Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Pacific Office Automation's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Pacific Office Automation has 23 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Pacific Office Automation

  14747 NW Greenbrier Pkwy Beaverton, OR 97006-5601

• 

  Pacific Office Automation

  264 Liberty St NE Salem, OR 97302

• 

  Branch 54 Phoenix Kyocera

  4501 E. McDowell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85008

• 

  Branch 54 Phoenix Kyocera

  7720 Trade St Ste 111 San Diego, CA 92121

• 

  Branch 54 Phoenix Kyocera

  4501 E. McDowell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85008

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. 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.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/18/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  This business uses predatory practices and operates unethically. I own a small business and I contracted with POA to upgrade our network infrastructure. I was sold an additional bill of goods that was unnecessary and when I confronted POA about the stealthy practices, they shut off our communication network. They leveraged their expertise to strong-arm me into agreeing to a "LEASE" which raised the cost of equipment by almost 50%. I explained that we do not need nor have we agreed to procure the additional equipment, and they have relentlessly resent a SOW trying to get me to sign the documents.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/20/2025

  As an initial matter, please understand Pacific Office Automation, ***** (POA) takes great pride in the relationships we build with our customers. We consistently strive to provide exceptional service and support, particularly when challenges arise. The satisfaction of our customers is of the upmost importance to POA.

  This complaint pertains to two separate business-to-business agreements entered into in April 2024 between *********************************** (the Complainant). The first concerns IT equipment purchased from POA on cash terms, which was later transitioned to a 5-year lease. The second concerns IT services billed monthly by POA for various licenses and support services. POA believes this complaint is unwarranted and disagrees with several statements made by the Complainant. However, POA remains committed to working with the Complainant to continue providing services.

  With respect to the Complainants statement that POA strong-armed them into a lease or increased the cost by 50 percent, this is simply not true. The Complainant initially ordered equipment on cash terms but failed to make payment for over six months. Following this extended period of non-payment, POA offered the Complainant a lease option to finance the equipment over five years rather than requiring full payment upfront. At all times, the Complainant had the option to pay under the original cash terms, and the lease was merely an alternative solution to accommodate their distressed financial situation. As such, POA does not understand why the Complainant is now mischaracterizing this arrangement.

  With respect to the Complainants second claim regarding POA ceasing to provide IT services, this issue is solely a result of non-payment. As stated above, the Complainant contracted with POA for IT services, including various licenses and support. Since entering the contract in April 2024, and despite multiple communications from POA and pending suspension notices, the Complainant has continuously failed to pay its monthly *********** a result, in accordance with the contract, *** suspended IT services due to non-payment.

  After POA suspended these servicesbut prior to this complaint being filedthe Complainant assured POA that payment was forthcoming. As a show of good faith, POA restored services and reactivated the licenses. However, this promised payment has still not been received.Accordingly, *** believes this complaint is wholly unwarranted.

  We remain committed to assisting all our customers as they navigate financial challenges. POA has maintained open and consistent communication with the Complainant and has provided all necessary support to resolve this matter. POA will continue to monitor the situation and provide any additional information if required.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/14/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Date of Transaction: May 18, 2021 Amount in Dispute: $50,185 Pacific Office Automation (POA) trapped Fireclay Tile, **** in a predatory lease agreement for four printers at our ******, ** facility. This contract was signed by an unauthorized employee without proper authority, yet POA continues to demand payment and refuses to terminate the lease.POA has failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, including:Failure to supply toner (forcing us to purchase toner separately).Failure to provide technical support, despite repeated service requests.Failure to set up remote monitoring, which was supposed to track usage.The contract itself is predatory and deceptive:POA is charging $50,185 for printers worth $700 each.The agreement contains hidden fees, excessive APR (*****%), and automatic renewals designed to trap businesses.POA ignored our termination requests and refuses to remove the equipment.Fireclay Tile ceased payments months ago due to POAs breach of contract, yet POA continues to enforce this invalid agreement.We request that the BBB formally investigate Pacific Office Automation for deceptive leasing practices and publicly document their pattern of contract abuse.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/18/2025

  As an initial matter, please understand Pacific Office Automation, ***** (POA)prides itself on its relationships with its customers and goes to great lengths to provide exceptional service, especially when issues arise. While POA is committed to assisting this customer, POA would note that many items within the complaint would be more appropriately directed at ************************ (CFS),who as explained below, holds all rights and responsibilities under the equipment lease.
  

  This complaint pertains to a business-to-business lease for copier equipment (the Lease) and an associated service agreement to provide maintenance and supplies for the leased equipment (the Service Contract) entered by ******************* (the Complainant). *** agreed to secure financing for the ***** on behalf of the Complainant, which was facilitated through ***. As such, the Lease was subsequently assigned to ***. This assignment was permissible by the terms of the Lease and is customary in the industry in which POA operates. As a result, *** has exclusive authority over any termination of the Lease and the return of any equipment.
  
  POA believes this complaint is unwarranted and disagrees with several statements in this complaint as detailed below. Simply put, it is POAs position that the Complainants frustrations stem from being placed on service hold due to the Complaints continued failure to fulfill its payment obligations for services rendered, which the Complainant acknowledges in their own complaint.
  
  In reviewing the complaint, Complainant alleges the Lease was signed by an employee without proper authority and that *** has refused to terminate the lease for convenience. However, the signer of the Lease publicly represented herself as Fireclays Director of Technology, has previously executed contracts between POA and the Complainant without objection by the Complainant, and the Complainant accepted and used the equipment without dispute while making their initial payments for over 12 months. These facts clearly establish Fireclay was aware of the existence of the Lease and that the signer had the authority bind the Complainant.  
  
  Regarding the second aspect of the complaint, stating POA has failed to provide services in breach of the Service Contract, POA wholly disagrees. POA provided all equipment under the Lease and fully performed all services agreed to under the Service Contract until the Complainant was put on a service hold due to their payment delinquency. As clearly outlined in the Service Contract terms, continual non-payment may result in service suspension. On numerous occasions, POA representatives have notified Complainant of their unresolved past due balance, which the Complainant has failed to cure. Resultingly,(and as forewarned by POA) due to the Complainants failure to abide by its payment obligations, *** ultimately suspended providing service and supplies until payment is received. To date, Complainant remains in default and has yet to cure their past due balance.

