VDI Telecomm lease agreement

[withoutalimb]

Hi everyone just found this forum today, looks like you have excellent advice so time to try and get all my headaches sorted!

 

First up is the above company. This guy has sold telephone call packages to a large number of companies in scotland, but in actual fact they turnout to be a lease agreement for a Panasonic telephone system. He actually covered up the leasing text when getting the form signed and somehow transfered my signature to a delivery form, but I have never received anything. VDI does not appear on any of the lease form, but a company called Digilink, who he doesn't work for. Digilink have the lease forms and the credit agreement license, VDI do not. The lease was sold on to another lease company who are now chasing me for the lease amount. For two years I have been telling them that I don't have the equipment ( I cancelled my DD as soon as I got a letter from the lease company, thereby showing me it was a lease, not a call package). Trading Standards have investigated VDI and found he was operating illegally, but have now lost him!

Now the lawers have started sending letters asking for the money or court action will be sort. To the Leasing companies it is simple, my signature is on the lease document and the delivery form, so it all looks legal. To me, I have no equipment, I didn't sign a delivery form, as no equipment was delivered, I have asked them for an engineers report for the installation( it is a large box which has to be bolted to the wall and connected by an engineer) they produced one for an address in Bradford! I am in Scotland!

I have threatened media coverage if they don't cancel the lease etc. Any help would be gratefull.

 

Cheers

[buzby]

Media coverage won't cut it I'm afraid - it's not a 'consumer' issue. Actually the [problem] you outline was pretty common in the '70s and then it involved Mobile Phones (which were around £2,500 each).

 

The crux of the matter is the LEASE, yu need to ask for a copy of it as you need to see what they have on you, you may need to SAR them with a fee of £10. This gives you the amminition to challenge and ecidence for court if required.

[Sweeney Todd]

Hi Withoutalimb. This is an area that I might be able to help with.

 

The first thing you need to do is request the following from the leasing company:

1. a copy of the agreement

2. schedule of equipment

3. certificate of acceptance

 

Rest assured, the industry is aware of the issues surrounding some players within the telecom industry and won't shy away from a genuine complaint of misselling.

[withoutalimb]

Thanks guys, I have various copies of the agreement including the 'blue' NCR from the original lease document. I have looked them over no matter how many times. my sihnature is slightly different on the DD to the lease document and delivery page, but does look like mine. I know I signed the DD, which was torn from the lease document for me to fill in while the rep filled the rest in out of view, I then signed the lease document but the words were covered up.

 

What do you want me to look for specifically?

[kiptower]

Firstly lets get this right,

 

They have to provide the installation cert for the address it was installed

 

Second the maintenance agreement, (you must have this if the kit has more than 1 incoming line connected to BT)

 

Third, you should have also been given a PXML document, ( private exchange master list ) which details the system and its type approval

 

Depending when this was so called installed, it would have required a PCI ( pre connect inspect ) done by BT before the system was connected to the BT lines, which includes checking the documents above and all your internal wiring, this is normally done on a separate visit by their engineer present when BT do the inspect which you would pay BT for £150 +

 

Any experienced telephone engineer can give a report that you only have DEL’s ( direct exchange lines,) and no telephone system is or has been in place,

 

I take it @ the moment you have simple telephone lines to telephones direct from BT or did you have a telephone system installed previous

[withoutalimb]

Firstly lets get this right,

 

They have to provide the installation cert for the address it was installed

As said they don't have this, but they argue the lease is for the equipment, not installation or calls.

Second the maintenance agreement, (you must have this if the kit has more than 1 incoming line connected to BT)

Just one line coming in to the office. There is no maintenance agreement as others have found out when the equipment fails.

 

Third, you should have also been given a PXML document, ( private exchange master list ) which details the system and its type approval

Not seen this, it just lists the equipment on the lease document.

