TimePayment Review

TimePayment, fully owned by Fortress Investment Group, focuses on equipment lease financing. This includes leasing credit card terminals and point-of-sale equipment. TimePayment does not process payments or sell merchant accounts directly. Instead, much like the now defunct Northern Leasing Systems, sales agents from partnered processors market TimePayment leases in tandem with a new merchant account. It’s worth noting that Riverside Payments and Velocity Merchant Services are two providers that have been reported as selling TimePayment leases. In 2022, TimePayment bought QuickSpark, Wheaten Financial, Diversified Capital Credit Corporation, and Briland Capital, all of which were competitors.

Customer FeedBack and Legal Issues

In addition to exploring the technology tools and backend services TimePayment offers, we’ll also look at the company’s customer feedback and legal cases to highlight key concerns faced by former clients. Our goal in this article is to provide balanced insight into the operations of TimePayment to help business owners make informed decisions.

TimePayment offers equipment leases for a variety of products, however, this review will focus on hardware that enables businesses to accept major credit cards, including Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover. Timepayment provides financing for:

• Point of Sale
  • TimePayment markets payment equipment leasing for various businesses, with a particular focus on point-of-sale systems for restaurants, salons, spas, and pet care.
• Dealers and Brokers
  • TimePayment provides equipment lease financing options for dealers, buyers, and brokers.
• Technology Tools
  • The company offers technology tools such as InfoHub, an online portal and dashboard for application entry and growth tracking. These tools integrate with websites and shopping carts.

TimePayment has received hundreds of customer reviews, many of which express significant dissatisfaction with the company’s services. Common complaints focus on the terms of their lease agreements, with several customers labeling the company as a ripoff or scam. These grievances align with patterns seen across the equipment leasing industry, where leasing companies often face backlash for unclear or rigid contract terms. TimePayment’s customer feedback suggests that, like many of its competitors, it struggles to maintain positive relationships with merchants who feel trapped by lengthy or expensive lease agreements.

Comparing TimePayment to Predecessors

The volume of negative feedback directed at TimePayment is not unique to the company. Other former players in the industry, such as Northern Leasing Systems, First Data Global Leasing, and Ladco Leasing, also garnered similar reputations for creating friction with merchants. These companies have criticized for their leasing practices, which has led to countless complaints as wells as legal actions by some States. TimePayment’s lease terms, which are comparable to those of its predecessors, appear to be the root of the frustration expressed by many of its customers. Many business owners report that being tied to long-term contracts with little flexibility to be a significant source of dissatisfaction.

Origins of the Complaints

The complaints about TimePayment frequently focus on the structure of their leasing agreements. Many customers report feeling misled about the total costs or the length of their contracts. In some cases, business owners claim they were not fully informed of early termination fees, the complexities of equipment ownership, or that simply buying the equipment would have been much less expensive. These issues are similar to those faced by customers of other leasing companies, indicating that the entire equipment leasing industry may be in need of reform. Small businesses owners frequently report that they feel overwhelmed by the fine print and find themselves stuck in agreements that don’t meet their long-term needs.

Share Your Feedback

If you have had an experience with TimePayment, sharing your story could be helpful for other businesses who are considering leasing equipment through the company. By providing detailed feedback, whether positive or negative, you can contribute to a more informed understanding of TimePayment’s services. Please see our comment section below to share your experience

PaymentPop Rating for TimePayment

Positive Feedback

There are no positive reviews published about TimePayment on the PaymentPop website.

TimePayment BBB Rating

As of this update, TimePayment Corp. has a customer review rating of 1.04/5 stars on Better Business Bureau, based on 91 customer reviews. The company has also received over 300 complaints closed in the last 3 years. Common themes among the reviews and complaints include issues with billing and collections, and dissatisfaction with the overall service. Despite the overwhelming negative feedback, the BBB has awarded the Timepayment an “A” rating. Readers should be aware that the BBB has been exposed for providing high ratings in exchange for compensation.

Positive Feedback

There are no positive reviews published about TimePayment Corp. on the BBB website.

Trustpilot Rating for TimePayment

TimePayment has an average customer review rating of 2.0 stars on Trustpilot, which is down since our last update. The reviews indicate a predominantly negative perception, with over 80% of the reviews being 1-star. Common themes among the reviews include complaints about poor customer service, misleading or unclear terms, and issues with billing and charges.