  Lastly, the Complainant claims the Lease is predatory and deceptive, POA fully denies this claim. POA is unaware of the source of the ********************** figures, but they are simply incorrect. The Lease also explicitly details all costs, interest rates, and equipment. The terms of the Lease are clearly laid out on the Lease without any hidden fees as the Complainant alleges.
  

  In summation, due to Complaints failure to abide by its payment obligations, they have been placed on a service hold until payment is received. POA has made multiple attempts to facilitate a resolution, but Complainant has rejected all proposed arrangements. POA stands ready to engage in any communications to resolve the past due balance and resume service, but POA will not continue sending service and supplies while Complainant refuses to make payments due under the Service Contract. In respect to the Lease, POA does not possess the authority to terminate the Lease as it was assigned to ***. Should Complainant possess any documentation demonstrating CFS failing to abide by the Lease terms, POA is prepared to assist Complainant in ensuring that CFS adheres to the terms of the Lease. POA takes pride in the exceptional service it provides its customers and will continue to seek to find a mutually beneficial solution. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/18/2025

   
  Complaint: 22941116
  
  Dear BBB Representative,

  Fireclay ********** strongly disagrees with POAs response and maintains that POA is responsible for predatory leasing practices, breach of contract, and failure to provide services. POA is attempting to shift blame to ************************ (CFS) while conveniently ignoring the fact that POA facilitated, enforced, and continues to attempt to collect on this fraudulent lease.

  1) POA Facilitated & Enforced This Predatory Lease
  - POA was the entity that initiated and sold this lease agreement.
  - POA never verified that the signer had proper authority to bind Fireclay Tile to a 5-year financial commitment.
  - POA ignored multiple requests for termination and continues to enforce the lease under false pretenses.
  

  Shifting responsibility to CFS does not absolve POA of their role in predatory leasing. POA must take accountability for their deceptive business practices.
  

  2) POAs Failure to Provide Contracted Services
  POAs claim that service was suspended due to non-payment is misleading. The reality is:
  - POA failed to provide required services BEFORE Fireclay Tile stopped payment.
  - POA failed to properly configure the Wi-Fi necessary for remote monitoring and toner replenishment.
  - POA failed to deliver toner and supplies as required by the contract.
  - POA was unresponsive to service requests, leaving Fireclay Tile with non-functional equipment.
  

  POA was in breach of contract before Fireclay Tile withheld payments. We stopped paying because POA was not fulfilling their obligations.
  
  3) The Lease Terms Are Predatory & Unconscionable
  POA claims ************************ figures are incorrect, but the facts remain:
  - POA locked Fireclay Tile into a $50,185 lease for printers worth approximately $700 each.
  - POAs hidden fees and excessive APR (*****%) are designed to financially trap businesses.
  - The lease contains unfair cancellation terms that prevent businesses from exitingeven when POA fails to provide services.
  

  This is a textbook example of a predatory lease. Fireclay Tile will not pay for equipment that POA failed to support and service.
  
  4) Fireclay Tiles Demands (Final Opportunity for POA to Resolve This)
  Since POA has failed to meet its contractual obligations, Fireclay Tile reiterates its demands:
  - POA must immediately confirm lease termination in writing.
  - POA must schedule equipment removal no later than [14-day deadline].
  - If POA refuses, Fireclay Tile will escalate legal action, public exposure, and regulatory complaints.
  

  Fireclay Tile has already filed complaints with:
  The California Attorney General (for deceptive business practices).
  The ************************************ (****) (for potential violations of fair business contract enforcement).
  The Better Business Bureau (BBB) (to warn other businesses about POAs leasing practices).
  

  This issue will not be considered resolved until POA formally confirms lease termination and removes their equipment.
  

  **** *******
  CEO, Fireclay Tile

  Business Response

  Date: 02/27/2025

  As an initial matter, it is my understanding that multiple members of POAs leadership have attempted to discuss this matter with you, but you have refused to have any discussion with them. POA prides itself in maintaining lasting business relationships with our customers and is always willing to discuss and address any frustrations a customer may have and remains open to having a productive dialogue. However, in your complaint you make numerous allegations which are without merit, are not supported with evidence and fail to identify any specific contract provision you believe POA has allegedly breached. Nor have you provided any Oregon law or statutes (which governs the Contract) to substantiate any of your accusations.

  While I will briefly address the items listed in your complaint, ultimately POA hopes you will participate in a conversation with POAs leadership who have repeatedly sought to discuss a business resolution with you. It appears the root of your frustration relates to Fireclay being placed on service hold. As stated on the second page of the **************** Contract, Fireclays failure to abide by all payment obligations may result in termination of service. On numerous occasions, POA notified Fireclay of their unresolved past due balance, which Fireclay has failed to cure. Resultingly, in accordance with the Contract, POA suspended providing service and supplies. If you believe that any of your invoices are incorrect, I am happy to investigate them, but please note that non-payment will not relieve you of your contractual obligations.

  There is a legally binding contract between POA and Fireclay, and **** ****** had the necessary authority to enter into the agreement on ********* behalf. The facts strongly indicate that this argument is unfounded. ****** publicly held herself out as Fireclays Director of Technology, had previously executed contracts between POA and Fireclay without objection, and Fireclay accepted, used, and made payments on the equipment under the Contract without dispute for over 12 months. These facts demonstrate that Fireclay was aware of the Contract and that ****** had the authority to act on its behalf.
  Further,where you state that *** has failed to provide services, I encourage you to review the terms and conditions of the Contract. The Contract explicitly states that POA is not responsible for Fireclays network or persistent Wi-Fi issues. Additionally, as stated above, POA suspended service and supplies due to Fireclays unresolved past due balance. POA has notified Fireclay multiple times regarding its outstanding past-due balance, which remains unresolved.

  I will defer you to your legal team on the specifics of procedural and substantive unconscionability. However, the Contract was voluntarily entered into by both parties, with all terms and conditions made available to Fireclay prior to execution. Additionally, ******** signed a Lease Financing Disclosure which, among other key terms, contained the APR, Term, Finance Charge, and the Funding Provided.  Taking these facts into consideration, claims of hidden fees or deceptive leasing practices are clearly unsubstantiated, and POA remains confident that an industry-standard lease agreement between two corporate entities would not be deemed unconscionable by any court.