 

Depending when this was so called installed, it would have required a PCI ( pre connect inspect ) done by BT before the system was connected to the BT lines, which includes checking the documents above and all your internal wiring, this is normally done on a separate visit by their engineer present when BT do the inspect which you would pay BT for £150 +

The leasing company said I had to have a digital line so if my line had not been converted from analogue this would prove it had not been installed. I phoned BT and they said my line was digital anyway. Everyone else has had their phones installed and yes an engineer came out to do it, obviously I have never seen one.

 

Any experienced telephone engineer can give a report that you only have DEL’s ( direct exchange lines,) and no telephone system is or has been in place,

 

I take it @ the moment you have simple telephone lines to telephones direct from BT or did you have a telephone system installed previous

Only had one phone line, one phone, although there was a separate line in the office for a fax, but I had it disconnected.

 

Thanks for your advice

[kiptower]

one line

 

why would you want or need a switch

 

unless it was something like a ATTENDED system,

 

e.g, it auto answers the call then voice prompts give options eg, press 1 for sales 2 for accounts etc etc , then forwards the calls to a dedicated extension, and prob a facility for voice mail, you can buy a simple one to do this around the £100 mark from BT which has 6 ports ( extensions ) just add your own extn phones up to 6

 

someone is on a [problem] , does it say which Pana system it is, they start @ 3 + 8 normally , is there a model no

 

as it is 1 line you have PCI is not required

 

in a past life I was A PCI inspector for a while

[withoutalimb]

one line

 

why would you want or need a switch

 

unless it was something like a ATTENDED system,

 

e.g, it auto answers the call then voice prompts give options eg, press 1 for sales 2 for accounts etc etc , then forwards the calls to a dedicated extension, and prob a facility for voice mail, you can buy a simple one to do this around the £100 mark from BT which has 6 ports ( extensions ) just add your own extn phones up to 6

 

someone is on a [problem] , does it say which Pana system it is, they start @ 3 + 8 normally , is there a model no

 

as it is 1 line you have PCI is not required

 

in a past life I was A PCI inspector for a while

 

OK what you need to remember is that the sales pitch was for taking over your calls not selling or leasing a telephone system, the Panasonic KXTDA 30 Telephone system, 1x 2CH Digital extension card, 4 Panasonic KXT7630 phones, 1x Fortune 1500 mp3 player, sn:7FAUR0103363, were free of charge, supposedly!

Yes it does offer the different options to divert to separate departments, I know because I have phoned one of the other companies who have it and they have this.

[kiptower]

you would not need a system directly then

 

your line is diverted to them ,

 

sounds like its a [problem] that you pay for the kit they will be using @ their end,

 

why you want to buy that lot ?? when your line diverted to them, they then they use their system to do it , its no more than a managed line , lots of office space providors have been doing this for years, and you dont pay for any kit just the service provided

 

it sounds more like someone is being clever, setting up his end @ the customers expense , funding his initial outlay

[Sweeney Todd]

I can't comment on what Kiptower has said because I don't know anything about telecoms, but I can comment on the lease agreement, because this is what I do for a living. If I am following you correctly, Withoutalimb, there are two other parties involved here.

 

1. VDI Telecom

2. Leasing Company

 

VDI Telecom have promised you a telephone call package (ie. new phone system and inclusive calls) for which they have asked you to sign a lease agreement. As it happens, they have not delivered a call package and have simply delivered a Panasonic Telephone.

 

Because you have not received the phone package you have cancelled the direct debit and the leasing company, who have paid VDI Telecom, are now chasing you for the money.

 

Only you can say whether your signature is legitimate. If it isn't, then that is something that you need to take up with the leasing company.

 

Assuming, it is legitimate, the the first thing you need to do is check the following:

1. Who is the leasing company?

2. The equipment schedule - what does it say? I assume it just states the phone system and makes no reference to the inclusive calls.

