wish to contact us to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution to this issue, we would be happy to speak with herIt is unfortunate that we were not able to go forward with funding her account, but to reiterate, secondary review is not only part of our underwriting process, but is part of industry standard procedure, and had she been working with any other alternative financing company the same issues would have arisenOnce again, we are willing to speak directly with *** to resolve this issue should she wish to contact us
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
I was expecting an apology. My story is very similiar to the previous complaints. I am moving on.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
I was expecting an apology. My story is very similiar to the previous complaints. I am moving on.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]I still consider this fraud activity, at no point was I told you would access my personal information after getting everything was handed over. all of my personal information including my tax id numb for the business. I want results on this. keep in mind part of my complaint is the amount of times I tried to reach [redacted] by email and yes by phone with no response then sd needed my passwords yet again. I feel if this is not fraud activity should have been handled same day. I met criteria the day they approved me an that should be enough. I might want to point out the phrase where you listed I was approved is different then the merchant agreement I signed. Telling me again this is fraud. either they need to follow thru or prove to me they have wiped all my info off there system. I still have intentions to pursue fraud of nothing is done to resolve on there end and uphold there end of the merchant agreement. I have never known a bank to do this after a approval has been made and contract signed.
?
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]’s account was initially approved for an advance
of $11,000 after review of her application and bank statements. However, as a
countermeasure against fraud, a final bank login is performed as a standard
part of our underwriting processes. Should accounts not align with what...
was
indicated by a customer’s bank statements, an approval can be rescinded. This
was indicated in the approval notice given to [redacted], which can be seen
copied here:
“We are pleased to inform you that your application
for Amazing Days Elderly Care Center LLC has met Pearl Capital
Underwriting Criteria, and has been approved for an advance pending Bank Login, Voided Check, Drivers License and Landlord
Verification, with the following options:$4,500, $6,525 payback, $99
daily payment, eligible for additional funding after 50 days.”
Upon logging in to [redacted]’s account, she had a negative
account balance as well as a small number of recent deposits, which constituted
grounds for rescinding her approval. As she stated in her complaint, she did
follow up with her representative [redacted] in order to re-apply for financing, but
again failed to meet funding criteria upon bank login. At no point was her
information shared with a third party, and at no point were any funds debited
from her account. While it is frustrating to be denied after receiving an
approval, all approvals are funded pending final antifraud measures to ensure
that fraudulent accounts are not funded and that funding provided is in line
with the financial health of each business we work with. Based off of the high
volume of submissions we receive, performing final steps including bank login
and landlord verification for every account we look at would be impractical,
therefore it takes place only after a customer qualifies for and accepts their initial
funding offer. Should [redacted] wish, we would be willing to write a formal
explanation of why her account was denied if she is still unclear. We apologize
for any inconvenience she may have experienced, but as she did not meet eligibility
for funding, she was never issued an advance and never had her account debited
by our company.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]I still consider this fraud activity, at no point was I told you would access my personal information after getting everything was handed over. all of my personal information including my tax id numb for the business. I want results on this. keep in mind part of my complaint is the amount of times I tried to reach [redacted] by email and yes by phone with no response then sd needed my passwords yet again. I feel if this is not fraud activity should have been handled same day. I met criteria the day they approved me an that should be enough. I might want to point out the phrase where you listed I was approved is different then the merchant agreement I signed. Telling me again this is fraud. either they need to follow thru or prove to me they have wiped all my info off there system. I still have intentions to pursue fraud of nothing is done to resolve on there end and uphold there end of the merchant agreement. I have never known a bank to do this after a approval has been made and contract signed.
?
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]’s account was initially approved for an advance
of $11,000 after review of her application and bank statements. However, as a
countermeasure against fraud, a final bank login is performed as a standard
part of our underwriting processes. Should accounts not...
align with what was
indicated by a customer’s bank statements, an approval can be rescinded. This
was indicated in the approval notice given to [redacted], which can be seen
copied here:
“We are pleased to inform you that your application
for Amazing Days Elderly Care Center LLC has met Pearl Capital
Underwriting Criteria, and has been approved for an advance pending Bank Login, Voided Check, Drivers License and Landlord
Verification, with the following options:$4,500, $6,525 payback, $99
daily payment, eligible for additional funding after 50 days.”
