Canadian Payment Services, LLC
reviews and complaints

They have been trying to lease me more expensive terminal than my shop really needed. I've just started my business then and had no idea about the difference in terminal models so their Sales rep told me that I needed a model that was at the top of their product line. They have a universe of credit card processing terminals to choose from and I later realized that I could have gone with a cheaper model without having to spend extra on a terminal with a few "important" features advertised by their sales which I in fact rarely use. My advice to anyone who wants to deal with them would be to do your own research prior to signing the contract to know upfront what terminal your business really needs. Alternatively, just tell them your requirements and ask for a cost-effective model able to meet them.

Canadian Payment Services is the biggest scam out there. Steven King is a crook

Their personal concerige service is a scam. Nataly Chobarka, their director has been fraudulently altering contracts, so when a customer calls to complain she lies and says its First Data or Pivotal. I found out that they are not even Canadian. They are American. They come to Canada, and steal our monies, and then we can't do anything about it. If I were you, change your bank account, and go with a reputable company like Moneris or Chase Paymentech, or Elavon. Stay away from Pivotal, First Data or Canadian Payment Services who sells those products.

Preamble
As the result of a brief mid-June 2013 field experience as an EVO Canada Point of Sale (POS) services representative, I learned first-hand that many Canadian small businesses are paying unduly high credit card and debit card processing rates, service fees and equipment usage fees. Moreover, small business owners not only believe this to be the case, but are therefore, when presented with the opportunity, interested in learning more about the possibility of reducing these payment collection expenses. In combination with the relatively lucrative commission incentives offered by EVO, these facts led me to believe that I had come across a serious long-term sales representation opportunity. However, notwithstanding the aforementioned positives, after only 3 weeks with this company I resigned from representing same because EVO’s practice of purposely withholding information and/or not providing prospects with full disclosure of contract conditions that would negatively affect their businesses. I also experienced conflict with my sales manager because I refused to press my small business prospects for immediate commitments or to look the other way while they were in my opinion being tricked into signing POS contracts. Nonetheless, the POS system market niche remained of interest to me because I realised there was an opportunity for me to help small business owners lower their operating costs while earning a decent living for myself. In light of what I had by then learned, I conducted some further industry research and ultimately discovered Canadian Payment Merchant Services (CPS) - which company exclusively represents First Data in Canada - First Data being the single largest non-banking point of sale supplier in North America with over 6.5 million customers. I was informed by the CPS recruiter that CPS was the first of the non-banking service providers to have set-up business in Canada and that all of the others (of which there are more than a few) had made use of the original CPS business model to develop their affairs in Canada. After some further due diligence, I opted to represent CPS and by proxy, First Data, in my local area.
The following is a synopsis of one CPS sales agents’ 3 month field experience with Canadian Payment (Merchant) Services (CPS):
Evaluation of CPS / First Data
Recruitment
Focus: To engage the most experienced / able to function autonomously sales staff possible.
Hook:
1: Represent the single largest non-banking point of sale (POS) provider in the world. Strength in size = lower individual business POS processing rates and fees. Credibility
2: Lucrative commission schedule. (At first study)
3: Promise of up to 5 appointments supplied per day via telemarketing system.
4: $ Bonus for agent generated sales.
5: Lucrative sales performance bonuses.
6: Exclusivity of CPS representation in a given region.
Training:
Pre-contract: A single 2-3 hour on-line / telephone session with a company trainer focusing on:
1: How to convince prospects that CPS / First Data’s primary objective is to provide them with equal or better POS services for less cost relative monthly billing charges, fees and equipment expense.
The main emphasis of the CPS / First Data sales presentation is the promise of decreased cost of POS processing as represented via the “great deal” concept of affording the merchant a comparatively reduced credit card base fee rate of 1.49% and a debit card per swipe rate of $0.04. Sales agents are encouraged to explain that these lower processing fee rates can be afforded small business owners as a result of First Data’s enormous size (financial clout) and its’ related business philosophy of generating fair profits via gross volume of business not on a per case basis.
NB: Key comparative fee details are never formally discussed during either training sessions or sales presentations. For example: while CPS / First Data quotations emphasize a base credit card per transaction rate of 1.49%, the actual base per transaction rate charged by both Master card and Visa card is 1.54% = a difference of .05% or only 5 basis points. This below cost quotation amounts to a lost leader designed to lure the merchant prospect into believing in the CPS / First Data great deal opportunity. In comparison, however, to CPS /First data billing practices, banking system POS service suppliers do not generally charge a per swipe fee on credit card transactions. CPS / First Data charges the merchant a $0.04 per credit card swipe fee. Therefore, if a given merchant has an average per swipe credit card $ volume of $100.00, with CPS / First Data that merchants’ transaction fee would be: $100.00 x 1.49% + $0.04 = $1.53, a net savings of only $0.01 compared to the base rate of $1.54 per $100.00 of sales processed. However, if the merchants’ average per swipe volume is only $25.00; with CPS / First Data, the merchant would be responsible to pay $25.00 x 1.49% + $0.04 for that transaction = $0.4125 x 4 = $1.65 per $100.00 of credit card sales processed or the equivalent of a 1.65% base credit card processing fee rate. It is ultimately the merchants’ responsibility to take the time to fully analyse the comparative fee structure figures presented during the sales presentation and to compare same with his actual credit / debit card sales track record to determine if an actual savings potential really exists. Buyer beware!
