Failure in a lease programs.....

[Sheepdancer]

I think Im going to have to chime in on this subject because ole cluggy seems so pasionate about it.
Ive been working here long enough to now have drivers who have finished lease purchase and now own their truck. So lets clear up a few things.
*Lease purchase isnt going to make you rich. Lease purchase is about where you are going to be in 3 years, not what you are making now. if you run it right you will probably make a little more than the company driver but not much.

* If you have good credit, yes it is better to buy your own truck. Unfortunately some people dont have good credit and still want to buy a truck. Another thing to think about, if you finance a truck, you are pretty much stuck for the next 3 years. I dont know about other companies lease purchase deals but we give people outs every 3 months if its not working out for them.

* Lease purchase is not for everyone. Its much harder than being a company driver. If you didnt make it as a company driver, you most likely arent going to make it as a lease purchase driver. Unfortunately, when you give some people to option of no forced dispatch and as much hometime as they want, they turn down loads and stay home too much. If you turn down loads or go home too much, you will not make it in lease purchase. My LP drivers who have finished the lease, stay out there and drive. Some 4 and 5 weeks at a time.

Yes, quite a few people fail at lease purchase......on the same side of the coin, quite a few people fail when they buy their own truck too. Being a owner op or a lease purchase driver isnt for everyone.
No matter what your opinion on lease purchase, you will never be able to convince me that those drivers I hired that have finished their lease purchase with us and now own their trucks free and clear didnt make the right choice for themselves. They now own their own trucks, they have rebuilt thier credit and now they are making great money. Not too bad for a 3 year investment of their time.

[SilverWulf]

You know, that's great. You are the first person that I've have seen doing good with a CRE lease program.

You not yanking my chain, are you? I serious, you are the first. Got some questions for you.

How long have you been with them?

Did you start out in a lease?

What about the other drivers on other programs, not on a account of some kind....have you heard how they are doing?

Tell us about the money side of things...cost of the lease, what all involved, everything you can.

And thanks for responding.

No chain yanking here, and I seriously doubt I'm the first. As I said before, out of 33 trucks on this account all but 2 are doing great. The others throughout the company who are doing well probably don't have the time and/or the inclination to get on here and defend CRE every time they turn around. Of course you hear alot of bad, not surprising at all. Pay attention to who that is coming from though; Disgruntled students who never make it through training or upgrade, failed leasers who give up in the first few months, experienced drivers who got kicked out of orientation for whatever reason, etc... There are very few, if any, negative posts from seasoned and experienced drivers who have given it an honest try. (at least that I've seen)

I'm going on 3 months with them, I was hired as an experienced driver and started out in a lease. I've been driving for 6 years, some local and some OTR. I got stupid and got into a situation of having to work for who would take me, rather than choosing the best. So I am doing what needs to be done to get my work history looking better (long story).

I have very little contact with anyone who isn't on the account I'm on. I can't comment on how the nationwide OTR fleet is doing. I've talked to a few drivers who are on other dedicated or regional accounts and the vast majority are doing well. The ones who are suffering are the ones who are not running the truck the way they should, 100% the fault of the driver, NOT the company IMO.

As for money, this week I'm bringing home 850 and change on 2500 miles. The truck earned a little over 2700, paying me around 34 cpm. Fixed costs are 31cpm, variable are 38cpm, of that fuel has been hanging right around 22cpm. I pay 1.25 per gallon for fuel, though if prices go up I'll change to the rebate program and take the surcharge instead. The truck lease is 614 a week, insurance is 129 a week. I pay into a maintenance reserve at 7cpm which is capped at 10K.

These numbers won't satisfy everyone. In my particular situation it is exactly what I need right now to get things going the right direction. I don't know how long I'll stay with CRE. I do know I'll be here long enough to make my work history look better than it does now, in the process I'll end up with a truck out of the deal and be able to go do what I want. (flats)

Dan

[Cluggy619]

You know, that's great. You are the first person that I've have seen doing good with a CRE lease program.

You not yanking my chain, are you? I serious, you are the first. Got some questions for you.

How long have you been with them?

Did you start out in a lease?

What about the other drivers on other programs, not on a account of some kind....have you heard how they are doing?

Tell us about the money side of things...cost of the lease, what all involved, everything you can.

And thanks for responding.

