Business ProfileforCarrington, Holland & Leigh, LLC

I was not happy with Carrington, Holland, and Leigh. I reached out to a nonprofit organization in Mississippi to be connected with one of their many listed consultants that specialized in helping a nonprofit organizations develop their business. I was connected with the owner of Carrington, Holland & Leigh. I participated in a zoom call with the nonprofit and the owner of Carrington, Holland & Leigh. During the zoom call, the owner was very enthusiastic about helping me with my newly formed nonprofit. I was excited! However, that excitement would soon turn into disappointment, frustration and anger. Right after the zoom conference, I received a call from the owner of Carrington, Holland & Leigh and he said he would send me three consulting options to choose from. I selected an option and he sent me a contract to sign. He also said he requires full payment upfront via PayPal. I found out later that the nonprofit organization, that lists Carrington, Holland, & Leigh as one of their consultants, was supposed to be the middleman in all contracts to protect all parties. Because I didn't know all these things at the time, I signed the contract and paid via PayPal. I thought my PayPal payment didn't go through so I resent the fee which resulted in a duplicate payment. When I reached out the very next day to let the owner of Carrington, Holland, & Leigh about the duplicate payment, the owner said he didn't receive two payments. PayPal showed me evidence the consultant was paid twice and my bank account showed the same thing. Also, the owner did not provide consulting services. I only emails with links. Ultimately, I filed disputes with both PayPal and credit card company. Thankfully, both companies ruled in my favor. I was able to get back the $5,000 I paid to Carrington, Holland & Leigh. Based on my personal experience, the owner of Carrington, Holland & Leigh is unethical and should not be working with nonprofit organizations or any company for that matter.

This response by ***** ***** is not accurate and contains a variety of misinformation and non factual statements. Ms. ***** selectively left out the fact that she was referred to me and not the company by a former client of mines. Ms. ***** proceeded to reach out to the state nonprofit association liaison person for an introduction. During that Zoom conference call, Ms. ***** had the option to use the services of the nonprofit association which would have cost her more than she was willing to pay or my individual services which was customized based on what she needed done for her nonprofit organization that was not in compliance with and that was basically dormant as far as being active. She did reviewed my customized options and selected a package based on her income and needs. After she made that selection, she was given a contract which was entered into by me (******* ******) and (***** *****) which outlined the Scope of Services that was going to be provided to her. That scope of services that was going to provided included the following services from the Bronze Package that she selected for $2500.: The additional Scope of Services will include Bronze (Good) Plan • Mission Statement Review & Design • Vision Statement Review & Design • Core Values Assistance • IRS Governance Compliance Documents (Whistleblower, Document Retention, Conflict of Interest) • Strategic Board Recruitment Strategy • Bylaws Review or Redesign • Donor-Centric Website Strategy for Raising Funds • Board Orientation Training for New Potential Board Members • Board Application, Board Nominee and Board Commitment Forms • One 30 Minute Strategy Session for Client & nonprofit storytelling video assistance Ms. ***** agreed to the consulting contract between and the required deposit and clearly understood through the consulting agreement she signed that all services, correspondence and business would be between she and I. Ms. ***** stating that a third party who did not sign a consulting agreement was responsible for being a middle man is not truthful. There is no reference in the contract she signed that reflects her false statement. Ms. ***** did make her required payment via PayPal and then reached back out to me via text message indicating that her payment forward to me was not sent due to her bank Wells Fargo sending her an fraudulent alert message that she forwarded me. Please see attached alert. ********************************************************************************************************** Once she received that alert from Wells Fargo she made another payment based on her bank information. She did reach back out to me and informed me that she had made another payment. I did informed her that she could only make one payment because I had invoice her via PayPal and you could only pay the invoice one time useless the invoice included recurring payment options which it did not. I informed her to reach out to PayPal because I was not seeing a duplicate payment in my account and if so PayPal would refund her back after an investigation of it. Because PayPal investigation was more than 90 days she became frustrated with the process she initially done based on her bank correspondence. When PayPal initiated their investigation they would withhold the amount the customer had paid. Ms. ***** did not want to hear that or how PayPal conduct their investigation. Because she did not want to hear that, she falsely filed another complaint indicating she did not received her services. Once PayPal did their investigation and had all supporting documents, they ruled in my favor. Ms. ***** was still not satisfied with that result. She took it upon herself to call the third party who had no legal responsibilities to hear her complaints. They informed her that they did not have any legal responsibility since they was not part of the contractual agreement. There is a reason Ms. ***** nonprofit has not been successful and that is because she not forthcoming and will bend the truth to gain sympathy. I am confident in my success rate and have the national recognition and accolades to document. For this documentation I will provide just one to document it. http://voyagela.com/interview/hidden-gems-meet-michael-dozier-of-carrington-holland-leigh/ Also, if needed, I will be happy to provided the supporting documentation that I provided to PayPal to illustrate that all work was done. Ms. ***** is upset and I have not desire to continue to help her or provide services for her nonprofit. This effort is a perfect example of why she should not be attempting to get donations from the public when she has the tendency to falsify or misrepresent facts for her own agenda. I will not be a part of her effort to raise donations when she have revealed who she truly is.

I refuse to go back and forth with regard to this issue. All I know is that PayPal and Wells Fargo ruled in my favor and I received all my money back. I stand behind my review. I would never recommend this company to any non-profit or business.

Ms. ****** is using selective amnesia in responding to this issue. What she is not stating is that Wells Fargo (her bank) had no contact or communication with me. Her issue started with her own bank providing her the fraud alert in which she made a double deposit on her own based on her own text message alert. Also, I don’t work or control what PayPal does internally with their transactions. Her attempt to frame the narrative that it is my responsibility is a weak presentation and does not take from the fact that she misrepresented herself to PayPal when she claimed that she was not provided her services. By making that false claim, PayPal ruled in favor of me because they determine based on my contract she was required to sign that she did receive services that was proposed. Her inability to accept or acknowledge that fact proves she is operating with another agenda. Her attempt to go through a third party who had no legal obligation proves she either she did not read the contract she had signed or she was attempting to misrepresent the facts by filing fraudulent claims. She does not want to go back and forth because her claims will fall apart once they are vetted and receipts are provided. If she desired to go own with this claim, I will be willing to put up my own documentation on this thread and let the public determine who is right. My issue with her is her attempt to pretend to be uniformed in the actions she actively engaged in during this process. Also, if she thinks she was wronged by me, let pursue it in the legal system. She won’t do that because she would be at risk of providing false statements to the court.. Instead of spending time attempting grow her nonprofit, she would rather spend time attempting to slander me. It will not work because, my work speaks for itself and I am still getting national recognition for the work I do. That is why I am always in demand.

I don't know how Wells Fargo does their investigations. However, I know I provided them documentation showing I paid your company twice. I'm sure they contacted PayPal (where the payment went through) and received the documentation showing you receive two payments from me which should have only been one payment. All I know is I received my $2500 back after filing my complaint. PayPal did initially rule in your favor until they went back and found there were several discrepancies and missteps on their end. Ultimately, they also ruled in my favor and I got my money back from them as well ($2500). Both companies can't be wrong in their investigation. My experience with you and your company was horrific. I have the right and obligation to put out a review of my personal experience with you and your company. You have the right to respond. Consumers can make their own personal decision if they want to do business with you. Based on my personal experience, I would give your company 1 star out of 5.