ComplaintsforPacific Financial Association

• Initial Complaint

  11/23/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Date of the transaction in question was 07/06/2021. The amount of the transaction for $1,995. Was paid to PFA . When I first called in I advised the representative that I was beginning a Freight Brokerage company and I have to have a $75,000 ****** Surety Bond. The representative advised me that she was able to help. She assisted and filled all of my information in the app for me. I asked the same question again to confirm this application was for a ****** Surety Bond, she stated yes. The nature of this dispute is to request a refund for the full amount as I was not provided what I requested. This is required by the ***** in order for my business to be active. I would've never purchased a ****** Trustor as I have no use for it. I reached out to resolve the issue and the business declines. A representative stated I would not be receiving a refund and hung up on me. This is totally unacceptable and is not the way customers shall be treated. I truly believe that because I was new to this industry and a 72 year old woman. I was taken advantage of. They refuse to resolve the issue amongst myself and them. So I've taken the liberty to reach out with assistance.

  

  Business response

  11/24/2021

  Pacific Financial Association (“PFA”) is a licensed “Financial Institution” authorized by the ******* ***** ******* ****** ************** (*****) to issue ****** “Property Broker Surety Bonds” and ******
  “Property Broker Trust Fund Agreements” pursuant to ** *** ***********  These instruments satisfy the
  ********** ** **************** $75,000 surety requirement for federally licensed transportation brokers
  involved in interstate commerce.   

  On 07/01/2021 the Complainant contacted our office and spoke to a sales associate to advise she was
  opening a freight brokerage and needed a *** instrument to satisfy the ***** requirements.   After
  completing an application and review by our underwriting department, the Complainant was advised via
  email (see attached “Redacted Pre-approval email”) that she had been pre-approved for several plan
  options for both a ****** surety bond and a ****** trust instrument. The email outlined those options
  and advised the complainant to choose the plan best suited for her and her company.   

  Upon receiving the email, the complainant called the sales associate and discussed the plan options.  The
  complainant chose one of the ****** Plan options, which provided the lowest rate of any of the plans
  (** or **) but which required up-front payment of the full annual plan cost.   Paperwork was prepared for
  this plan option and emailed to the Complainant for review and approval.  The documentsent for approval
  and signature stated in very large letters that the document was a ****** instrument (see attached
  “Redacted *** ** Agreement”).    The complainant signed all documentation and returned them on
  07/15/2021.   The Complainant also signed a Supplementary Agreement which advised her that all fees
  were non-refundable.

  On 07/15/2021, our office sent an email (see attached “Redacted Welcome email”) to the Complainant
  advising that the paperwork was complete,  had been filed with the *****, and that her authority was
  now active.  That email again clearly stated that she had been provided a *** ** instrument. 

  The Complainant contacted us on 11/18/2021 to advise she wanted “insurance” and not a trust.  We tried
  to explain to her that neither the ****** nor ****** were “insurance” instruments, but that both the
  satisfied the requirements of the *****.   The Complainant advised she wanted to cancel the ******
  and wanted a refund.  It was explained to her that, per the contract, she was not entitled to a refund.   A
  cancellation notice was then submitted to the ***** on 11/18/2021, however per the *****
  regulations, we must provide coverage under the ****** for an additional 30 days.   

  In this instance, the Complainant will have received the benefit of services for roughly 6 months.   While
  it is still our position that she is not entitled to a refund, to resolve this matter amicably we will agree to
  a partial refund of $500.

  Customer response

  11/24/2021

  I continued to advise the representative that I was interested in a ****** Surety Bond $75,000. When presented the options I advised the representative again that I was interested in the ****** Surety Bond. The application was put together and filled out by the PFA Representative via phone. She offered to assist me and completed the application on my behalf. This is very irresponsible of the representative as she knows that I did not request this. This is highly unacceptable. The business sits back and allow this sort of thing to happen to their clients, I am 72 years old and know exactly what was requested as well as the representative and this was just wrong. She per traded to be the sweetest lady when really she sold me something I know nothing about and not what I asked for. Something has to be done. The world must hear about the way PFA treats their customers in general not just the elderly. 

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