Summit Commercial Finance Company

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The response by Summit Financial does not address the core issue of this complaint. [redacted] ([redacted]) was INDUCED into signing a document that it clearly communicated to the representative from Summit it was NOT interested in signing. During conversations prior to the signing and during signing we asked repeatedly if there was any prepayment included - each time we were assured there was not. The third party verification mentioned in the response was only to verify the equipment was delivered and not to discuss financing details. The response from Summit is consistent with the deception they employed prior to and during the signing of the document.  The document signed makes the signer responsible for the ENTIRE stream of payments regardless of when the agreement is paid off - this fact was NEVER communicated to [redacted]. Under no circumstance, had the facts been presented in good faith, would [redacted] have signed this document. Summit continues to be deceptive and employ poor business practices. Here are the economics of this transaction: Purchase price of furniture:     $89,257.36Downpayment:                   ...⇄ financed:                       $85,309.36Product delivered 10/25/13Current Payoff balance (Estimated) $114,492Prepaid financing fee             $29,182.64[redacted] is being harmed financially by the business practices used by Summit. We once again ask Summit Financial and US Bank to allow [redacted] to settle this debt with what was originally proposed by [redacted]. 

Regards,

I am sorry to hear this customer continues to feel the way they do. There is not really anything further we can do as they have not provided any material information that supports their complaint and claims. The documents they signed and agreed to are self-explanatory. Nobody was forced or induced to sign the documents. There is no pre-payment penalty being applied or additional charges. Communication from our employees with this customer were with good intentions and good faith.
 
The third party verbal explanation in our original response was to show actions are taken to make sure the customer understands and has all questions answered before the funds are released and the agreement is commenced. Mr. [redacted] is inaccurate in his statement the third party only confirmed or asked if the equipment was delivered. Just to make sure, we followed up and have reviewed the verbal verification form that was completed in this call. It goes into detail verifying the terms, that the agreement is non-cancellable, what type of agreement they signed, the vendor the funds are released to, in this case some prefunding occurred and they were asked if they authorized us to release funds prior to equipment delivery, location of the equipment, advance payments made, contact information etc… All consistent with the agreement. In earlier claims by Mr. [redacted] he said he had a recorded this call and that they discussed prepayment penalties, now he claims this call was “only to verify the equipment was delivered and not to discuss financing details”. These statements contradict each other.
 
We are disappointed that [redacted]  is unhappy with the situation and our service as great customer service is one of our core values. We have been in business 16 years and quality customer service has always been a core value. It seems Mr. [redacted] made assumptions that he could pay-off the agreement early and receive a discount. Just because he is not receiving a discount that does not equal us charging a penalty. His accusations have no merit and are unfounded.
 
Best Regards,
 

We are in receipt of complaint ID...

#[redacted]
 
After an internal review and audit of this transaction we have found no deceptive practices. The economics listed by the customer in the complaint are not accurate. The amount financed on the agreement is $89,257.36 not the figure they provided in the complaint. The Equipment Finance Agreement signed by [redacted]. (customer) is consistent with the payoff provided to the customer. The terms of the contract clearly state the total of 62 monthly payments. The customer can pay the balance of the contract early without penalties or additional costs to the contract. Please also be advised in addition to the signed contract a third party completed a verbal phone audit of the contract with the customer, going over the terms to address any questions before commencing this agreement.
 
Thank you

Review: Deceptive and misleading product description. Financing received was not what was agreed to/requested.Desired Settlement: Contract was signed 8/29/13. Product purchased was received October 29, 2013. Allow us to pay the principal balance financed of $85,309.36 plus reasonable finance charges for one month of financing. Summit is requiring we pay the entire finance agreement of $116k the equivalent of $30k in prepayment penalties.

Business

Response:

We are in receipt of complaint ID #[redacted] After an internal review and audit of this transaction we have found no deceptive practices. The economics listed by the customer in the complaint are not accurate. The amount financed on the agreement is $89,257.36 not the figure they provided in the complaint. The Equipment Finance Agreement signed by [redacted]. (customer) is consistent with the payoff provided to the customer. The terms of the contract clearly state the total of 62 monthly payments. The customer can pay the balance of the contract early without penalties or additional costs to the contract. Please also be advised in addition to the signed contract a third party completed a verbal phone audit of the contract with the customer, going over the terms to address any questions before commencing this agreement. Thank you

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The response by Summit Financial does not address the core issue of this complaint. [redacted]) was INDUCED into signing a document that it clearly communicated to the representative from Summit it was NOT interested in signing. During conversations prior to the signing and during signing we asked repeatedly if there was any prepayment included - each time we were assured there was not. The third party verification mentioned in the response was only to verify the equipment was delivered and not to discuss financing details. The response from Summit is consistent with the deception they employed prior to and during the signing of the document. The document signed makes the signer responsible for the ENTIRE stream of payments regardless of when the agreement is paid off - this fact was NEVER communicated to [redacted]. Under no circumstance, had the facts been presented in good faith, would [redacted] have signed this document. Summit continues to be deceptive and employ poor business practices. Here are the economics of this transaction: Purchase price of furniture: $89,257.36Downpayment: $3,948.00Amount financed: $85,309.36Product delivered 10/25/13Current Payoff balance (Estimated) $114,492Prepaid financing fee $29,182.64[redacted] is being harmed financially by the business practices used by Summit. We once again ask Summit Financial and US Bank to allow [redacted] to settle this debt with what was originally proposed by [redacted].

Regards,

Business

Response:

I am sorry to hear this customer continues to feel the way they do. There is not really anything further we can do as they have not provided any material information that supports their complaint and claims. The documents they signed and agreed to are self-explanatory. Nobody was forced or induced to sign the documents. There is no pre-payment penalty being applied or additional charges. Communication from our employees with this customer were with good intentions and good faith. The third party verbal explanation in our original response was to show actions are taken to make sure the customer understands and has all questions answered before the funds are released and the agreement is commenced. Mr. [redacted] is inaccurate in his statement the third party only confirmed or asked if the equipment was delivered. Just to make sure, we followed up and have reviewed the verbal verification form that was completed in this call. It goes into detail verifying the terms, that the agreement is non-cancellable, what type of agreement they signed, the vendor the funds are released to, in this case some prefunding occurred and they were asked if they authorized us to release funds prior to equipment delivery, location of the equipment, advance payments made, contact information etc… All consistent with the agreement. In earlier claims by Mr. [redacted] he said he had a recorded this call and that they discussed prepayment penalties, now he claims this call was “only to verify the equipment was delivered and not to discuss financing details”. These statements contradict each other. We are disappointed that [redacted] is unhappy with the situation and our service as great customer service is one of our core values. We have been in business 16 years and quality customer service has always been a core value. It seems Mr. [redacted] made assumptions that he could pay-off the agreement early and receive a discount. Just because he is not receiving a discount that does not equal us charging a penalty. His accusations have no merit and are unfounded. Best Regards, [redacted]