  As previously stated, POA prides itself in maintaining lasting business relationships and our goal is to continue a business relationship that is beneficial to both companies. If Fireclay wishes to discuss the matter in good faith, we welcome that dialogue. That said, *** will not entertain any contract termination demands predicated on meritless allegations. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/17/2025

  Dear BBB Representative,

  Fireclay Tile, **** rejects Pacific Office Automations response as unacceptable. POAs response does not address the key issues raised in this complaint.

  POA structured, facilitated, and enforced this lease but is now attempting to shift responsibility to ************************* POA failed to deliver the correct equipment, requiring Fireclay Tile to purchase additional hardware. POA failed to provide services before Fireclay Tile stopped payments, including toner supply, remote monitoring setup, and necessary technical support. POA delayed and obstructed Fireclay Tiles attempts to terminate the lease in early 2024 and provided misleading buyout figures. POA representatives, including **** ********, had multiple opportunities to retrieve equipment but refused to do so.

  POAs claim that Fireclay Tile never identified specific breaches of contract is inaccurate. Documented failures include:

  • Failure to provide required toner and supplies, forcing Fireclay Tile to purchase its own **********************
  • Failure to deliver Wi-Fi-enabled equipment as agreed, requiring Fireclay Tile to purchase alternative *********************
  • Failure to properly set up and service the equipment, despite multiple service *********************
  • Failure to process an early contract termination request in 2024, despite repeated follow-ups.

  POAs characterization of this dispute as solely about non-payment is misleading. Fireclay Tile only stopped payments after POA repeatedly failed to meet its contractual obligations.

  POA remains responsible for enforcing this contract, yet it has refused to terminate the lease, retrieve its equipment, or acknowledge documented service failures. POAs refusal to resolve this issue has led Fireclay Tile to escalate its regulatory complaints with the California Attorney General, the ************************************, the ************************, and the Better Business Bureau.

  Fireclay Tile will not accept any resolution other than the following:

  • POA must confirm lease termination in writing within seven *****************
  • POA must retrieve its equipment by March 25, 2025.

  If POA fails to comply, Fireclay Tile will continue escalating its case through regulatory agencies and public exposure. Fireclay Tile has no interest in further discussions. This is POAs final opportunity to resolve this matter.

  **** *******
  CEO, Fireclay Tile

   

  **** *******, CEO

  Direct: **************

  Business Response

  Date: 03/21/2025

  POAs leadership has provided detailed responses to Fireclays complaints, sent numerous emails, and even a formal letter thoroughly refuting Erics allegations and requesting the opportunity to speak about this matter.Additionally, POAs leadership has repeatedly requested a meeting with ****,which he has outright refused. POA values its customer relationships and is willing to make every effort to address any issues, but we cannot do so if **** is unwilling to engage in any conversation.
  
  As outlined in our previous correspondences, POA wholly disagrees with several points raised (in this complaint and Erics prior complaints) and believes that many of Erics allegations are simply factually inaccurate. While **** claims to have documentation supporting these allegations, he has yet to provide any such evidence. If he does have relevant documentation, POA is happy to review it.
  
  POA remains open to a good-faith discussion. If **** or *************** would like to have an amicable discussion, POA welcomes the opportunity.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/15/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Hello, Im a printing company. I signed a service and purchase contract on a machine for 5 years. POA who sold me the machine, could not service my machine, I kept having lots of issues and there technicians could not address the issues. I stopped my service payments but continued to pay for my loan payments on the machine. But I now have no way of getting service from any other company because they have blacklisted my machine. I can not even get service directly from the Manufacturer, they can not service my machine since they other company blacklisted my machine by created false reports and false promises. There is also a large discrimination issue in my case. Another larger company, who I have contact with, also purchased the exact same machine from the same company around the exact time. They had similar issues and were giving the opportunity to return the machine and get a different machine. I believe this had a lot to do with me being a minority and much smaller business. When I confronted POA about knowing they changed out machine, they told me they would help me do the same. But they have failed to return my machine and I can not get help from any service provider since my machine is blacklisted. They owner of the company who received a new machine, has agreed to help me in any way legally to confirm they switched out his machine for the same issues I faced. This contract was a contract for$150,000+ and this has been the largest purchase my company has ever made and I have lost a large amount of my business in this process. And now there service department has sent my service balance to collections, further damaging my business.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/22/2024

  This Complaint concerns a business-to-business lease which originated between POA and the Complainant for equipment and service on a commercial printer, which was executed on October 5, 2020 (the Contract). The Complaint states three topics: that POA refused to service the Complainants equipment, that POA refused to work with the Complainant to trade out their equipment, and that POA discriminated against the Complainant. POA has spent a significant amount of time and energy in an effort to resolve any and all issues the Complainant has presented.
  
  POA ceased to perform service on the equipment simply because the Complainant by their own admission stopped making payments for the service portion of the Contract. The Contract states that Customers failure to abide by all payment obligations may result in termination of service. The Complainants suggestion that *** has intervened with their ability to contract with third party service providers is simply untrue. POA responded to the service calls placed by the Complainant, including in some instances after the point at which the Complainant ceased to make service payments. *** also engaged the manufacturer of the leased equipment to find a solution to the Complainants alleged issues. The manufacturer indicated that the issue was likely not due to the equipment itself, but due to the use of paper stock that is not supported on the device and is the sole responsibility of the Complainant.
  
  
  The Complainant also alleges that POA refused to offer him an opportunity to trade out the equipment. This is also untrue. POA engaged with the Complainant multiple times on potentially replacing the Complainants equipment and attempted to arrange a demonstration of a competitive product for the Complainant. At this point the Complainant ceased responding to POAs repeated communications.Please see the attached exhibit, in which the Complainant mentions the discussions regarding a possible replacement and acknowledges that the Complainant had stopped responding to POA for a period.
  
  POA would also like to address the Complainants allegations of discrimination. POA strives to ensure that all clients are treated with respect and receive excellent customer service. POA sees no merit to these accusations and has made every effort to provide excellent service and support to the Complainant. POA has reviewed all communications with the Complainant and found nothing to suggest any discriminatory behavior.
  
