- Report: #134636
Complaint Review: Annuity Leads Review - Santa Monica California
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Annuity Leads Review
2461 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 800 Santa Monica, 94523 California, U.S.A.
Phone:
877-816-0934
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Annuity Leads Review Ripoff Promised annuity appointments failed to deliver repeatedly and then refused refund demand threatening and abusive Santa Monica California
I paid them $1000 for what was supposed to be 32 appointments, at least four a week, with people who wished to have their annuity portfolio reviewed.
After being sent to several "appointments" outside the area I had specified and at a the wrong time, I began confirming each appointment in advance. Not one was valid. When I asked for a refund, they simply told me their contract only called for replacement of the "bad" appointments.
Despite California law which requires 24 hour written notice to anyone over 65 who is seen by an annuity salesperson in their homes, they repeatedly "made" appointments with only 24 hours notice to me. When I mentioned this point, they misrepresented the law, alleging it didn't apply.
After several weeks of requesting a refund, in which I was willing to accept a partial payment in light of whatever time they had spent, I received a personally abusive and threatening call from a man who used the name "Neil Tuna" when I first contacted them.
I have used other "lead" services in the past of varying quality but have never had so unpleasant or unsatisfactory an experience. In my opinion, no one in the insurance industry should allow themselves to be duped into paying these people anything.
Eric
Pleasant Hill, California
U.S.A.
After being sent to several "appointments" outside the area I had specified and at a the wrong time, I began confirming each appointment in advance. Not one was valid. When I asked for a refund, they simply told me their contract only called for replacement of the "bad" appointments.
Despite California law which requires 24 hour written notice to anyone over 65 who is seen by an annuity salesperson in their homes, they repeatedly "made" appointments with only 24 hours notice to me. When I mentioned this point, they misrepresented the law, alleging it didn't apply.
After several weeks of requesting a refund, in which I was willing to accept a partial payment in light of whatever time they had spent, I received a personally abusive and threatening call from a man who used the name "Neil Tuna" when I first contacted them.
I have used other "lead" services in the past of varying quality but have never had so unpleasant or unsatisfactory an experience. In my opinion, no one in the insurance industry should allow themselves to be duped into paying these people anything.
Eric
Pleasant Hill, California
U.S.A.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
No Name
Winchester,Virginia,
U.S.A.
Stay Away I cannot say it strongly enough
#2Consumer Comment
Wed, March 30, 2005
I cannot say it strongly enough, STAY AWAY from this company! They appear to also operate as Nationwide Annuity Leads / Nationwide Insurance leads. Compare the wording on portions of their websites, annuity-review.com and nationwideannuityleads.com An associate of mine contracted with Annuity Leads Review, also dba Annuity Review, (AR), after responding to their ad in USA Today. The contract with AR stated we guarantee twenty appointments but you could end up with more! The company also promised that only those contacts which resulted in a presentation being made would count as an appointment, and the contract confirmed this by stating that any appointment' which didn't result in his having an opportunity to make a presentation would be replaced with another appointment. Sounded great, as did all contact with the company during setup. Their pitch was convincingly and reassuringly professional. Then came the appointments'. Despite AR asking to be provided in advance with open blocks of time in my associate's schedule for them to block their appointments, they continually ignored the information provided them and set appointments for outside his available time slots. More importantly, after he rearranged his day and arrived at these individual's homes he was greeted with a mixture of surprise and hostility. None of the people claimed to have an appointment with him. Some claimed no awareness he was coming to their homes, and those who expected' him only did so because in the words of one man, someone called me, said you'd be by this morning, and hung up the phone before I could tell him I didn't want anyone coming here. No one was prepared for an appointment and they had all formed such a negative opinion from the conduct of the telephone call that my associate would have gotten off to a more productive start if he'd cold knocked on the man's door without being preceded by a call from AR. After several such appointments' we expressed our concerns in an email to Mark Tyler' whom we had been told was the CEO of AR. We received no reply from Mark Tyler', but did receive a phone call from Warren on Monday stating no appointments would be set for the coming week as they were busy relocating their offices. When asked if Mark had received the email, Warren responded, in reference to the man claiming to be the company's CEO, he's over in production, I don't see him. Appointment' setting resumed the following week with no change in the quality or nature of the so called appointments. As before, the contacts gave unfavorable accounts of the calls they'd received and expressed considerable displeasure that any part of those one sided conversations had been spun into their agreeing to meet with a financial professional. At that point my associate decided that not only was AR failing to provide the appointments he'd paid them for, but that the positive reputation his practice had built in this community might be at risk from AR's calls on his behalf'. When he received no reply to an email addessing these concerns, he directed his office manager to contact Mark Tyler and work toward a settlement. Her call to AR was answered by someone identifying himself as Neil.. When she asked for Mark Tyler she was told We don't have a Mark Tyler here. Who are you? Calling a number on AR's website, one likely position for channeling new business into the company, and asking for Mark Tyler she was told he was unavailable but that they would take a message for him to return the call. When he did so he expressed no interest in discussing the horrid quality of the appointments made for us, claimed there was nothing wrong with them, and cited many agents who are making millions from appointments we set'. He went on to say that his appointments were fine, but that my colleague must not be much of a salesman'. The irony of that statement was that my colleague began his sales career cold calling, door to door, for an accident indemnity company. Despite his leaving the company in question two decades ago, my contacts within the company tell me that he has continued to be regarded as a legend throughout the entire southeast region - and the subject of many war stories' for his ability to get in the door. But for all that revered skill, he can't overcome the antagonism that AR's phone calls have created in people. We will not be getting a refund of any sort from AR. At one point of the conversation, which was apparently conducted via speakerphone from AR's end, one member of AR's staff offered a refund of approx 40% of the amount paid. He was immediately shot down by another AR person firmly stating that they did not give money back. A stance they continued to take for what was left of the conversation until Mark Tyler ended it by inviting us to sue him, and then hanging up. He realizes of course that the cost for our out of state company to bring a suit in California courts would be greater than the amt of money involved, not to mention the impossible complications of calling witnesses, etc. etc. In short his operation can continue indefinitely since there will always be prospective clients who have no idea what his outfit is actually providing for the money it charges. For more info you can look them up on financial-planner.com's discussion boards. Thread title is 'prepaid leads'. I would also suggest that ALL financial and insurance professionals check annuity review's website (annuity-review.com) to become familiar with the wording of the site. It has been stated on ripoffreport and financial-planner.com that they change their name from time to time to stay a step ahead of their reputation. The best way to protect yourself from falling prey to a new dba of theirs is to recognize and be alert for the wording and structure of their pitch.