No chain yanking here, and I seriously doubt I'm the first. As I said before, out of 33 trucks on this account all but 2 are doing great. The others throughout the company who are doing well probably don't have the time and/or the inclination to get on here and defend CRE every time they turn around. Of course you hear alot of bad, not surprising at all. Pay attention to who that is coming from though; Disgruntled students who never make it through training or upgrade, failed leasers who give up in the first few months, experienced drivers who got kicked out of orientation for whatever reason, etc... There are very few, if any, negative posts from seasoned and experienced drivers who have given it an honest try. (at least that I've seen)

I'm going on 3 months with them, I was hired as an experienced driver and started out in a lease. I've been driving for 6 years, some local and some OTR. I got stupid and got into a situation of having to work for who would take me, rather than choosing the best. So I am doing what needs to be done to get my work history looking better (long story).

I have very little contact with anyone who isn't on the account I'm on. I can't comment on how the nationwide OTR fleet is doing. I've talked to a few drivers who are on other dedicated or regional accounts and the vast majority are doing well. The ones who are suffering are the ones who are not running the truck the way they should, 100% the fault of the driver, NOT the company IMO.

As for money, this week I'm bringing home 850 and change on 2500 miles. The truck earned a little over 2700, paying me around 34 cpm. Fixed costs are 31cpm, variable are 38cpm, of that fuel has been hanging right around 22cpm. I pay 1.25 per gallon for fuel, though if prices go up I'll change to the rebate program and take the surcharge instead. The truck lease is 614 a week, insurance is 129 a week. I pay into a maintenance reserve at 7cpm which is capped at 10K.

These numbers won't satisfy everyone. In my particular situation it is exactly what I need right now to get things going the right direction. I don't know how long I'll stay with CRE. I do know I'll be here long enough to make my work history look better than it does now, in the process I'll end up with a truck out of the deal and be able to go do what I want. (flats)

Dan

Holy COW! Where do you buy your fuel?

Keep up the good work, and let us know how things are going.

[Cluggy619]

Found this posted today.....this is what I'm talking about. Sorry about posting it here, but it felt along the same lines that this disscussion is about.

LAWSUIT UPDATE: Judge rules in favor of drivers in C.R. England case

Monday, June 25, 2007 – A federal judge in Utah has ruled that C.R. England not only violated truth-in-leasing regs, but that the motor carrier must provide an accounting of what happened to thousands of truckers’ escrow funds.

Leaders of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart has the potential to be far-reaching in terms of the impact it could have on the entire trucking industry.

“It essentially validates the leasing rules and the owner-operators’ rights to file in federal court to enforce those rules,” said Jim Johnston, OOIDA president and CEO.

“We’ve had a lot of good precedents in our lawsuits, but this is really the first suit that has gone to trial on the merits – the merits being the actual wording of the truth-in-leasing regulations – and this court has validated those truth-in-leasing regulations right down the line.”

OOIDA filed the case against the carrier in June 2002 along with five of its owner-operator members. It was certified as a class action in August 2005. The class of plaintiffs includes all owner-operators who entered into a lease agreement with C.R. England from June 1998 to August 2002.

The judge ruled that C.R. England’s lease during that time violated federal regulations by failing to specify charge-back items and forcing the purchase of services. He also found that the motor carrier had improperly managed truckers’ escrow accounts.

The judgment against the Salt Lake City-based motor carrier came about six months after the conclusion of a two-week trial in October 2006.

In his written opinion, Judge Stewart rejected C.R. England’s argument that the leases in question substantially complied with the regulations. The judge determined that the appropriate standard in determining violations was one of strict compliance – not substantial compliance.

“I think all truckers and motor carriers should take note of this victory and its affirmation that strict compliance of the regulations is the only acceptable alternative,” Johnston said.

“After five years of hard-fought litigation, the court found that the leasing regulations mean what they say and that motor carriers must come clean in their lease agreements and disclose all mark-ups, profits and any administrative fees.”

The judge ruled that C.R. England’s lease failed to disclose that the motor carrier was marking up tires and parts purchased by owner-operators by 30 percent and that the company charged owner-operators a 60-percent mark-up on fuel discounts it received from truck stops.

Judge Stewart ruled that, while the leasing regulations do not prohibit a motor carrier from making a profit on charge-backs, such mark-ups and profits must be disclosed in the owner-operators’ lease agreements.

