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 31 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 - Branch 72 Vegas

  2900 E Patrick Ln Ste 4B Las Vegas, NV 89120

• 

  Branch 48 South California

  2200 W Orangewood Ave Ste 120 Orange, CA 92868

  
• 

  Branch 95 Phoenix Warehouse

  4501 E McDowell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85008

  
• 

  Pacific Office Automation – Branch 75 Salt Lake City

  5580 Mill St Ste 1200 Reno, NV 89502

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:10/05/2023

  Type:Customer Service 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 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. 

  Business Response

  Date: 04/21/2025

  Pacific Office Automation must respectfully reiterate that we have taken all appropriate and reasonable steps to support this customer,and we consider this matter resolved.

  To summarize, the customer originally contracted for five (5) phone lines in 2020 and subsequently approved the addition of three (3)more lines in 2022, though they inadvertently meant to reduce to a total of three (3) lines. In May 2023, the customer advised that fewer lines were needed, and POA promptly modified the contract to reflect the reduced number of users.

  POA has continued to accommodate the customers ongoing service needs, including the addition of a fourth (4th) line at their request.The customer is now being invoiced accurately based on their active services and has issued service credits for the additional phone lines the customer requested be removed.

  In regard to the copier lease, POA is not the owner of the equipment. As previously stated, the equipment lease is held directly with ********. *** does not control the terms or billing of that lease. While the customer claims we have not made adequate attempts to reach out, POA agreed to store their equipment and has made multiple efforts via phone and email to attempt to facilitate communications between the customer and **********

  At this point, POA has addressed and resolved all complaints made by the customer. The phone service billing was corrected, service credits were issued, and storage of non-POA-owned equipment was provided at no cost. We understand the customer remains dissatisfied, but POA has done all it can. We respectfully consider this matter closed.

• 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. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/27/2023

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore 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 been a customer of POA for nearly 35 years. My most recent contract ended 9/30/2022 and all equipment was picked up 10/03/2022. My account was on a "auto pay" with our business checking account. Our routine monthly lease of $556 was deducted at the end of October and once again at the end of November. I had several emails between my rep. and POA staff and ***** Fargo leasing staff to seek reimbursement of the collections they charged after the contract was fulfilled. Each blame each other but all indicated our company was not the problem and completed the terms of the lease. I have many emails back and forth. The ***** Fargo leasing rep. agreed to get a resolution after multiple reminders. The last correspondence was 3 weeks ago where he promised to request that I be reimbursed. Still no resolution. I have talked with other customers and this appears to be a routine method to over charge customers. POA claims the responsibility is with the leasing company but my contract was with POA and all my payments go to POA. They should have stopped all payment obligation the day the equipment was returned. The two additional payments due to the "auto checking deduction" is a form of embezzlement. I am simply seeking reimbursement for the over charges. This has been going on for nearly 5 months.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/07/2023

  Complaint was filed 2/27/2023 and on 3/05/2023 I received reimbursement that was requested nearly 5 months ago. No further complaint is necessary....thank you...**************************;
  

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/14/2022

  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.

  On March 16th, I emailed the business and asked how I could terminate my lease and return the equipment as we were closing the office. *************************** responded and sent me a buyout amount. I am NOT interested in purchasing the equipment and I've communicated that to ******, but he will not provide instructions or amounts to end the lease. I had to move the equipment as my office lease ended April 30th. I had hoped by contacting the business in March, this could have been handled in a timely manner and the equipment could have been picked up. Instead, I had to personally undertake the efforts to move the machine to my home. The service, or lack thereof is ridiculously horrible.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/22/2022

  As an initial matter,please understand that Pacific Office Automation, ***** (POA) takes such allegations seriously and seeks to not only follow both legal and ethical standards but exceed those standards in all of our business operations including providing exceptional service to all our clients.
  
  This Complaint concerns a business to business lease contract between POA and the Complainant for office equipment and services. 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 Complainant, and is customary in the industry in which POA operates. To that end, POA assigned the rights to the Equipment to DLL and DLL is the only company which would provide and/or consent to any sort of buyout and return of the equipment. The crux of this issue is the fact that DLL refused to supply POA or the Complainant, with a buyout to return quote but rather insisted on supplying only a buyout to purchase quote. Thus, this complaint would be more accurately filed against DLL, not POA, as DLL is and was the company controlling the buyout quotes.
  
  After much negotiation with DLL, POA was able to obtain a buyout to return quote as the Complainant requested and POA provided that quote to the Complaint on July 20,2022, the same day POA received it.
  
  In summation, POA was finally able to obtain the requested buyout quote from DLL and has already provided that correct quote to the Complainant. POA has also supplied the Complainant with contact information for DLL, so that the Complainant can follow up with them directly if there are any further complications or issues. That being said, POA is still willing to assist and help the Complainant in any way we can as POA prides itself on its relationship with its customers. POA goes to great lengths to work towards mutually beneficial solutions when conflicts with customers arise.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/18/2022

  On March 16^th, I asked the following question of POA.

   

  I need to determine how to cancel our lease and get the equipment returned.  We are moving our office virtual and no longer have a need or space for the machine. 

   

  Instead of answering this question, ****** advised me that I would have to buyout the equipment and he sent me an invoice from POA. This took 2 months!  Why did POA try and get me to pay POA to buyout the equipment if I have to handle this with DLL?  This seems really suspicious to me.  On May 10^th, I asked ****** to send me a copy of the lease which I didnt receive until July 21^st after escalating the issue.  My office lease ended on April 30^th forcing me to move the machine to my home because I couldnt get accurate or timely answers from ****** even though I started communicating with him 6 weeks before our lease ended!  With my health, moving this machine was extremely difficult! 

   

  POA is trying to dodge accountability and trying to make themselves sound good but the fact is POA completely mislead me by not giving me this answer on March 16^th.  It took ****** almost 2 months to send me a buyout contract from POA which was not what I had asked for!

   

  Heres the facts:

   

  POA was contacted and clearly asked how to cancel the lease and return the equipment.

  POA was unresponsive and after several contacts, provided a buyout agreement which was clearly not what I had asked for.  Why did POA try and get me to buyout the equipment instead of just advising me to contact DLL to begin with?  Sounds shady to me!

  POA still did not respond to my original question from March 16^th until I escalated the contact to ***** on July 14^th, 4 months after asking how to cancel the lease and get the equipment returned.

   

  The response from ***** was that POA puts their customers first which is completely contrary to how they treated me.  POA only caused me more stress, work, and frustration by not providing an accurate answer for 4 months!  And all while dealing with the effects of esophageal cancer! 

   

  Instead of taking any accountability and apologizing for their miserable failures, they write a crafty response trying to negate and dodge their clear negligence in putting their customer first!  ****** response to me also stated POA goes to great lengths to work towards mutually beneficial solutions when conflicts with customers arise, but they have not done anything in regards to this issue other than claim its not them and to contact the leasing company.  Why it took 4 months and escalation to get that answer is exactly why I would not do business with or recommend POA again.

   

  Thanks

   

  **************, President/CEO

  *************************************

  **************