  POA is happy to continue working with the Complainant to find an acceptable replacement for his current device. POA will not, however, continue to perform service for the Complainant while they are delinquent on their payments, as per the Contract. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/17/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  UnresolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  We lease printers from Pacific Office Automation (POA). The lease is financed by **************** for ~$840 per month, but the actual contract is with POA for additional monthly maintenance fees of close to $200.On 10/19/2023, our printer Serial Number ************* stopped working and it didn't work for more than 30 days, until POA replaced it with a "loaner" Serial Number ************* on **/**/2023. This equipment downtime caused our store to lose printing revenue and profits for 1 month since we had to outsource printing. At that moment, we asked POA to reimburse the lease amount of this equipment (since it wasn't working), and got reimbursed for $569.22 in POA fees, but we never received reimbursement for equipment that was non-functional. When we addressed this with POA, they mentioned we needed to take this up with Canon and not POA. When we reached out to ***** to ask for our money back, ***** said they were only the financing company and not the actual operator and we should take this up with POA, so both parties were just pointing the finger at each other. The original printer that was taken from our PostNet store had close to ****** prints at the moment of retrieval (one year into the contract) and the "loaner" has more than ******* as of June 6th, 2024. It has been more than 10 months since we have had this "loaner" equipment that's not part of our lease and we are still paying the same monthly fee. POA argues that this is a "newer" equipment with higher speeds, but we do not request this equipment. We need the equipment we signed our lease for with less usage. We have followed up with POA multiple times, but they just give us the run around or ignore our requests. According to POA, the equipment that was taken from our store and we have signed a lease for has been decommissioned due to factory failures and it will never be restored. We never signed a new agreement and in our view this is a breach of contract. Can someone please help us?

  Business Response

  Date: 09/26/2024

  As an initial matter, please understand Pacific Office Automation, Inc., (“POA”) takes great pride in the relationships we build with our customers. We consistently strive to provide exceptional service and support, particularly when challenges arise. The satisfaction of our customers is of the upmost importance to POA.
  
  This complaint pertains to a business-to-business lease agreement for copier equipment entered into by Amanda Sanchez, the owner of a PostNet franchise (the “Complainant”). While POA believes this complaint is unwarranted and disagrees with several statements in the complaint, we are confident that the complaint is not reflective of POA's performance or service. Moreover, the parent company, PostNet, has communicated their agreement with our position that the complaint is unwarranted and has assured us that the complaint will be promptly removed. They also consider this matter resolved.
  
  Briefly, POA is aware that the Complainant’s business has faced financial challenges and there is an ongoing effort to seek a buyer. Throughout this process, POA has remained in communication with both the Complainant and PostNet, offering support to facilitate any transition. In respect to the lease agreement Complainant entered, POA has actively worked to provide options for the assignment and assumption of the lease by a potential buyer, which would relieve the Complainant of further obligations.
  
  We remain committed to assisting all our customers as they navigate their unique challenges. POA has provided consistent communication with the Complainant and PostNet and believes that we have provided all necessary support to resolve this matter. Although we have been assured that this complaint will be removed, POA will continue to monitor the situation and provide any additional information if required.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/01/2024

   
  Complaint: 22298549
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  This matter is not closed and PostNet (franchise) is not involved. This is an issue between Amanda Sanchez (PostNet CA152) and POA. POA’s statement regarding the franchise’s opinion on the matter is another lie to not address the issue. Their response is just a standard template without addressing the matter and providing a solution. Just dragging things out and going in circles.

  We provided facts, dates and serial number info in our complaint, not only through the BBB but also directly to POA. Our intention is to get support from a stronger organization such as BBB, since POA keeps ignoring the facts. Ask them for serial numbers and equipment replacement and usage. It’s been almost a year with this issue but instead of solving it, they continue to give us the go around. It feels like the small-business owner does not have a way to get out of a contract with a supplier that’s under performing and not holding their end of the bargain. It seems like POA just intends to keep ignoring the matter, until we go away. 
  

  We are desperate for help and resolution. We have been trying to resolve this matter with them, but they continue to ignore emails or phone calls. We don’t want to continue working with a vendor such an POA with unethical business practices.

  Sincerely,
  
  Fernando Sanchez

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/25/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I had a meeting with ****** and **** from Pacific Office Automation on what I believe was 3/1/24 to discuss security cameras for my business, ****************** and my business partner's business, ********* Fitness Studios. We were given quotes for cameras, as well as a general estimate on installation costs, which I was unaware an additional 3rd party would be needed to install. I was under the impression Pacific Office would be installing the cameras once they arrived. The cameras were sent to my office, and they are still unopened in the box as they were shipped. We received an additional quote for installation that was two times the original estimate from ****** and ****. We are now looking at spending in the ball-park of $16,000 just to install cameras. As small businesses, we are unable to absorb or justify that kind of cost for cameras alone. When I reached back out to ****** expressing the desire to return the cameras, he said Pacific Office was willing to cover $500 of the installation costs, but that was the most they could do to help us out. It says on Pacific Office Automation's website that they're philanthropists and are here to help small businesses. I feel like this deal was not clearly explained and that we are now being forced into a contract we didn't have full details for in the first place. I would like a resolution, and all we want is to return the cameras with no charge. ****** from Pacific Office is now saying we will have to pay the full MSRP of the cameras if we don't sign a lease agreement, and we are unwilling to do so. The cameras themselves are $12k.I also never received a fully signed copy of the contract, which states it is non-cancellable.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/03/2024

  As an initial matter, please understand Pacific Office Automation, ***** (POA) prides itself on its relationships with its customers and goes to great lengths to provide exceptional service. The satisfaction of our customers is of the upmost importance to POA. To that point, upon receipt of the Complaint, POA has been in contact with Method ********* (********************************************)to attempt good faith efforts to resolve this issue, but POA will not accept the Customers repudiation of the fully executed contract.

  This Complaint concerns a business-to-business equipment lease agreement for Office Security Cameras (attached for reference).In reading the complaint, POA disputes several factual items stated by Method *********.