Also, the judge found that C.R. England charged owner-operators for undisclosed repair-related “administrative charges,” as well as an undisclosed $500 “termination fee” and an undisclosed $10 “termination letter” charge, all of which violated the leasing regulations.

The judge also determined that C.R. England unlawfully forced owner-operators to purchase satellite communications and administrative services as a condition of entering into a lease.

In its complaint, OOIDA asked the court to declare C.R. England’s practices unlawful, to make C.R. England disgorge its “ill-gotten” gains, make restitution, provide accountings for owner-operator escrow funds and to order the return of escrow funds improperly retained by the motor carrier.

Within months after OOIDA filed the complaint, C.R. England scrapped its lease document and required all of its owner-operators to sign a new agreement. The new version disclosed all of the mark-ups, administrative and transaction fees. Judge Stewart found that the new lease, which the company has used since August 2002, complies with the leasing regulations in all respects.

However, in his written ruling on June 20, Judge Stewart ordered that C.R. England undertake a class-wide accounting of the escrow funds it managed under the previous version of its lease, which the judge ruled was in violation of Section 376.12 of the federal regulations. He gave the motor carrier 30 days to file a written proposal regarding the accounting of the truckers’ escrow money.

Judge Stewart noted that C.R. England’s previous lease failed to comply with the most basic escrow fund requirements of the regulations – namely, that a lease must set forth specific items to which the escrow funds may be applied. C.R. England’s lease failed to specify the items which could be deducted from the maintenance escrow, the security deposit/performance bond, and the fuel/road tax escrow.

OOIDA produced evidence at trial that C.R. England retained more than $6.3 million in owner-operator escrow funds. OOIDA will seek the return of all improperly retained escrow funds during the accounting phase of this case.

Johnston said he was encouraged by the fact that the judge has ordered C.R. England to account for every penny of every escrow fund. He said the Association would continue to fight for the return of all unlawfully retained escrow funds.

Johnston indicated that there were also some issues that OOIDA would probably look to the appeals courts to revisit. Specifically, the Association may appeal the decision to deny its request that C.R. England be ordered to return the undisclosed mark-ups and administrative fees as restitution for violations of federal law. The trial judge disagreed with OOIDA’s position, concluding instead that plaintiffs and class members were limited to “damages sustained” by the drivers.

– By Land Line staff



http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_R...and_ruling.htm


Sounds interesting . . . . . . .

[SilverWulf]

Holy COW! Where do you buy your fuel?

Keep up the good work, and let us know how things are going.

I get my fuel the same places everyone else does. The 1.25 per gallon is one of the incentives of the lease program. If I maintain 4.73 paid miles per gallon and follow the fuel optimizer that is what I, and every other leaser, pays.

The lawsuit article was interesting, thanks for posting it. I see it as a good thing that CRE changed the lease agreement well before the courts ordered it. Of course it is not a good thing that the lease agreement was outside of the rules to begin with and that a suit had to be filed. I certainly hope that all those drivers who lost their escrow accounts get what they are owed.

The way the agreement is written now, I know exactly where my money is going and for what. I know exactly what it is going to cost at the end of the lease and how much it takes on a week to week basis to operate.

I have no doubt that in the past there were many drivers who were bent over by that old lease agreement and the company. As far as I can tell CRE has cleaned up their act and are constantly in the process of making improvements. CRE will probably never be a magnet company, but they are a helluva lot better than they used to be.

Dan

[Skullitor]

[quote="Cluggy619"]Found this posted today.....this is what I'm talking about. Sorry about posting it here, but it felt along the same lines that this disscussion is about.

[quote="MADLUX"]LAWSUIT UPDATE: Judge rules in favor of drivers in C.R. England case

Monday, June 25, 2007 – A federal judge in Utah has ruled that C.R. England not only violated truth-in-leasing regs, but that the motor carrier must provide an accounting of what happened to thousands of truckers’ escrow funds.

Leaders of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart has the potential to be far-reaching in terms of the impact it could have on the entire trucking industry.

“It essentially validates the leasing rules and the owner-operators’ rights to file in federal court to enforce those rules,” said Jim Johnston, OOIDA president and CEO.

