John Rees

Our business was introduced to BNP Paribas Leasing Solutions through 4Com, who presented what appeared to be a simple cost-saving telecoms upgrade. We were verbally assured that costs would be around £655 per month. Eighteen months later, we discovered we had been placed into an 84-month finance lease exceeding £86,000 — funding basic office telephony equipment.

At no point before signing were we informed that BNP Paribas would be the finance provider; their name appeared only after the paperwork was finalised. That absence of disclosure falls short of the transparency we would expect from a regulated finance company.

When challenged, BNP have maintained that any issues rest with 4Com, despite having approved and administered the finance. As an FCA-regulated firm, they are required to ensure financed agreements are fair, proportionate, and entered into with informed consent — standards we do not feel were met in our case.

We also queried the direct debit setup process and whether proper notice and authorisation were obtained, but BNP’s responses have not resolved those concerns.

In our experience, BNP have provided limited accountability for how these arrangements were sold. Businesses should exercise great caution and insist on seeing the full finance documentation before agreeing to any lease connected to 4Com or its affiliates.

Our experience with 4Com began with what seemed like a smooth, professional sales visit. The representative presented the offer as a straightforward cost-saving package, assuring us that our monthly spend would be around £655. For many months that appeared to be the case — until the rate increases began roughly 18 months later. Only then did we realise how different the actual agreement was.

We later discovered that the contract locked us into an 84-month finance lease worth over £86,000, with BNP Paribas as a third-party funder we were not told about at the point of signing. None of this — including the total cost, contract length, or separate service fees — was clearly explained. Documents were presented in fragments and signatures gathered quickly, leaving important details unclear.

When we raised these concerns, 4Com’s responses were evasive and at times inconsistent. Their replies to our data requests have been incomplete, and we remain uncertain about how our direct debit was originally set up and who was authorised to collect funds.

Overall, what began as a seemingly simple upgrade turned into a costly and confusing arrangement. Other businesses should study all documents carefully before signing and seek independent advice first. Steer clear!