  First, the Complaint states, I was unaware an additional 3rd party would be needed to install. POA disagrees as this topic was fully discussed prior to execution of the Agreement and Method ********* was in full knowledge. In support, please reference the attached text messages between POA and the Customer from February 26, ********** occurred prior to Method Juice Cafs execution of the Agreement. POA states, thats no problem an informed decision is the right decision but out of curiosity, are you looking at installers or are you looking at other bids.The point being, POA was aware Method Juice Caf was seeking 3rd party bids to install the Security Cameras. In other words, why would the Customer be seeking 3rd party bids from an installer, if they believed POA would be the Company to complete the installation. Additionally, there were several oral conversations on this same topic between the parties as well as the Agreement is void of any representations or statements in which POA contracted to complete the installation.

  Second, the Complaint states, we are now looking at spending in the ball-park of $16,000 just to install cameras. This is factually inaccurate. *** reached out directly to the installer who prepared the bids for Method Juice Caf. The installer has confirmed that the total quote for installation is $2,780.00, not $16,000. Please see attached bids from the Installer which total $2,780.00 for Security Camera installation. Moreover,POA has informed Method Juice Caf that POA is willing to contribute up to $780.00 towards installation costs. Meaning the total amount Method Juice Caf would pay to install the Security Cameras at three different locations is only $2000.00,not $16,000.00.

  In summation, POA is generally confused by the factual inaccuracies in the Complaint stated by Method Juice Caf. That being said, POA seeks to resolve this issue with the Customer and will continue to reach out to the Customer in good faith to resolve the installation issue. POA takes pride in the exceptional service it provides its customers and seeks to find mutually beneficial solutions should any grievances arise. POA stands ready and willing to meet and discuss resolutions with the Customer, however, POA will not accept the Customers attempts to repudiate the fully executed Agreement, in which delivery of the goods per the Agreement has already occurred.  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/03/2024

   
  Complaint: 21607904
  
  I am rejecting this response because: the response given shows that my issue has been misunderstood. The total expense for cameras and installation amounts to $16,000, not the installation alone. As a small business, we are simply unwilling to spend that amount of money on cameras. We were not expressly told that a third-party would be installing. I signed the contract under the impression that Pacific Office would be doing the installation. The cameras arrived, I texted ****** from Pacific Office to ask what was next for installation since I thought Pacific Office would handle it, and then was passed on to a third-party. The cameras are still in the boxes, unopened, perfectly ready to use at a different location. After the lack of support from Pacific Office in trying to resolve our issue, and after seeing multiple BBB complaints pop up with this company's record, we no longer feel comfortable doing business with Pacific Office and would simply like to return the cameras.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ********************************************

  Business Response

  Date: 05/07/2024

  As stated before, POA is more than happy to resolve this matter but will not accept a complete repudiation of the fully executed agreement. On March 4, 2024, you executed a non-cancellable agreement for the lease of various business security cameras. The term of that agreement is 48 months.Upon receipt of the non-cancellable agreement signed by you, POA ordered the cameras through the manufacturer and procured all applicable and required licenses.Similar to you, POA cannot simply unwind a fully executed agreement/order in which POA has already ordered and paid for the equipment, equipment that has since been delivered to you. While we will not accept termination of the fully executed agreement, POA is more than willing to work in good faith to resolve the only issue apparent which is the $2,000 installation cost. POAs Branch Manager, *************************, has been in contact with you to discuss and will continue to reach out to you in attempts to resolve.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/09/2024

   
  Complaint: 21607904
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Pacific Office is remaining unwilling to help us return these cameras. Their website says they're philanthropists and are willing to work with small business. After seeing the total of what our costs out of pocket would be for cameras, we are unwilling to absorb that cost, and Pacific Office remains unwilling to take the cameras back, despite the financial burden this would place on us. I didn't have all of the necessary information before signing that contract, as I was under the impression Pacific Office would be installing our cameras. At this point, we feel like another sale to Pacific Office instead of businesses attempting to help one another. If Pacific Office is indeed in line with their mission of helping small businesses, they will come up with a solution to get the cameras returned or sold to another buyer.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ********************************************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/23/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I am writing to file a complaint against Pacific Office Automation regarding what appears to be a pattern of deception in their lease agreements and handling of property returns. This is shown by their past complaints on BBB as well as Yelp. Our company, **************** had been a loyal client for a decade, consistently meeting our financial obligations on time. However, our recent experience with Pacific Office Automation has left us deeply dissatisfied and frustrated.In September of 2023, we proactively contacted Pacific Office Automation's ************* Account Servicing Representative and Financial Servicing team via email and phone calls to notify them of our business closure and our decision not to extend our lease, which was set to expire in April of the following year. Despite our efforts to communicate our intentions, we were blindsided when attempting to arrange for the pickup of the copier, only to be informed that our lease had been extended for another two years due to an alleged failure to reach out by December of 2023.Adding to our frustration, we had already contacted Pacific Office Automation prior to September 2023 to inform them of our closure, providing both verbal notification and an email detailing our closure and providing a new billing address for the remainder of the lease until April 2024.We simply seek clarity on where to return the copier and to halt any renewal of the lease. We fulfilled our obligations as lessees, and it is unjust for Pacific Office Automation to extend the lease without our consent or proper notification, especially after confirming seven months prior that we would not require the copier or lease any further.I kindly request that the Better Business Bureau investigates this matter and intervene on our behalf to ensure a fair and just resolution.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/02/2024

  As an initial matter,please understand Pacific Office Automation, ***** (POA) prides itself on its relationships with its customers and is currently attempting to contact the customer to help resolve this complaint. While POA is committed to assisting this customer, POA would note this complaint would be more appropriately directed at ***** *********** N.A. (***** Fargo), who as explained below,holds all rights to the equipment lease.

  This complaint pertains to a business-to-business lease for copier equipment (the Contract)entered into by Scout Realty LLC (Scout). POA agreed to secure financing for the Contract on behalf of Scout, which was facilitated through ***** Fargo. As such, the Contract was subsequently assigned to ***** Fargo. This assignment was permissible by the terms of the Contract and is customary in the industry in which POA operates. As a result, ***** Fargo controls all terminations of a lease and the return of the equipment.

   In reviewing the complaint, it is POAs understanding Scout is frustrated that their lease renewed. As stated in Section 12 of the Contract, if the customer does not provide written notice between 60 and 120 days, the [Contract] shall automatically renew for one additional term of twelve (12) months. After a review of POAs records, *** has received no written communications from the customer in the past year other than the April 23, 2024 email Scout attached. As such, POA has verified that no written notice was provided to POA.

