- Report: #103134
Complaint Review: Popular Leasing - Norvergence - Ballwin Missouri
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Popular Leasing - Norvergence
15933 Clayton Road, Ste 200 Ballwin, 63011 Missouri, U.S.A.
Phone:
800-829-9411
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Popular Leasing, Norvergence Fraud Lease Scam rip-off! Ballwin, Missouri *EDitor's Comment Class Action lawsuit is useless.
I also, apparently with thousands of other companies had Norvergence/Popular leasing (PL) Matrix Voice over IP box installed in April, and they never got it working or gave me any phone service. I am getting bills from Popular Leasing and they can't help me to get it working but they continue to invoice me for a box that was never functional. They have failed thus far to find me a provider to make this unit functional.
I asked PL to take it out of my office and they never responded back to me. I found out that PL forced Norvergence into bankruptcy and Norvergence is now out of business and I am still responsible for the lease of around $860 a month for 5 years. Popular said that it is not their problem. I called XO communications at PL's suggestion and they were unable to help me.
So now I have communications equipment that is essentially useless, secondary to Popular Leases legal action, but they still want to enforce the lease? Sounds a little shady to me... I would also like to join a class action lawsuit to fight this.
Jason
Middletown, New York
U.S.A.
Norvergence Victims...
..It is the opinion of the Rip-off Report staff that a Class Action will not work in this situation and will only lead victims down a long path of disappointment. In order for an attorney to take on such a case, there needs to be money. NorVergence clearly went belie-UP! / defunked / Bankrupt, which means, there is NO MONEY! Once a bone afide lawyer contacts Rip-off Report with a plan, we will be glad to make arrangements with them to e-mail those of you who filed a Rip-off Report. CLICK below to read more about our policy.. ... A policy to protect our readers
NOTE: The above is not legal advise. Victims should seek legal advice to be sure.
CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.
ED Magedson Founder
[email protected]
badbusinessbureau.com
www.ripoffreport.com
We are not lawyers.
We are not a collection agency.
We are Consumer Advocates.
...the victims' advocate
We are a Worldwide Consumer Reporting News Agency
...by consumers, for consumers
I asked PL to take it out of my office and they never responded back to me. I found out that PL forced Norvergence into bankruptcy and Norvergence is now out of business and I am still responsible for the lease of around $860 a month for 5 years. Popular said that it is not their problem. I called XO communications at PL's suggestion and they were unable to help me.
So now I have communications equipment that is essentially useless, secondary to Popular Leases legal action, but they still want to enforce the lease? Sounds a little shady to me... I would also like to join a class action lawsuit to fight this.
Jason
Middletown, New York
U.S.A.
Norvergence Victims...
..It is the opinion of the Rip-off Report staff that a Class Action will not work in this situation and will only lead victims down a long path of disappointment. In order for an attorney to take on such a case, there needs to be money. NorVergence clearly went belie-UP! / defunked / Bankrupt, which means, there is NO MONEY! Once a bone afide lawyer contacts Rip-off Report with a plan, we will be glad to make arrangements with them to e-mail those of you who filed a Rip-off Report. CLICK below to read more about our policy.. ... A policy to protect our readers
NOTE: The above is not legal advise. Victims should seek legal advice to be sure.
CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.
ED Magedson Founder
[email protected]
badbusinessbureau.com
www.ripoffreport.com
We are not lawyers.
We are not a collection agency.
We are Consumer Advocates.
...the victims' advocate
We are a Worldwide Consumer Reporting News Agency
...by consumers, for consumers
3 Updates & Rebuttals
Richard
Redford,Michigan,
U.S.A.
Norvergence/Popular Leasing scam in Michigan
#2Consumer Suggestion
Tue, August 31, 2004
My company is also a victim of the Norvergence scam I believe that the leasing companies involved in this deal, including Popular Leasing, who has my contract, are potentially guilty of collusion because they bought the lease contracts for tens of thousands of dollars when the collateral, the matrix boxes, are only worth a few hundred. They had to know that there was a service component to the lease price, despite the fact that the lease says it is an equipment lease only. It seems to me that we need to band together to give us the muscle to defend against the corporate legal departments that the lease companies can throw at us. If we don't, they will pick off the smallest of us one at a time and build a history of legal victories to use when they are ready to go against the largest of their victims. I also believe that it is important to separate an action seeking money from Norvergence, which is probably a waste of time, from an action to defeat the lease against Popular and the other lease compnaies. At this stage of the debacle, it would seem to me that everyone should be happy to get out of the leases for a realatively small contribution to the legal fees. If anyone involved with Popular would like to discuss banding together further I am interested in talking to you.
Richard
Redford,Michigan,
U.S.A.
Norvergence/Popular Leasing scam in Michigan
#3Consumer Suggestion
Tue, August 31, 2004
My company is also a victim of the Norvergence scam I believe that the leasing companies involved in this deal, including Popular Leasing, who has my contract, are potentially guilty of collusion because they bought the lease contracts for tens of thousands of dollars when the collateral, the matrix boxes, are only worth a few hundred. They had to know that there was a service component to the lease price, despite the fact that the lease says it is an equipment lease only. It seems to me that we need to band together to give us the muscle to defend against the corporate legal departments that the lease companies can throw at us. If we don't, they will pick off the smallest of us one at a time and build a history of legal victories to use when they are ready to go against the largest of their victims. I also believe that it is important to separate an action seeking money from Norvergence, which is probably a waste of time, from an action to defeat the lease against Popular and the other lease compnaies. At this stage of the debacle, it would seem to me that everyone should be happy to get out of the leases for a realatively small contribution to the legal fees. If anyone involved with Popular would like to discuss banding together further I am interested in talking to you.
Richard
Redford,Michigan,
U.S.A.
Norvergence/Popular Leasing scam in Michigan
#4Consumer Suggestion
Tue, August 31, 2004
My company is also a victim of the Norvergence scam I believe that the leasing companies involved in this deal, including Popular Leasing, who has my contract, are potentially guilty of collusion because they bought the lease contracts for tens of thousands of dollars when the collateral, the matrix boxes, are only worth a few hundred. They had to know that there was a service component to the lease price, despite the fact that the lease says it is an equipment lease only. It seems to me that we need to band together to give us the muscle to defend against the corporate legal departments that the lease companies can throw at us. If we don't, they will pick off the smallest of us one at a time and build a history of legal victories to use when they are ready to go against the largest of their victims. I also believe that it is important to separate an action seeking money from Norvergence, which is probably a waste of time, from an action to defeat the lease against Popular and the other lease compnaies. At this stage of the debacle, it would seem to me that everyone should be happy to get out of the leases for a realatively small contribution to the legal fees. If anyone involved with Popular would like to discuss banding together further I am interested in talking to you.