3. Do you have a copy of the Certificate of Acceptance? This is a form that you are required to sign to say that everything has been delivered and installed to your satisfaction. It is also the lease company's authority to activate the agreement. It is quite likely that you do not have a copy of this, as it is often a seperate sheet to the lease agreement. If not, you should request a copy of it.

4. Are you a limited company, partnership or sole trader?

 

If you have all of this, are you able to post up copies of everything (obviously removing all personal information) so that I can have a look at it?

[withoutalimb]

I will see if I can clarify the situation.

I was verbally sold a call package By VDI Telecommunications including a free Panasonic Telephone system

I signed a lease agreement(unknowingly) for a Panasonic Telephone system

My signature is on a delivery form for the Panasonic system 2 days after I signed the lease agreement. VDI only visited my office on one occassion.

VDI are not known to any other party within this deal, they only appear to the customer but hide under the Digilink name.

Digilink provide the Telephones and the lease agreement paperwork which comes from Shire Leasing Plc. Once Shire leasing have the agreement signed they re-assign the lease to HFGL Ltd and BNP Parabas, a subsidery, of HFGL invoice me for the phone system.

As soon as I got a letter from BNP stating it was a lease agreement and not a call package, I cancelled my DD and complained to the VDI rep, who refunded my first payment (less VAT) and said he would cancel the lease(which has never been done).

I have never received aphone system, I do not have the Certificate of Acceptance, but asked for the engineers report on the installation and they cannot produce this.

I am a sole trader but I am now living out of the UK.

Trading standards have tracked the guy down and decovered he did not have a credit agreement license (which is why he used the cover of Digilink, illegally). Trading standards have now lost contact with VDI even though he is on The Franchise Shop offering the [problem] as a franchise.

Both leasing companies have been told in writing that I do not have the system but they just fall back on my signature on the delivery form.

I have spoken to a lawyer (alledgedly)who is dealing with many other cases with VDI (alledgedly) and informs me that due to VDI not having a credit agreement license all the leases are fraud, and therefore void.

The alledgedly part is because I have lost all trust in everyone who crops up with this case, The lawyer posted on Gumtree looking for people who had dealings with VDI, a strange thing for a lawyer to do I thought. She recond she had been dealing with other cases for 2 years and wanted to add more people to the list to help finish the [problem] once and for all. I have requested her terms and conditions twice now and still not been sent them, which makes me very suspicious.

Now HFGL Ltd have got their lawyer to push me to settle (£7086.65)

[kiptower]

the bottom line is they claim they sent you the system but you never had it delivered,

 

as you say the delivery signatures are in question,

 

tell them you want strict proof it was delivered and installed, if they decide to go for legal action you will apply for a strike out on the grounds a) the goods were never delivered b) the goods were never installed or commisioned c) you have the information from TS regarding the person who sold you the original contract , and his legal right to enter into a contract with you in the first place

 

really seems its all threats and they dont want to go near a court

Edited January 8, 2010 by kiptower

[Sweeney Todd]

OK. Here is some industry knowledge that I will share with you.

 

Firstly, let me explain the link between Shire Leasing, BNP and HFGL.

 

Shire Leasing are a leasing broker. They work with a number of finance companies and place your business with the most appropriate funder that they can find, in much the same way that an insurance broker would find the best insurance company for your car insurance. HFGL and BNP are the same company.

 

Shire Leasing have been working very hard in the telecoms market and have recently been involved in a number of 'scams' involving telecom companies where they have misrepresented the solution to the funder. Global Telecom and Business Telecom are two prime examples. It would appear that in the case of Global Telecom they were funding call packages as well as the hardware, but not informing the finance company. Global Telecom went into administration last summer and it was at this point that it came to light to both the customers and the finance companies that 'calls' as well as the hardware were included in the lease. In order to retain their credit lines and continue trading, Shire Leasing are being asked to repay all these agreements as they default. Business Telecom were pertaining to be a subsidiary of British Telecom and advising their customers that they had to convert to a Business Telecom solution. trading Standards were called in on this ocassion. On both occasions, Shire Leasing were alledgedly shown to be in the know about what was going on and hiding the information from the leasing companies.