  Furthermore, in reviewing the emails Scout attached, it appears that all prior communications have been with ***** Fargo at ***************************************** such, if Scout did provide a timely notice, it was likely sent to ***** Fargo. If Scout is able to provide POA documentation of such notice being given timely, POA will provide all necessary assistance in ensuring ***** Fargo complies with the Contract.
  

  Lastly,POA understands that Scout believes their lease has been renewed for an additional two years. POA is confused by this complaint as in the e-mails provided by Scout, ***** Fargo explicitly states that the renewal term is one year. As stated above, the Contract provides for a one-year renewal term. As such, POA does not have any reason to believe that ***** Fargo is enforcing a term beyond the Contract.
  

  In summation, Scout never submitted any notice to POA and POA does not possess the authority to terminate the Contract as it was assigned to ***** Fargo. Assuming Scout did not provide timely written notice to ***** Fargo, ***** Fargos renewal of the lease for an additional year is in accordance with the Contract. POA takes pride in the exceptional service it provides its customers and will continue to seek to find a mutually beneficial solution. Should Scout possess any documentation demonstrating timely written notice was given, POA is prepared to assist Scout in ensuring ***** Fargo adheres to the terms of the Contract. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/13/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Pacific Office Automations have repeatedly called harassing our business with deceptive calls that include using old employee contact names and lies about previous conversations to attempt to scam our employees. These calls have continued after multiple requests by our office to not contact us further. This continued harassment impedes our ability to keep phone lines open for emergency requests that we often field in our day to day operations.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/13/2025

  Thank you for bringing this  concern to our attention. We are deeply sorry to hear about the unwanted e calls your business has been receiving. We understand how disruptive and frustrating this must be, especially when it impacts your ability to manage important communications. Please accept our sincerest apologies for any stress this situation may have caused. We take reports of this nature very seriously and do not condone any form of deceptive or harassing behavior.
  We will ensure that take necessary actions are taken to prevent this from happening again. We value your business and the trust you place in us. I assure you we are committed to resolving this swiftly. If you have any further concerns or if there is anything specific youd like to address, please do not hesitate to reach out directly.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/13/2025

   
  Complaint: 21002262
  
  I am rejecting this response because: We need assurances that Pacific Office Automations will remove our number from their system and will not call us unsolicited. Again, the consistent, unsolicited calls wherein they lie in an attempt to talk to our elected officials not only interrupt business, but can lock up the phone lines, blocking emergency calls.

  Again, Pacific Office Automations must clearly state they will no longer call our office for any reason.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Atu Local 587

  Business Response

  Date: 03/20/2025

  POA does not agree and disputes the stated characterization that "POA  called harassing our business with deceptive calls." Notwithstanding, to help resolve, POA has entered notes in our system to restrict calls to your company. We hope this resolve the matter but please let us know if there are other concerns or if the matter continues. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/21/2025

   
  Complaint: 21002262
  
  I am rejecting this response because: A call wherein a representative of POA states they have a scheduled time to talk with an officer who has not worked at the office for nearly a decade is, by definition, deceptive. We will not accept any resolution that does not contain a complete cease and desist of contact from POA. Again, this office fields emergency calls for public sector employees. ***'s sales team calling and lying about appointments with officers that do not work here impedes our operations and thus the safety of the employees we represent. Cease and desist all contact immediately and in perpetuity.  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Atu Local 587

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/26/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  UnresolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  In March of 2022, I sent a notice of termination of my lease agreement to ***************************. My lease end date was October of 2023, but due to health circumstances I had to close my office which negated my need for the equipment. I fully recognized that I would have to pay the balance of the lease, however, ****** advised me that I was required to buyout the equipment and that early termination was not possible. I escalated to ******************************** who was no help. ***** agreed to contact the lease company to assist in processing the return, but I never got a response from him. It also took 4 months to get him to respond to my initial request. I have been trying now for for ************************************************************************************* with the return. Now they are trying to say they gave me an early return option in 2022 and I didn't take it. No "early return" was offered, only a buyout was offered. I am now having to resort to hiring legal counsel to get this company to honor the contract.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/29/2023

  As an initial matter,please understand Pacific Office Automation, ***** (POA) prides itself on its relationships with its customers and goes to great lengths to provide exceptional service, especially when issues arise. The satisfaction of our customers is of the upmost importance to POA.

  This Complaint concerns a business-to-business lease for copier equipment. In order to finance the Contract, it was subsequently assigned from POA to De ********************* ********* Services (DLL). This transfer was allowed by the terms of the Contract between POA and the customer and is customary in the industry in which POA operates. To that end, DLL controls any early termination of a lease and return of leased equipment.

  POA agrees that the customer contacted POA in 2022 with a request to terminate the lease early. *** also agrees with the customer that in order to terminate the lease early, the full balance of the lease must be paid. To that end, POA provided the customer two buy-out options. In particular, in July 2022, POA [***********************] sent the customer a buy-out option from DLL which provided for only the balance of the lease plus applicable taxes (see attached email). In other words, this July 2022 buy-out option did not require or request the customer purchase the equipment. Since those buy-out options were presented, the customer has not paid off the balance of the lease. Since the balance of the lease has not been paid off, equipment return instructions have not been provided by DLL. POA is uncertain why the customer is unsatisfied given we agree that the full balance of the lease must be paid, and two buy-out options were provided.