Positive Feedback

There are no positive reviews published about TimePayment on the Trustpilot website.

Complaints Board Rating Analysis

TimePayment has a range of customer reviews on ComplaintsBoard.com. The common themes among the reviews include dissatisfaction with customer service, unexpected fees, and issues with lease agreements. Many customers express frustration over the terms of their leases and the company’s handling of financial matters.

Positive Feedback

There are no positive reviews published about TimePayment on the ComplaintsBoard website.

Google Maps Reviews

It appears that TimePayment may have engaged in a reputation management campaign to manipulate its rating and reviews on Google Maps. The company has accumulated over 1,100 reviews, which is an unusually high number for a B2B company in the equipment financing sector. Typically, companies in this industry receive far fewer reviews, as their customer base is more limited compared to B2C businesses. The sheer volume of reviews raises questions about how they were obtained, especially considering the stark contrast between highly positive and extremely negative feedback.

Investigating Unusual Review Patterns

Prior investigations into similar companies have revealed a pattern of garnering positive reviews through questionable means. In many cases, businesses have incentivized customers to leave favorable reviews by offering payments, credits toward their bills, or discounts upon signing up for services. This strategy, while effective at boosting a company’s rating in the short term, can mislead potential customers about the actual quality of the service. For TimePayment, the presence of overwhelmingly positive reviews, juxtaposed with scathing negative ones, suggests that something may be amiss.

The Impact of Reputation Manipulation

We generally view these types of reputation management campaigns as manipulative tactics. By artificially inflating their review scores, companies can create a misleading perception of customer satisfaction. This can lead prospective clients to believe they are engaging with a highly reputable business when, in reality, there may be significant underlying issues. For TimePayment, the tactic could be a deliberate attempt to obscure the numerous complaints and legal proceedings filed against them by unsatisfied customers.

Caution for Potential Customers

If you are considering working with TimePayment or any company with a suspiciously high number of reviews, it’s important to exercise caution. When reviews appear polarized, with a large number of glowing reports alongside deeply negative feedback, it’s often a sign of a reputation management campaign. Reading reviews carefully and considering both the positive and negative feedback will help you form a more balanced view of the company’s true service quality.  If you have a testimonial or complaint for Timepayment, please leave it in the comment section below.

The standard TimePayment agreement typically spans multiple years and is non-cancellable. The duration of the contract varies, usually lasting from 36 to 60 months. This allows businesses to lease equipment with fixed repayment schedules, offering a clear outline of monthly obligations. However, it’s important to note that, at the end of the lease, businesses may be required to pay an additional one-time fee if they choose to purchase the equipment. This fee is based on the equipment’s fair market value, which can vary significantly depending on the type and condition of the leased equipment.

Non-Cancellable Conditions

One of the most contentious aspects of TimePayment’s agreements is their non-cancellable nature. Attempting to terminate the lease before its scheduled end date obligates the business owner to cover all remaining payments for the entire term of the lease, a legal term know as “liquidated damages.” These payments may be collected either in a lump sum or as continued monthly withdrawals until the lease concludes. The legally binding nature of TimePayment’s contracts means that any verbal assurances or representations made by sales agents cannot override the terms outlined in the contract. As a result, business owners should prioritize carefully reviewing the written agreement to fully understand their obligations before signing.

Purchase Instead of Leasing Equipment

In most cases, we advise against leasing equipment due to the high long-term costs. Many credit card terminals are available for purchase for under $500, which is far less expensive than the total cost of a long-term lease. While leasing can offer benefits like lower upfront costs and predictable monthly payments, these advantages are often outweighed by the overall expense and restrictive contract terms. For businesses looking to minimize costs, purchasing equipment outright and exploring our list of the best merchant services may provide better long-term value.

TimePayment has not only been named in several lawsuits regarding its business practices but has demonstrated a willingness to enforce its non-cancellable lease terms buy suing its customers. Additionally, the cases below also illustrates the company’s use of the credit reporting bureaus to damage the credit of individuals who do not complete the payment terms of equipment lease agreements.