 

What this means to you is that Shire Leasing's involvement in the transaction, whilst putting you in a vulnerable position, should provide some support on the trading inconsistencies moving forward. I seriously suggest that you google "Shire Leasing + Global Telecom" and "Shire Leasing + Business Telecom". It will give you an insight.

 

Now, about your predicament. Whilst everyone will initially huff and puff and insist that you make payment, you need to stand firm on where you are denying liability.

 

I will leave kiptower to discuss the whereto of the solution delivered and focus solely on where my knowledge stands, which is around the lease agreement itself.

 

First off. Searching the internet on VDI Telecom would suggest that they are merely selling franchises, and so it is a franchise of this company from whom you allegedly purchased (maybe a company called Digilink).

 

 

The leasing company will have no knowledge of, nor sight of an engineers report and this will not form any part of your agreement with them.

 

Your agreement is with HFGL (BNP) as a result of an introduction from the Broker, Shire Leasing.

 

Your points of contention need to be made with the leasing company. They, from their end, will then take this up with Shire Leasing (whom they expect to undertake necessary supplier checks) and with Digilink. Don't get confused by the chain of command. Just deal with HFGL (BNP).

 

Advise them that you are a sole trader, that all discussions were held with Digilink whom trading standards have advised you don't hold a consumer credit licence and are under investigation.

 

Also, the 'Delivery Form' that both HGFL (BNP) and Shire Leasing will be falling back on is the 'Certificate of Acceptance'.

 

You really need to advise HFGL that you believe that you have not signed one and would like a copy.

 

HFGL will be aware that there is a very high chance that the deal has been missold. Shire Leasing will also be aware that if HFGL believe this to be the case, they will be required to repay any commissions (upto 10% of the capital cost) and, possibly, the whole invoice value.

 

If you can post up those documents that I asked for, namely

1. The Lease Agreement

2. Schedule of Equipment

3. Certificate of Acceptance

I will be able to give you the full perspective of a leasing company's stance.

 

Kind regards,

Sweeney

Edited January 9, 2010 by Sweeney Todd

[withoutalimb]

Sorry for the delay, I had to find the scanner and get it all rigged up, but here are the scans of the two documents I have.

 

Cheers

[Sweeney Todd]

Hi, WOAL.

 

As a thumbnail, it's too small to read. You really need to open an account at www.photobucket.com,, upload the scanned copies and then link to them either by posting up their URL or by showing them in your post by wrapping around the URL.

 

Sweeney

[withoutalimb]

I thought as much, sorry.

 

How about this?

 

Cheers

DeliveryNoteAltered.pdf

[Sweeney Todd]

That's better. Would it be possible to do the same with the agreement, too?

 

It's interesting that they presented you with a Certificate of Delivery and not a Certificate of Acceptance.

[Sweeney Todd]

One other quastion (you've probably answered this previously, but I couldn't see it). Are you a sole trader, partnership or limited company?

[withoutalimb]

Here you go. I am a Sole Trader. The certificate of acceptance I think is signed after the engineer has installed the system, but since I have never had a system I don't have the certificate.

 

Thanks for taking the time to look at this

Edited January 26, 2010 by withoutalimb
additional information

[Sweeney Todd]

Hi. You might want to save this as a jpeg and then re-post it. In it's current format your private detail appears before being overwritten with the blacked out bits.

 

I've got the copies and can see that you are a sole trader, so no need to answer that question.

 

I'm at work at the moment so will go through this tonight and post some info up tomorrow on where I believe you stand and what course of action I would suggest.

[Sweeney Todd]

OK. Where we are at is that the agreement itself has been correctly completed, although it is unusual that a funder will use a Certificate of Delivery, rather than a Certificate of Acceptance, because this only confirms that the goods have been supplied (delivered to you) and does not confirm that the goods have been configured and installed (which is what funders usually require).