  In summation, POA provided the customer with two buy-out options, but since the balance of the lease has not been paid, equipment return instructions have not been sent. POA takes pride in the exceptional service it provides its customers and seeks to find mutually beneficial solutions should any grievances arise. POA stands ready and willing to meet and discuss any grievances the customer may have.However, *** believes it has provided exactly what the customer is requesting,a buy-out with no requirement for equipment purchase. Therefore, we are confused as to why there is any issue or grievance. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/03/2023

   
  Complaint: 20918300
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  The contract required PCH to notify me in writing that the contract was assigned to DLL.  This did not happen.  In addition, where in the contract does it state that the lease must be paid off before the equipment can be returned?  In July of 2022, ****** advised me that the full buyout of the equipment was the only option and that I did not have the option to just payoff the lease and return the equipment.  I have previously provided that correspondence which was a falsification on the part of PCH.  In addition, if PCH did assign the contract to DLL, why did PCH, after months of asking, finally send me a full buyout offer and advise me that it was the only option.  I have been completely mislead and flat out lied to.  I have this documented in writing.  It was in March of 2022 that I asked ****** how to cancel the contract.  Do you see the problem that it took 4 months to get any response and that response was that a full buyout was my only option!  Had ****** responded in a reasonable amount of time and provided accurate information about the return of the equipment, the contract would not have renewed.  DLL is fully aware that this machine has not been used since March of 2022 because the copy count has been ZERO.  I also did respond to the latest request for a copy count that the machine had not been in use and that we had been trying to cancel the contract and return the equipment.  I did not receive a reply to that email and it was sent in the required timeframe.  DLL has fully known of my intention to cancel the contract and has colluded with PCH to ignore the customers request and dodge providing me with a return address for the equipment.  Again, please show me the language in the contract that states I cannot return the equipment until the lease is paid in full!  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

  Business Response

  Date: 12/13/2023

  As an initial matter, we are uncertain who PCH is, whom the customer references in their Complaint. We are Pacific Office Automation (POA). We are uncertain if the customer is trying to say there is another company involved in this matter, but for the sake of responding to this Complaint we will assume the customer is trying to reference POA.

  In the recent response, ****************** stated, The contract requires PCH notify me in writing that the contract was assigned to DLL. This statement is factually wrong. The ********************** Master Agreement (***), under section 13 entitled Assignment, states, We may, without notifying you: (a) assign the *** Agreement or our interest in the Equipment As clearly stated in the ******* has no obligation to notify customers when the lease has been assigned.Therefore, we are confused as to where in the contract the customer is seeing a written notice requirement regarding assignment.

  We are puzzled by the customers new complaint about the requirement to pay the lease in full before returning the equipment. In the customers first complaint, the customer clearly states, I fully recognized that I would have to pay off the balance of the lease Given the customer has fully admitted that the lease needs to be paid in full in the previous complaint, we are confused as to why this is now an issue.

  POA reiterates that we have provided the customer with what they want. The customer requested an option to pay the balance of the lease and then return the equipment.  Specifically in an email from *********************** on or around July 20, 2022, the option the customer requested was provided.This email was attached to our original response to the customers complaint and attached to this response. The email states, In this option you would only be paying off the remaining stream of payments Therefore, we are uncertain why the customer believes the only option they received was a full buyout.

  It is irrelevant that the customer has not used the equipment. The lease the customer signed governs the equipment. A payment obligation exists regardless of whether the equipment is being used. When a person leases a car, they are obligated to make the lease payments regardless of whether the car is being driven ever day or if the car sits in the driveway for their entire lease term. Similarly,there is a baseline payment obligation for the equipment itself. Therefore, it does not matter if the equipment is sitting unused.

   In summation, POA is generally confused by this Complaint. *** believes that we have provided the customer with the exact solution they requested, paying off the balance of the lease and returning the equipment. To that end, POA does not understand why this is a persistent issue nor does it understand why the customer is alleging any new complaints.

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/22/2023

  POA is very crafty in avoiding the question.  I have inquired multiple times on where I can return the equipment.  The lease company is stating that I have to payoff the lease before they will provide a location to return the equipment.  I asked them to show me where this is a requirement of the contract and their response further shows their massive lack of integrity.  In addition, in writing I was told that I could not pay off the lease early and return the equipment.  I am happy to publish that email from ******.  So please avoid your long winded avoidance of answering my question. Why cant you just provide a direct answer instead of dancing around the facts?

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/05/2023

  Type:Customer Service Issues
  Status:

  UnresolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I have sent numerous emails and left several voicemails to Pacific Office Automation since May of 2023, as our invoices have been billed to ** incorrectly. In October of 2022, we had VOIP phones installed at our new office location - a TOTAL of 3 phones. They have been incorrectly billing us for "8 UC Users" i.e. 8 lines, and when I brought this to their attention I have received little to no response. The person stated to be my account manager (*******************) was extremely rude and said I told them the wrong number of users in October, which I did not as I only have 3 employees and would never have stated we needed 8 lines on our account. He also said he had called me numerous times to discuss our account, but when I said I never received any messages from him, he said, "Oh, I didn't leave you any voicemails." Not sure how I am supposed to know you called if you didn't leave a message. I also discovered a printer lease that we had not used for several years still being charged to us.I just received another bill today, where they now have "4 UC Users" listed for our account, which is still incorrect.This company has the worst customer service. When you call the person listed on the invoice to call with billing questions (***************************), they don't respond. Many times, the phone just rings without the option to leave a voicemail. I have emailed this person and left another voicemail today about the matter. Sadly, I do not expect a response because she has not responded to my prior messages. I am trying to resolve this matter and I am getting no assistance. I cannot pay invoices that are incorrect and have stated this several times to those I have been able to speak with about it. They also refuse to issue any credits, and the bill I received last month still had "8 UC Users" listed. I lead the Peoria Chamber of Commerce and find this to be horrible business practices by Pacific Office Automation, a company I previously regarded as reputable.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/11/2023

  As an initial matter, please understand Pacific Office Automation, ***** (POA)prides itself on its relationships with its customers and goes to great lengths to provide exceptional service, especially when issues arise. The satisfaction of our customers is of the upmost importance to POA. *** believes that we have resolved this complaint and have been attempting to contact this customer to ensure its resolution or to resolve any outstanding issues.  

  
  This complaint consists of two separate complaints. To summarize, this customers (Complainant') first complaint concerns the number of phone lines the customer contracted for. Though the customer contracted for more phone lines than they now desire, POA has accommodated the customers request and reduced the number of phone lines on their contract. The second complaint concerns a non-cancellable lease the customer entered. As explained further below, POA is not the owner of this lease, and this complaint is more appropriately directed towards US Bank.

  
  The first complaint concerns invoices the Complainants has received in connection to their contract for phone lines. The Complainant signed a contract with POA for five (5) phone lines and service in April of 2020. In November 2022,Complainant requested three (3) additional phone lines with associated service to be added to their contract. Complainant was notified that the three (3)additional phone lines would run concurrently with their current contract,which Complainant approved in writing on November 30, 2022.  As a result, POA added the three (3)additional to their monthly invoice, and the Complainant was invoiced for eight (8) phone lines in total.