Upon logging in to [redacted]’s account, she had a negative
account balance as well as a small number of recent deposits, which constituted
grounds for rescinding her approval. As she stated in her complaint, she did
follow up with her representative [redacted] in order to re-apply for financing, but
again failed to meet funding criteria upon bank login. At no point was her
information shared with a third party, and at no point were any funds debited
from her account. While it is frustrating to be denied after receiving an
approval, all approvals are funded pending final antifraud measures to ensure
that fraudulent accounts are not funded and that funding provided is in line
with the financial health of each business we work with. Based off of the high
volume of submissions we receive, performing final steps including bank login
and landlord verification for every account we look at would be impractical,
therefore it takes place only after a customer qualifies for and accepts their initial
funding offer. Should [redacted] wish, we would be willing to write a formal
explanation of why her account was denied if she is still unclear. We apologize
for any inconvenience she may have experienced, but as she did not meet eligibility
for funding, she was never issued an advance and never had her account debited
by our company.
As we have already stated, the information that we gathered from [redacted] was used to perform fraud checks, which is a standard part of our operating procedure and common to businesses in our industry. Upon review, [redacted]'s bank accounts failed to pass our funding criteria both times that she applied. We are able and willing to delete any information pertaining to [redacted]'s accounts, her business, and her contact information should she so desire, and would like to reiterate that at no point were her accounts debited or her information shared with a third party.
The merchant [redacted]’s account of events is mostly
accurate; she was dealing with [redacted], one of our sales representatives,
who after speaking with her to determine if she would potentially qualify for
an advance and if she would be able to use it constructively,...
sent her information
to [redacted]’s underwriting department. Based on her historical bank statements,
our underwriting department declined her account, but in order to obtain
funding for the merchant, we forwarded it to an out of house funder who
specializes in funding accounts that do not meet [redacted]’s criteria. The out of
house underwriter, [redacted], drafted an initial offer based on the account
details and credit information that our company had forwarded to him. [redacted]
and [redacted]’s accounts of events both confirm that she was sent a starter
offer, but declined on the basis that the rate was unfavorable, at which point
[redacted] requested that the out of house underwriter augment the offer from the
$2K that had been offered to $3K with a more favorable rate. Upon revision of
the offer, [redacted] accepted the terms and authorized a bank login, a standard
part of industry operating procedure meant to verify the veracity of submitted
bank statements as well as determine whether an account can support advance
repayment terms. Upon reviewing actual bank activity, the underwriter that
produced the offer determined that the volume of deposits in [redacted]’s account
were insufficient to meet funding criteria, but offered to go forward with an
advance with a lower approval amount. An offer, as defined by the language of
the merchant’s signed contract, is subject to revision or revocation until the
point of being funded. Offers are produced before the step of bank login because
it is infeasible to perform login during the initial underwriting of every
single merchant account. The crux of our service is the speed which sets it
apart from a traditional bank loan, and as such, secondary due diligence is
performed only after a merchant accepts an initial offer produced based off of
the information they submit with a completed application. In certain cases, the
historical account activity of a merchant is such that they are issued an offer
which, upon review of their current actual banking information, is determined
to be out of sync with their financial health, at which point it is either
revised or rescinded along the terms of the signed contract. Rather than issue
an advance that an underwriter does not believe can be repaid, which would
result in accumulation of fees and negative credit history, to modify or
rescind the offer is standard procedure, as it would be at any bank or
alternative funding company. After modifying the offer, the merchant rejected
it on the basis that it was less than she was expecting, at which point the
Underwriter was unable to do anything further. After speaking with [redacted] and
expressing her frustration, [redacted] offered to check back with her at a later
date at which point her current balance and history might be strong enough to qualify
her for the amount she was originally looking for. [redacted] Capital was not
involved in the underwriting and production of this offer, apart from providing
the third party underwriter with account information so that they could produce
an offer. We apologize for the negative experience this merchant had, but as we
were not the issuers of the offers, having initially rejected the merchant’s
application, and the out of house underwriter was within their contractually
stipulated right to modify or rescind an offer based on secondary review of up
to date banking activity, there was little that we could do for the merchant
apart from encouraging the generation of a modified offer when secondary review
revealed bank activity out of line with what would have been sufficient to
support their initial offered amount. If the merchant would like to contact
[redacted] to see if there is a chance for her to qualify for another advance, we
encourage her to do so, or if she still feels her grievance has not been
sufficiently addressed we would be willing to speak with her further to clarify
why we were unable to proceed with funding her account. It is unfortunate that
[redacted] was ultimately not able to obtain the capital she was looking for, but
with her accounts not satisfactorily passing secondary due diligence, there was
nothing we could do apart from trying to produce a revised offer and encourage
her to apply at a later date.