“We’ve had a lot of good precedents in our lawsuits, but this is really the first suit that has gone to trial on the merits – the merits being the actual wording of the truth-in-leasing regulations – and this court has validated those truth-in-leasing regulations right down the line.”

OOIDA filed the case against the carrier in June 2002 along with five of its owner-operator members. It was certified as a class action in August 2005. The class of plaintiffs includes all owner-operators who entered into a lease agreement with C.R. England from June 1998 to August 2002.

The judge ruled that C.R. England’s lease during that time violated federal regulations by failing to specify charge-back items and forcing the purchase of services. He also found that the motor carrier had improperly managed truckers’ escrow accounts.

The judgment against the Salt Lake City-based motor carrier came about six months after the conclusion of a two-week trial in October 2006.

In his written opinion, Judge Stewart rejected C.R. England’s argument that the leases in question substantially complied with the regulations. The judge determined that the appropriate standard in determining violations was one of strict compliance – not substantial compliance.

“I think all truckers and motor carriers should take note of this victory and its affirmation that strict compliance of the regulations is the only acceptable alternative,” Johnston said.

“After five years of hard-fought litigation, the court found that the leasing regulations mean what they say and that motor carriers must come clean in their lease agreements and disclose all mark-ups, profits and any administrative fees.”

The judge ruled that C.R. England’s lease failed to disclose that the motor carrier was marking up tires and parts purchased by owner-operators by 30 percent and that the company charged owner-operators a 60-percent mark-up on fuel discounts it received from truck stops.

Judge Stewart ruled that, while the leasing regulations do not prohibit a motor carrier from making a profit on charge-backs, such mark-ups and profits must be disclosed in the owner-operators’ lease agreements.

Also, the judge found that C.R. England charged owner-operators for undisclosed repair-related “administrative charges,” as well as an undisclosed $500 “termination fee” and an undisclosed $10 “termination letter” charge, all of which violated the leasing regulations.

The judge also determined that C.R. England unlawfully forced owner-operators to purchase satellite communications and administrative services as a condition of entering into a lease.

In its complaint, OOIDA asked the court to declare C.R. England’s practices unlawful, to make C.R. England disgorge its “ill-gotten” gains, make restitution, provide accountings for owner-operator escrow funds and to order the return of escrow funds improperly retained by the motor carrier.

Within months after OOIDA filed the complaint, C.R. England scrapped its lease document and required all of its owner-operators to sign a new agreement. The new version disclosed all of the mark-ups, administrative and transaction fees. Judge Stewart found that the new lease, which the company has used since August 2002, complies with the leasing regulations in all respects.

However, in his written ruling on June 20, Judge Stewart ordered that C.R. England undertake a class-wide accounting of the escrow funds it managed under the previous version of its lease, which the judge ruled was in violation of Section 376.12 of the federal regulations. He gave the motor carrier 30 days to file a written proposal regarding the accounting of the truckers’ escrow money.

Judge Stewart noted that C.R. England’s previous lease failed to comply with the most basic escrow fund requirements of the regulations – namely, that a lease must set forth specific items to which the escrow funds may be applied. C.R. England’s lease failed to specify the items which could be deducted from the maintenance escrow, the security deposit/performance bond, and the fuel/road tax escrow.

OOIDA produced evidence at trial that C.R. England retained more than $6.3 million in owner-operator escrow funds. OOIDA will seek the return of all improperly retained escrow funds during the accounting phase of this case.

Johnston said he was encouraged by the fact that the judge has ordered C.R. England to account for every penny of every escrow fund. He said the Association would continue to fight for the return of all unlawfully retained escrow funds.

Johnston indicated that there were also some issues that OOIDA would probably look to the appeals courts to revisit. Specifically, the Association may appeal the decision to deny its request that C.R. England be ordered to return the undisclosed mark-ups and administrative fees as restitution for violations of federal law. The trial judge disagreed with OOIDA’s position, concluding instead that plaintiffs and class members were limited to “damages sustained” by the drivers.