Taylor v. TimePayment Corp

John Taylor filed a lawsuit against TimePayment Corp in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case centered on TimePayment’s Consumer Equipment Lease agreements, which Taylor alleged contained improper disclosures under the Consumer Leasing Act and Truth in Lending Act.

Key Allegations

Taylor’s primary complaints were:

• The agreement’s disclosures regarding payments and charges owed were inadequate or misleading.
• The contract was unclear about whether it was a lease or a credit sale, potentially violating disclosure requirements.
• The purchase option at the end of the lease term was not clearly explained, which could impact how the agreement is classified under consumer protection laws.

Class Action Settlement

The parties reached a class action settlement with the following terms:

• Class Definition: All persons in the United States who signed a Consumer Equipment Lease or had a payment obligation with TimePayment Corp between June 1, 2017, and January 31, 20195.
• Settlement Fund: TimePayment agreed to establish a $175,000 settlement fund.
• Individual Payouts: Class members who submitted valid claims were estimated to receive between $15 and $30 each, depending on the number of claimants.
• Changes to Business Practices: TimePayment agreed to discontinue using the form of Consumer Equipment Lease that was at issue in the case5.
  Additional Payments:
  • $1,000 service award to John Taylor as the Class Representative.
  • Up to $210,000 for attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

Settlement Approval

The court held a final fairness hearing on February 21, 2020, and granted final approval to the settlement on February 24, 2020.

Impact on Existing Agreements

It’s important to note that the settlement did not invalidate existing Consumer Equipment Lease agreements with TimePayment Corp. Customers remained responsible for any remaining payment obligations outlined in their agreements5.

This case highlights the complexities surrounding consumer leasing agreements and the importance of clear disclosures in financial contracts. It also demonstrates how class action lawsuits can lead to both financial compensation for affected consumers and changes in business practices.

Shuler v. TimePayment Corp

Case Background

Saudia Shuler, a restaurant owner, filed a lawsuit against TimePayment Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case centered on alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) related to inaccurate reporting of Shuler’s account information to credit agencies.

Key Allegations

The lawsuit focused on several key issues:

• In August 2016, Shuler agreed to rent equipment from TimePayment for $4,166.00.
• The equipment arrived damaged, and TimePayment allegedly did not address the issue when Shuler reported it.
• TimePayment reported to credit agencies that Shuler owed a balance of $8,339.00, nearly double the agreed-upon amount.
• The company incorrectly reported Shuler’s open account as “closed,” the account type as “other,” and the payment status as “charge off.”
• TimePayment reported a one-month payment term, despite Shuler agreeing to either 33 or 36 months.

Impact on the Plaintiff

The alleged misreporting had several negative consequences for Shuler:

• Damage to her credit score
• Negative impact on business opportunities and relations
• Inability to purchase a food truck as previously intended
• Stress and anxiety from repeated calls from TimePayment, despite requests to stop

Legal Claims

Shuler’s lawsuit primarily alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Specifically, she claimed that TimePayment:

• Failed to accurately report her account information to credit reporting agencies
• Did not conduct proper investigations when she disputed the inaccuracies
• Continued to report inaccurate information after being notified of the errors

Plaintiff’s Requests

In her lawsuit, Shuler sought:

• Damages for the harm caused by the inaccurate reporting
• An injunction directing TimePayment to amend her credit report

Procedural History

The case went through several stages in the legal process:

1. Shuler initially filed the lawsuit pro se on September 9, 2019.
2. There were issues with properly serving TimePayment with the lawsuit.
3. The court granted TimePayment’s motion to dismiss but allowed Shuler to file an amended complaint.
4. Shuler filed her third amended complaint on March 13, 2020.
5. The court ordered Shuler to properly serve TimePayment by April 21, 2020, or risk dismissal.
6. The court granted TimePayment Corp’s Motion to Dismiss.
7. The court dismissed Plaintiff Perkins’ claims with prejudice.

Significance of the Case

This case highlights several important aspects of consumer credit reporting:

• The potential for significant personal and financial harm from inaccurate credit reporting
• The importance of businesses maintaining accurate records and reporting practices
• The challenges consumers may face in disputing and correcting inaccurate credit information
• The role of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in protecting consumers from unfair credit reporting practice.

