Central Payment Corporation Review
Merchant Maverick's Rating: (4 out of 5)
Last Updated: April 20th, 2010.
Overview:
Central Payment Corporation (CPC) is based out of Larkspur, California.
Here's their review...
Obviously the lack of testimonials is an issue for me. I can't imagine that a large company like CPC doesn't have any satisfied customers. Actually, I'm sure there are probably a bunch of 'em, but unless I can contact them myself, I can't really be sure. So get some legit testimonials posted up on the site guys, case studies would be great, and if you offer references as well, then even better.
I don't like the 3-year contract term or early-cancellation fee (see below), but from what I was told...they're both negotiable. 
That's pretty much it for the downside. I mean, 73 BBB complaints (as of this review) is definitely on the high side, but I'll tell you why I didn't hold that against them very much.
Even though they have quite a few complaints on the BBB, they don't have very many negative reviews (from merchants) on sites like RipOffReport or ComplaintsBoard. The negatives that they do have on those third-party sites are mainly from past salespeople that are disgruntled because they either got fired or think they were treated unfairly. Although that's good information to know, negatives from past sales reps don't really speak for how CPC treats their merchants, and that's what really matters to us...right?
Most ISO/MSPs that have a high complaint count on the BBB, also have a lot of negative reviews, but that's not really the case with CPC...at least not from merchants. Which makes me wonder how many of those BBB complaints are from former sales reps rather than actual customers of Central Payment Corporation...something to keep in mind.
I obviously like the Facebook page and Twitter accounts (don't know if it's the official one), which shows me that they operate like they don't have anything to hide.
And, the fact that they offer both interchange-plus pricing and seasonal downtime helped out their score a bit.
I gave them a 4 out of 5 for now, but that score could easily go up with a few additions to their site. So long as I don't see a bunch of negative reviews in the time between updates.
Keep reading to learn more about Central Payment Corp.
Click Here If You Need Help Choosing Provider
Date Established:
2006.
Location:
Larkspur, California.
Domain Name(s):
- www.centralpayment.org.
- www.cpcwestmichigan.com.
Parent/Partner Company:
Central Payment Corporation operates alone, but has some backing from iPayment.
After a noncompetition agreement expired, they started Central Payment with backing from iPayment.
Type:
Registered ISO/MSP.
Acquiring Bank(s) (Acquirer):
Wells Fargo and First National Bank.
Payment Processor(s):
iPayment.
Payment Gateway(s):
PayJunction (Trinity) and Authorize.Net. Do you need help setting up your payment gateway with your website? Click here.
Trust Symbols:
The CPC BBB profile is sporting an "A" rating with about 73 complaints as of this review.
Negative Reviews:
They have 9 complaints on RipOffReport (as of this review), but I'd say 80% are from past employees who for one reason or another are no longer happy with CPC.
Personally, I could care less about the company's internal beef's. My concern is with the merchant and how they're being treated, and as of now, I don't have any reason to believe that past merchants aren't happy with their service.
I do like the way CPC has taken the time to respond to any complaints made against them. Most of those negative ROR reviews are followed by a rebuttal from CPC, and usually it's the company's owner who's doing the responding.
Common Complaints:
Most of the BBB complaints are in the "Billing, Collection and Contract Term" categories. A good solution to that would be to scrutinize your contract early and often. It might be a pain in the ass, but it'll save you from any surprises.
The negative reviews on ROR don't have much in common except for the fact that most are from ex-employees.
Verifiable Testimonials/References:
I was a little surprised that I didn't see any testimonials on their site, but I'll keep you posted if any go up.
Security/Privacy:
The site is "https" secured.
Customer Service:
The rep that I spoke with was extremely professional and helpful. She answered all of my questions truthfully (I hope), and she didn't try to pull a "hard-sell." She acted more like a consultant than anything. Those are the kind of reps you want to get your hands on.
Contract Duration:
The Central Payment Corporation contract length is 3-years.
Cancellation Fee:
Their cancellation fee operates on a sliding scale starting at $500 if you cancel within the first year, and dropping by $100 each year thereafter. I was told that both the contract length and cancellation fee are negotiable, so don't forget to put on your bargaining hat.
Interchange-Plus Pricing:
Interchange-plus is offered by Central Payment Corporation.
Seasonal Downtime:
They do offer seasonal downtime, but be sure to specify up-front which months you need to deactivate the account for.
Product/Service Offering:
Check Guaranty, Check Conversion, e-Commerce/Internet, Wireless, Gift Cards, ATM, POS, PCI Compliance.
Product/Service Specialty:
None in particular.
Don't forget to leave your review and rating in the comment section. 
No trackbacks yet.
May 26th, 2010 - 11:02
I have to wonder how much they paid you to write this review.
May 26th, 2010 - 11:24
As you can see here JD, I don’t take kick-backs in return for writing a good review. I’d be interested to hear why you’d wonder what it is that you’re wondering.
July 27th, 2010 - 12:17
You say you don’t find Merchant complaints But I have found dozens of them. Apparently you did not search for them
Bill
July 27th, 2010 - 12:57
Bill,
Thank you for the comment, but I need details.
I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong, because as you might know, I don’t have any problem with updating my reviews, and/or lowering a providers rating based on facts that I might have missed. But, it’s incredibly hard for me to give your comment any credibility whatsoever when you don’t provide me with any sort of fact based information. Give me links, give me information, that is what will give your comment validity, otherwise I’ll have to disregard it, or worse, delete it.
I’ll give you a few days to respond with some good info for all of us. In the meantime, I’ll revisit the review to see if I missed out on anything.