– By Land Line staff



http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_R...and_ruling.htm

I had a feeling THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN! I posted it on my Yahoogroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CRENGLAND
Skull

[Iceman]

Just got in on this discussion. Yes, lease programs do fail, but for so many different reasons. When I started my lease with May Trucking my wife, who crunched $$$ for developers in So.Cal. for years really went over the figures. Their program truly will work, IF, you get 11,000/month. The O/O supervisor stated that to both of us. On paper, I would be coming out the same or often better than a company driver. This worked for me because I need time to re-group my credit and also needed write-offs. Problem was that May only gave me 1300, or at best 2000 miles a week. Next problem is that they were aware of the issue with myself and other drivers and despite various rantings, letters and pleas from myself and other drivers, I just walked. They got their $$$ and I simply got in a negative rut. That being said, the concept works, but it has to be protected by the miles. Of course that assumes that you aren't staying home with mommie to long and that you are being agressive. Now May is telling me that I owe then $2700 for expenses when I didn't receive an actual check for a couple of months. I left of course and have no plans to pay it, but I'm not sure how far they can go. Can anyone help here? Thanks, and please be careful how you get into a lease program guys!

Iceman

[BIG JEEP on 44's]

I've seen these programs work before...But not as a ...SOLO DRIVER...While working for Werner I had seen many drivers go the route of buying a truck through Werner at Werner it's niot a lease you own the truck ,But as a Solo most only made a few thousand better than company SOLO...But as a Trainer the miles were easily 5k and up to 7k if you were running off a team board which is as easy as knowing those boards exist and asking 2 be put on them . the nwet result of o/o truck at werner wasn't much more than 35-40 CPM 2 the driver after all expenses ,but you could count on running no less than 4k ,and easily get 5-7 during most of the year ,so eventhough you may get 35-40 cpm as a company driver you would be hard pressed to see 4k miles weekly as a base minmum and easily get 5-7 much of the year ,and every O/O operator i knew that trained made 1400-1800 gross weekly plus all the benefits in taxe breaks attributed to owning a business ...But this program does not work well as a solo driver ,and certainly don't work well if your home 3 days a week , So in my experience I know it can work and work well if you know the game .

[samael9]

(Snip) ...But this program does not work well as a solo driver ,and certainly don't work well if your home 3 days a week , So in my experience I know it can work and work well if you know the game .

I think that it is a common human error, and certainly one which I have had a lot of experience with, to lump things together and create generalities. And while certainly the previous post proves CRE's ignoble business practices, I contend that all leases are not created equally. Just like with people, each company and its lease must be critically analyzed and judged solely on its individual merits, or lack thereof.

We are increasingly becoming a society of convenience. All the shopping is completely consolidated into mall after mall, anchored by the likes of WalMart, Kohl’s, and such. It is a mistake of the current human condition to ignore the rewards of seeking… for sake of ease.

I would never consider engaging in a company’s lease without running for them for a while and seeing just what kind of mileage a good runner (which you *must* be) can reasonably expect. Neither would I engage in contract without speaking to numerous O/O’s within the company. One must take each chat with a commensurate grain of salt and examine each O/O’s story very carefully. If the person is successful and/or pleased, then query further and find out why. If not, continue with the questioning, while looking at the person more inquisitively. Is this person of poor hygene, poor health, dirty? If so, you can be fairly casual in your appraisal, as this person has not the dignity to take care of himself, let alone his business.

I had a CPA duke it out with the leasing recruiter at Swift. My CPA dug through all the prospective numbers, as furnished by the recruiter and ran comparatives based on my company driver performance stats. The conclusion was that if I maintained my current levels of performance, then I would see a modest increase in income over that of a company driver, gain numerous tax benefits and be afforded the privilege of driving one of this country’s finest. Add to that the privilege of freedom afforded by Swift to the independent contractor, and we came up with a very compelling case for leasing. I could have easily maintained my c/driver status and made $50k in my first year.

Blind faith is for the weak and the disinterested, or worse, the convenience-centric.

I feel for Cluggy619. I would simply sh*t if I were in his shoes…. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere, leasing is a thinking person’s game. It requires strength, determination and a distinct unwillingness to fail. On the other side of the fence, the company must be reputable in its principals and practices, it must have the freight base to keep the lessee moving and it must employ dispatchers who are empathetic to the specific needs of the new O/O.

As far as the statement that a solo driver cannot make it goes, with all due respect, I beg to differ. Not true. Downtime will cost you dearly, and the middle part of the statement is quite correct.

And yes, one must seek actively knowledge to play the game well.... The action of putting that knowledge to work and reaping the rewards then creates experiential wisdom, for which there is no equal.