 

Digilink, who are named on the contract as the supplier, is a named trading style of GCI Communications Ltd on their Consumer Credit Licence. GCI Communications look like they are owned by Edge Telecom as their website states that "Edge Telecom is the new single brand name for a number of previous GCI Com group companies which include (GCICOM, PAN Telecom, Inweb, and Edge System Division).". Even if they are not, they share common directors.

 

If you did not buy off any company named Digilink, GCI Communications, or GCICOM, then I would suggest that your first enquiry is to ask BNP/HFGL who supplied the paperwork and who invoiced for the work.

 

If it is any other trading name, then you are in a strong position as it would seem that whoever sold to you did so without a CCL. For obvious reasons, this will make your position very strong as it would be easy to argue that you have been missold.

 

What you are looking at to resolve this issue, is for BNP/HFGL to unwind the contract and demand full repayment of any monies loaned by Shire Leasing. It will then be the responsibility of Shire Leasing to reclaim the money from the vendor.

[withoutalimb]

Thank you for looking into this, you have confirmed what Trading Standards have found out, that the sales company (VDI Telecom Ltd) does not have a CCL which is why he signs off as a Digilink rep. As far as Shire Leasing are concerned it has been sold by Digilink and they have a CCL, Shire have not heard of VDI Telecom. My only way to 'prove' that it was VDI that sold the lease is through statements from other businesses through Trading Standards.

The Certificate of Acceptance I think is signed after the engineer has fitted the system, and Shire have not been able to provide me with this. They said that they had one but when they checked the address it was for another address in England, not even in Scotland!

 

Thanks

[Sweeney Todd]

The Certificate of Delivery has been signed instead of the Certificate of Acceptance, which means that Shire (or rather BNP) have activated the lease and paid out on the basis of the equipment being delivered, not installed.

 

VDI Telecom's website say that they sell franchises, so is it possible that it was a franchise operated by Digilink?

 

Have Shire confirmed that they have an invoice from Digilink, then? They will have needed an invoice from the supplier in order to issue the payment to them. If they have an invoice from Digilink, then this is the supplier that you should be pursuing. If not, then you need to find out who did invoice them and we can find out whether that company has a CCL.

 

Remember, regardless of what is written on the paperwork, Shire Leasing will need to have been invoiced by a company that holds a CCL and to whom they issued payment.

[withoutalimb]

VDI only started Franchise opportunities recently, they did not do it when I signed up.

 

Don't know who invoiced Shire but since they have not heard of VDI it can't be them so must be Digilink. VDI are trying to hide under the Digilink name but in actual fact he did not work for Digilink and I have evidence to show that and convict VDI if it comes to court, but I just want the lease stopped.

 

Digilink have been paid by Shire, but they did not 'sell' me the lease, I have had no dealings with them, except to try and sort this out and find out what part they played. Trading standards say I should be dealing with HFGL as they are the company persuing the money and the ones now threatening court.

 

Unfortunately TS say they can't find VDI to interview him regarding the CCL, I can't see how he will ever agree to an interview as he knows he has done wrong.

[Sweeney Todd]

One bit of information I've just looked up. VDI Telecom Limited (Co Reg No SC238014) were struck off by Companies House on 7 July 2006. I have the last address for the Director/Company Secretary of VDI Telecom as was listed at Companies House in February 2005. If you want that, I can PM it to you?

 

Trading Standards are correct that you need to speak to HFGL as they are the funder whereas Shire Leasing are the broker. Either way, you need to confirm who the supplier was that invoiced for the work. HFGL should share that information with you. That said, Shire Leasing's involvement is brokering the deal between the supplier and HFGL, so Shire Leasing should also be able to provide you with the details of the supplier who invoiced for the deal.

 

You have to remember, that Shire Leasing earn a commission for referring the transaction to HFGL.