  
  In May of 2023, Complainant then notified POA that they only intended to contract for three (3) phone lines in total. POA accommodated the Complainants request and reduced the contract from eight (8) phone lines to three (3) phone lines. The Complainant has since requested, and POA accommodated, the addition of a fourth (4th) phone line. POA is uncertain why Complainant is alleging being invoiced for a fourth (4th) phone line is incorrect.

  
  To summarize, when Complainant notified POA they mistakenly contracted for more phone lines than intended, POA immediately altered the contract and began invoicing Complainant for their intended number of phone lines. Complainant has since added, and POA has provided, an additional phone line, which Complainant is being properly invoiced for.

  
  The second complaint concerns a business-to-business lease contract which originated between POA and the Complainant for copier equipment, which was executed on July 29, 2017 (the Contract). Pursuant to the Contract, POA, on behalf of the Complainant,secured lease financing for the Contract and copier equipment through US Bank.To that end, and with Complainants knowledge, POA assigned the copier equipment and the rights to receive lease payments under the Contract to US Bank. As such, POA is not the owner of the equipment, and this complaint is more appropriately directed at US Bank.

  
   In 2021, Complainant closed its office and requested POA to pick up the copier. POA agreed to store the copier to help alleviate the Complainant of storage fees, but explained to the Complainant that the lease was owned by US Bank, was non-cancellable, and that the Complainant would remain responsible for the lease. In an email received on May 7, 2021,Complainant acknowledged this, stating they were working with US Bank and would fulfill the agreement. As POA is not the owner of the lease, POA is not in the position to address any issues regarding the lease and this complaint is more appropriately directed towards US Bank.  

  
              In October 2022, POA noticed that Complainant was invoiced for service of the copier. Although POA is not responsible for the lease, POA issued service credits for any month in which Complainant was improperly invoiced for the copier.

  
              To be clear, POA believes it has resolved this complaint. POA has fully accommodated Complainants request by reducing the number of phone lines Complainant is invoiced for. Moreover, POA is not responsible for the copier equipment lease because POA is not the owner of the equipment. Despite not being responsible for the lease, POA has issued service credit for any incorrect invoices. POA has attempted to contact Complainant via phone and email to address Complainants concerns, but POA has received no response. Regardless of POAs previous attempts to contact Complainant, POA continues to stand ready and willing resolve any other outstanding issues Complainant may have. However, *** believes that this complaint has been fully resolved. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/11/2023

   
  Complaint: 20700884
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  In the communication indicated on 11/30/2022, I requested a TOTAL of 3 office phones. I indicated a total number of employees for the organization to be 3, and I do not know how that was taken to ADD 3 lines to the 5 that were already in place. I provided an updated **** GROUP list that only had 3 employee lines indicated.

  In numerous communications to POA, when I discovered this error, I asked for this to be changed to "3 UC USERS" and it still has not been fixed. The last invoice I received for invoice period 9/22/23 - 10/22/23 has 4 UC USERS indicated, which is still incorrect. When I brought this matter to the attention of POA in May, I additionally requested invoice adjustment from at least May moving forward, and I still have not received any adjustments to those invoices.

  I have enclosed my last invoice listing 4 UC USERS. I have also included the email from ************************* from 7/14/23 stating he told their team to move to 3 users. That still has not been done and I continue to be overbilled.

  I also want to point out in their response that they have stated they have contacted me several times to resolve the issue, but since May most of my communications went without a response. My last email was sent to ************************* on 9/11/23 and I have not received a response. I have included that email as well.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/11/2023

  I am submitting additional information regarding this complaint. In the response received from POA, they indicated they have tried to reach out to me multiple times, but attached is proof that is not the case.

  ************************* stated in an email (attached) on 10/9/23 that he "tried calling a couple of times last week and left you a message earlier today." I have one missed call from POA during the week of October 2nd (I can provide documentation, if necessary) with no voicemail left.

  In the second attachment provided, that is the email notification for all voicemails received thru our phone line. There was no message left, as indicated by the 3 second duration of the message. There was no message from **** mentioning wanting to discuss our account. In my initial phone conversation with him about this matter, he indicated he tried to reach out to me multiple times about my account. I never received missed calls and when I asked further as to how he was reaching out to me, as I did not receive any emails or voicemails from him, he said, "Oh, I didn't leave any messages."

  How am I supposed to return a call if there has been no message left? 

  I have never experienced a worse customer service situation than I am experiencing now with POA. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/22/2023

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  We have a contract with Pacific Autom for 2 copier machines, One of them unit 5A27775 will not work. We have had numerous techs out here to fix the machine and it still does not work. i have called the local branch and they will not help me, I have called the crop office and was just placed on hold no one will get on the phone. I have a service contract with them also and they are not living up to it.

  Business Response

  Date: 09/28/2023

  Pacific Office Automation, ***** (POA) prides itself on its relationships with its customers and goes to great lengths to provide exceptional service. The satisfaction of our customers is of the upmost importance to POA.

  This Complaint concerns a service agreement for two (2) pieces of equipment. The Complainant notified POA of network connectivity issues with their equipment one (1) time on September 18,2023. On September 22, 2023, despite Complainant not being an IT customer of POA, POA contacted the Complainant and within fifteen (15) minutes offered to provide service remotely. The Complainant declined this offer. The next available POA Service Technician for an in-person service call was immediately routed to the Complainants location and arrived within one (1) hour. To be clear, when Complainant brought their grievance to POAs attention, POA offered remote service immediately, and when remote service was declined, POA provided in-person service as soon as possible.

  
  At that time, the issue was resolved. The Complainant was advised that the issue was not with their equipment hardware, but rather with their internet connectivity.Unfortunately internet connectivity is not within the scope of the service agreement since POA does not manage this customers internet. The Complainant was also advised on what to do should the solution put in place by POA fail and a follow-up appointment was set for September 26, 2023.
  

  In summation, POA understands the Complainants frustration and did resolve the issue by offering immediate remote service, and when that was declined,in-person service. It is POAs understanding the internet connectivity issue was resolved during the in-person service call and the Complainant is not experiencing any further issue with their equipment that would fall under the scope of the service agreement.