June 8th, 2010 - 06:04
this site has been very very helpfull. thank you so much
June 10th, 2010 - 16:43
they have a testimonials section up at http://www.cpay.com/testimonials.php
June 10th, 2010 - 21:19
Nice! Thanks Dan.
July 9th, 2010 - 11:53
I found this helpful. Thank you for a concise, easy to read and understand review.
July 13th, 2010 - 00:36
No problem Gwendolyn. You’re welcome!
July 23rd, 2010 - 06:58
The truth will set u free
Matthew B. Hyman, Zachary A. Hyman, and Joshua Hyman, have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they deceptively marketed and sold guide materials for auctions of foreclosed homes and repossessed vehicles. As part of the settlement,
California Defendants that Deceptively Marketed and Sold Auction Information Guides for Homes and Cars Agree to Pay Consumer Redress to Settle FTC Charges
, Matthew Hyman and Zachary Hyman are permanently banned from engaging in any business that sells or telemarkets home or vehicle information guides, or assisting others who sell or telemarket such guides. They have also agreed to pay $100,000 in consumer redress. The defendants already had paid $80,000 to the court-appointed receiver to be used as consumer redress. In addition, all of the defendants are prohibited from making deceptive claims that consumers could purchase repossessed or seized vehicles and foreclosed homes at government and private auctions for incredibly low prices and from engaging in practices that result in unauthorized credit card charges.
The FTC sued the defendants as part of its “Operation Auction Guides II” sweep, which targeted telemarketers that sold lists of foreclosed homes and car auction locations. In its June 2000 complaint, the FTC named Productive Marketing, Inc., doing business as Data Information Services, Data Services, National Property Services; Matthew B. Hyman and Zachary A. Hyman, also doing business as Formula Solutions and Foreclosure Solutions; and Joshua Hyman. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants debited or charged consumers’ checking and credit card accounts without authorization; charged consumers for two sets of materials even if consumers had only authorized the charge for one set or none; failed to disclose material conditions and restrictions of their refund policy; and made false and unsubstantiated claims that late model cars sold at public auto auctions for an average price of $1,400. The court immediately issued a temporary restraining order, freezing the defendants’ assets and appointing a receiver.
In two separate settlements announced today, the defendants are prohibited from making the types of misrepresentations charged in the complaint. Specifically, the defendants are prohibited from:
debiting and charging consumers’ bank and credit card accounts without authorization;
misrepresenting their refund policies;
making misrepresentations regarding the marketing and sale of information guides; and
making misrepresentations in the marketing and sale of any product or service, which will cover telemarketing of any product or service the defendants may attempt in the future.
The settlements prohibit all of the defendants from disseminating their customer lists.
The proposed settlement with Productive Marketing, Inc., and Matthew and Zachary Hyman further permanently bans them from advertising, marketing, offering for sale or selling information guides, and requires them to pay $100,000 in consumer redress, in addition to $80,000 already paid to the receiver for refunding defrauded consumers of Formula Solutions and Foreclosure Solutions. The settlement contains an avalanche clause which triggers a $16 million judgment if it is found that the defendants made any material misrepresentations or omissions on their financial disclosures to the FTC.
The settlement with defendant Joshua Hyman does not require him to pay consumer redress but contains a right to reopen provision should the FTC find that he made material omissions in his financial statement. Finally, both settlements contain various reporting requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants’ compliance.
The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the proposed settlements was 5-0. The stipulated orders were filed on January 16, 2001, in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, in Los Angeles, and requires the court approval. The FTC’s Northwest Region – Seattle – handled this matter.
NOTE: These stipulated orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated order have the force of law when signed by the judge.
Copies of the settlements, previous documents relating to this case, and Operation Auction Guides II, are available from the FTC’s web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint, or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the online complaint form. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide.
Media Contact:
Brenda Mack
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2182
Staff Contact:
Nadine Samter or Mary Benfield
FTC Northwest Region – Seattle
206-220-4479 or 206-220-4472
(FTC Matter No. X000091)
(Civil Action No. 00-06502NM (BQRx)
August 6th, 2010 - 23:33
I am curious as to what a listing service violation and credit card processing have in common. As common sense would know, there are always two sides to the story and the truth in the middle.
August 6th, 2010 - 23:45
Rob,
I almost didn’t allow this one to go through, because it’s tiptoeing on one of my guidelines, but since it is public information, I’ll allow it.
With that said, I know these are some of the same guys that are running Central Payment Corporation. I was well aware of it when I wrote my review, but I’d be a hypocrite if I was to hold them accountable for past mistakes. Additionally, as Vicki sates, there are always two sides to a story, so I’ve chosen to focus mainly on how CPC is being run, and the performance of the company itself will determine the rating they receive on my site.
August 16th, 2010 - 13:08
The public should understand that:
1. Central Payment is not affiliated, related, or in the same industry to the company referenced in the FTC complaint.
2. The issues in the complaint date to 1997 concerning a company within which Mr. Matthew Hyman and Mr. Zachary Hyman were shareholders. This company no longer conducts business and was dissolved.
3. The FTC complaint was settled in 2001 without any admission of wrongdoing and without paying a fine to the FTC. The company did refund money to various customers.
John Hinkle, Esq.
CFO/General Counsel
Central Payment Co, LLC
August 17th, 2010 - 23:55
Thanks for the clarity John! As I mentioned in my previous statement, I almost didn’t approve Rob’s comment because I think it’s irrelevant to CPC, and the way it conducts business today. Regardless, I appreciate you taking the time to address it.