Hankins v. TimePayment Corp

Case Background

TimePayment Corporation initiated a lawsuit against Bettie Hankins in relation to an equipment lease agreement. The case centered around an amount that TimePayment claimed Hankins owed based on a personal guarantee she had provided for the lease.

Nature of the Agreement

The dispute arose from an equipment lease agreement, likely for business-related equipment. In such arrangements, TimePayment typically finances the equipment, which the lessee (in this case, possibly a business entity) uses while making regular payments.

Personal Guarantee

A key aspect of this case was the personal guarantee provided by Bettie Hankins. In business financing, a personal guarantee is a legal promise made by an individual to repay a debt if the business fails to do so. This effectively made Hankins personally responsible for the lease payments.

TimePayment’s Claim

TimePayment Corporation alleged that there was an outstanding amount owed on the equipment lease. The exact amount and the reasons for the alleged default were not specified in the available information, but it was significant enough for TimePayment to pursue legal action.

Legal Action

Rather than this being a case where Hankins sued TimePayment, it appears that TimePayment was the plaintiff, suing Hankins to recover the alleged debt. This is an important distinction, as it suggests that TimePayment was seeking to enforce the terms of the lease and the personal guarantee.

Potential Issues

While specific details are limited, such cases often involve disputes over:

• The validity of the personal guarantee
• The exact amount owed
• Whether there were any breaches of the lease agreement by TimePayment
• The condition and delivery of the leased equipment

Implications

This case highlights the potential risks of providing personal guarantees for business-related financial agreements. It also underscores the importance of carefully reviewing and understanding the terms of equipment lease agreements and any associated personal guarantees.

Broader Context

This case is part of a pattern of legal actions involving TimePayment Corporation, suggesting that the company actively pursues legal remedies when it believes lease agreements have been breached or payments are overdue.

Perkins v. TimePayment Corp

Plaintiff’s Claims

Jaron D. Perkins, the plaintiff, alleged that:

• He discovered through Experian that his credit report included a debt he supposedly owed to TimePayment Corp.
• He disputed this debt.
• He contacted TimePayment Corp repeatedly about the reported debt but received no response.
• His credit score was adversely affected by TimePayment’s reporting of this disputed debt to credit reporting agencies.

Legal Basis

Perkins filed a lawsuit against TimePayment Corp, raising claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Defendant’s Response

TimePayment Corp filed a Motion to Dismiss the case.

Court’s Ruling

The court granted TimePayment Corp’s Motion to Dismiss. Specifically:

• The court dismissed Plaintiff Perkins’ claims with prejudice.
• The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the case.

Significance

This ruling means that:

• The court found Perkins’ claims to be without merit or lacking sufficient legal basis to proceed.
• Dismissal “with prejudice” means Perkins cannot refile the same claim against TimePayment Corp.
• The case was decided in TimePayment Corp’s favor.

Broader Context

This case is part of a pattern of legal actions involving TimePayment Corp, often related to credit reporting practices. However, in this instance, the company successfully defended against the allegations.

TimePayment Corp v. Jose Martinez Gracida and Lucila Martinez

Case Filing

On February 2, 2022, TimePayment Corp, a corporation, filed a debt collection lawsuit against Jose Martinez Gracida (also known as Jose M. Gracida, J. M. Gracida, Jose Gracida, and Joe Gracida) and Lucila Martinez, doing business as Cleaning Maids Houston.

Venue

The lawsuit was filed in Harris County, Texas.

Nature of the Case

The case is classified as a Contract – Debt Collection lawsuit, indicating that TimePayment Corp is seeking to recover money allegedly owed under a contract.

Defendants

• Jose Martinez Gracida (with multiple aliases listed)
• Lucila Martinez, operating under the business name Cleaning Maids Houston

Plaintiff’s Representation

The plaintiff, TimePayment Corp, is represented by attorney Jon D. Totz.

Case Status

As of the last update, the case status was listed as “Pending – Other Pending,” suggesting that the lawsuit is still active and unresolved.

Legal Process

The case has gone through several standard legal procedures:

• Original petition filed by TimePayment Corp
• Citation issued
• Service return filed (indicating the defendants were served with the lawsuit)
• Answer filed (suggesting the defendants responded to the lawsuit)

Financial Information

A payment of $33.00 was made to the court, likely for filing fees, using a Mastercard/Visa via electronic filing.

