Complaint Review: E-Commerce Exchange - Lake Forest California

Hi Nicholas - As a former employee of ECX I completely understand the issues you have been having. I worked in their CS Department for 3 years, and had to deal with many complaints. The title "account executive" is just another term for "sales rep" as I am sure you know by now. When I worked for ECX they were owned by a different person then they are currently. They had a layoff of over 30% of their employees in 2001 when they were bought out by another company. I am sad to see that there are good people out there that are still falling prey to their tactics. They previously had an agreement with the Russ Whitney seminar people where they convinced elderly individuals to fork over a good portion of their savings and/or monthly SS income for a business many of them never even had. This entailed being told that they were being given a 2 year lease for equipment, when in essence it was a 48 month lease (4 years). Now I am not saying that all these customers can't read a lease or count, but for as many of them I had tell me "it was supposed to be a 2 year lease" I can only imagine that while they were signing, the "account exec" was using some diversion tactic to get them not to notice. The lease you may have now is possibly with a company called Leasecomm? I am not sure if they still use them or not, but it's worth a try. Sometimes they were more receptive than ECX. If all else fails, I would pursue the civil suit option as I am sure there are many more individuals out there that would be more than happy to join you. I am sorry on behalf of all the former employees (many of which I talk to on a daily basis) that you have had to deal with them at all. In my opinion this is one company that should have been put out its misery long ago.

I have noticed that it has been some time since I posted. I actually was reminded of the incident when I looked up my free credit report online. I noticed that they reported the matter to a collection agency, which as you can see below and in Mike's original reponse they allegedly did not file collections against me. However, my credit report showed different. "...he explained to me that he was not having any luck with his business and was thinking about shutting his service off." This is a false statement. I never stated such reason. I stated that I was still trying to get traffic to my business. however, the reason was because I was told originally that I would receive free advertising and advertising assistance from ECX. As I previously explained, I was told that when I make money, ECX makes money since they get a percentage of every transaction. "Being that he had signed a non-cancelable agreement for his lease I knew that this would be a bit of an issue. So, I made the arrangment to help him to buyout out of his lease for only $200 to avoid the need to continuously pay for something that he would not be using. He apparently feels that he should not have to pay for something that he is not going to be using regardless of any finance responsibility or committment that he had made." I'm sure he knew this was going to be an issue. Just look at their track record. I'm not the only one on ripoffreport.com whom has had issues with this company. I felt that I should not be charged for something that I cannot use, however, in the case that prior to signing up I was told I would receive advertisign assistance. Therefore, they broke their end of the bargin as well. "Obviously a written agreement has no importance to Nicholas and therefore he refused to take a buyout reduction that would have saved him $100s of dollars in the long run. I informed him that if he defaults on his lease altogether that it could result in a collection issue which is not only the truth, but an honest way to inform him of potential recourse to his actions." Obviously any agreement to them is of no importance. Their goal is to tell lies on the phone to get you to signup. After signing up, they play dumb as if they have no idea what your talking about. They did see recourse. Their partner company, Duvera, put anegative rating on my credit report, which I am now disputing. "It is quite clear that he again is preferring to feel that he is above legal and binding agreements. If he wasn't going to be successful with his own business adventure then why should he pay for his committments seems to be his approach instead. In any event, we never filed a collection against Nicholas and took the loss internally instead. Obviously the practice of an unfair company, right? " This is a completely false statement. The comapany turned the matter over to Duvera, which posted the matter on my credit report. So much for honesty, eh? "My suggestion to all is quite simply this, if you are going to sign a contract, read it, understand it and then fulfill it. That is the way that business is conducted." I to have a suggestion, when doing business, especially with ECX, make sure that every single word they say to you on the phone is in writing. Mike is right on the statment of "...if you are going to sign a contract, read it, understand it and then fulfill it." They have the tendancy to promise things which are not in writing and then go back on their word.

Nicholas contacted our company to set up a merchant account for an on-line business that he had set up through SMC. We are not SMC. We provided him with the equipment that he needed to process and he did not want to do an initial investment so we financed it for him. I was not the original representative that he spoke with nor made the arrangement with which confuses me because he is stating that I set him up with all of this. I had contacted him because he was in default of his lease and he explained to me that he was not having any luck with his business and was thinking about shutting his service off. Being that he had signed a non-cancelable agreement for his lease I knew that this would be a bit of an issue. So, I made the arrangment to help him to buyout out of his lease for only $200 to avoid the need to continuously pay for something that he would not be using. He apparently feels that he should not have to pay for something that he is not going to be using regardless of any finance responsibility or committment that he had made. Obviously a written agreement has no importance to Nicholas and therefore he refused to take a buyout reduction that would have saved him $100s of dollars in the long run. I informed him that if he defaults on his lease altogether that it could result in a collection issue which is not only the truth, but an honest way to inform him of potential recourse to his actions. It is quite clear that he again is preferring to feel that he is above legal and binding agreements. If he wasn't going to be successful with his own business adventure then why should he pay for his committments seems to be his approach instead. In any event, we never filed a collection against Nicholas and took the loss internally instead. Obviously the practice of an unfair company, right? My suggestion to all is quite simply this, if you are going to sign a contract, read it, understand it and then fulfill it. That is the way that business is conducted.