Potential Issues

While specific details of the debt are not provided, common issues in such cases may include:

• Dispute over the amount owed
• Questions about the validity of the contract
• Allegations of non-payment or breach of contract

Broader Context

This case appears to be part of TimePayment Corp’s broader business operations, which involve equipment leasing and financing. The company seems to actively pursue legal action to recover alleged debts, as evidenced by this and other lawsuits mentioned in previous discussions.

Privacy Considerations

It’s worth noting that court documents for this case are not publicly available, which is common to protect the privacy of the parties involved, especially in financial matters.

Employee reviews of TimePayment found online present a mixed sentiment. While some employees express satisfaction with certain aspects of the company, others highlight serious concerns. The overall feedback points to a work environment that, like many businesses, has both positives and negatives. Employees appreciate certain opportunities provided by the company, but there are recurring themes of dissatisfaction regarding management and workload. The overall rating on platforms like Glassdoor and Indeed reflects an average employee experience, with a fair balance between positive and critical feedback.

Pros Reported by Employees

Many employees appreciate the stability that comes with working at TimePayment. Several reviews mention that the company offers consistent employment with a steady paycheck, which is an attractive feature in the finance and leasing industry. Additionally, employees note that TimePayment offers competitive benefits, including health insurance, paid time off, and opportunities for growth. Some reviews also highlight the camaraderie among coworkers, with many employees feeling supported by their peers. For those looking for a role in the leasing industry, TimePayment can provide useful experience in a specialized sector of financial services.

Cons and Areas of Concern

Despite the positive aspects, there are notable cons that employees voice about working at TimePayment. A common complaint centers around the management structure, with several employees expressing frustration with a lack of communication and transparency from leadership. Some reviews mention that decisions are made without sufficient input from staff, leading to a disconnect between management and the rest of the company. Another issue raised by employees is the heavy workload, with some feeling overburdened by the demands placed on them, particularly in customer service roles. Additionally, several reviews highlight limited opportunities for advancement, with some employees feeling stuck in their positions despite strong performance.

Third-Party Resellers

Business owners can apply for equipment financing directly through TimePayment, but TimePayment apppears to primarily market to business owners through partnerships with merchant account resellers and processors.  This sales structure typically results in a large number of client complaints, and TimePayment is no exception. We have found a low-to-moderate number of TimePayment reviews that mention non-disclosure of lease terms by an independent sales agent. This complaint pattern is typical of providers like Northern Leasing Systems, First Data Global Leasing, and Ladco Leasing.

Bundled With Other Contracts

As noted above, TimePayment has been cited as the equipment leasing partner of processors like Riverside Payments and Velocity Merchant Services. Both Riverside and Velocity are the subjects of numerous complaints related to misrepresentation of fees, aggressive sales tactics, and selective disclosure of contract terms.

TimePayment offers a range of equipment leasing and payment processing services, primarily catering to small and medium-sized businesses. While the company provides stability and structured leasing agreements, it faces significant criticism from both customers and employees.

Customer reviews frequently highlight dissatisfaction with the company’s non-cancellable contracts, high costs, and lack of flexibility, which align with the broader trends seen in the equipment leasing industry. Many customers express frustration with unexpected fees and a lack of transparency in contract terms. This has led to numerous complaints labeling the company as unfair, with comparisons to other controversial leasing firms.

On the employee side, reviews reflect a mix of positive and negative sentiments. Pros include solid benefits, a collaborative team environment, and steady employment opportunities. However, concerns about management, workload, and limited advancement opportunities reveal areas where TimePayment could improve its internal culture.

Legally, the company has faced some concerning issues regarding business practices as well as a willingness to sue customers who do not fulfill the obligations of their lease terms. These complaints also detail grievances surrounding the use of the credit reporting system to enforce lease payment terms.

Overall, TimePayment’s reputation is marked by a balance of convenience and dissatisfaction. While it may be a viable option for businesses looking to lease equipment with predictable payment structures, prospective customers and employees alike should weigh the pros and cons carefully. Ensuring a thorough understanding of the contractual terms and working environment is key to making an informed decision.