2: How to fill out paperwork. Properly completed applications are of key importance as they are in effect, financial commitment documents.
3: Understanding product commission schedules as a means to motivate sales activity.
Post-contract:
On-going training is carried out via weekly telephone group call in training sessions of approximately 1 hour in duration. These training sessions are hosted by the VP of sales, and or various other members of head-office sales management staff and are primarily dedicated to motivate either increased or sustained agent sales activity. With the exception of procedural modifications, actual day to day POS service / operations difficulties are seldom if ever discussed during these sessions. Each week there are a bevy of newly engaged sales agents attending the telephone training sessions. However, the details of the many service problems they will all ultimately have to deal with are not presented during same. Is it not simple to understand why? = Such damning information would only serve to, at best, demotivate new sales personnel. Unless otherwise requested, because CPS sales agents are provided with up to 5 daily sales appointments scheduled via from head office telemarketers, and because all sales agents are encouraged to call head office from their merchant prospect locations so as to involve head office closers in the sales interview process, information is also gleaned as the result of sales agents listening to the telephone discourse between the sales closers and their respective prospects. Notwithstanding that each sales agent is responsible for the installation of the POS terminals provided to the merchant by First Data, very little if any direct training is provided relative their installation. Therefore, notwithstanding tech support provided by either CPS or First Data personnel, the installation process all too often spirals into a complicated adventure – as certain of the terminals are, at best, problematic to properly install and very few sales agents have tech backgrounds.
Training omissions:
1: Any info related to limitations in POS terminal programming / First Data billing & reporting practices / bank deposit time factors (all of which info is critical to maintaining satisfied customer base). After all, it is one thing to make sales based on the promise of a significant reduction in billing rates and fees, in association with comparative quality service, it’s another to retain sales as the result of the provision of the promised efficient quality service.
2: Following the initial 30 day “trial” period, merchants electing to cancel First Data contracts will be told they will be responsible to pay contract cancellation penalty fees. ($500.00)
3: Notwithstanding that CPS sales agents have direct telephone line access to head office sales management personnel who had promised to be available to aid them in their attempts to rectify First Data service difficulties, all too often, all said leadership staff will do is to subsequently transfer such calls for help to the CPS operations dept. which staff in turn, subsequently refer the problems to First Data Service personnel, who in turn, all too often, simply report that the system is the system and there is nothing they can do to resolve the respective problem/s. In the final analysis, customers will very often therefore end up having to choose between either adapting to First Data practices or cancelling their CPS contract so as to return to their previous more reliable suppliers. And despite repeated verbal promises of direct after sales service support from individuals, such as CPS VP of sales, Steven King, he seldom takes the initiative to get directly involved so as to motivate positive results. When asked by me to call and speak with one of my customers directly – so that he might hear about the difficulties being experienced by this merchant first hand, he even went so far as to state that he saw no purpose in doing so, as he didn’t wish to serve as a “sacrificial lamb! He seemed, however, not to mind that I was already serving as same! Following my having received an email from one of my customers complaining about ongoing service difficulties, I forwarded this complaint to the attention of Mr. King and then picked up the telephone to make certain he would get the message. While I was on the telephone line with him, Mr. King did attempt to call and speak with the merchant in question concerning said service complaint. However, the merchant was not then available. I, in fact, listened as M. King identified himself as CPS’ VP of Sales, left his direct telephone number and requested that the merchant call him back when convenient. About 6 days later, much to my chagrin, I learned from the merchant in question that he had attempted to call Mr. King back, had been unable to reach him and had therefore, in turn left a message for Mr. King, requesting him to once again call back – which he in fact never did! I subsequently sent detailed emails to Mr. King so as to provide him with specific information relative the many service difficulties my customers’ were continuing to experience. However, not once did I even receive a return email from him either to acknowledge his receipt of my original transmissions or in response to them. When I finally questioned him concerning this lack of response, Mr. King nonchalantly informed me that he simply does not have time to read emails, as his valuable time is otherwise occupied. He then further informed me that he could only afford me brief time periods during which to converse with me over the telephone concerning my customers’ difficulties – being that his very valuable time is - in priority -committed to helping sales agents meeting face to face with new potential merchant customers to generate new business. In follow-up to this very disturbing declaration, I sent Mr. King another email, in which I asked him point blank if he was of the type that only talked the talk or was he equally committed to backing-up his diatribe, by actually walking the walk? I never received a reply! The truth of the matter: this self-expressed, very experienced CPS VP of sales is fully cognisant of the myriad of problems that exist with First Data service, and therefore, simply refuses to commit any related responses to writing – which situation would in effect develop a paper trail back to him = the ploy of plausible deniability.
Sales:
Focus:
1: To present the CPS billing statement comparison platform to as many small business prospects as possible via either arranged appointments or self-generated leads.
2: *To make use of the prepared sales track so as to capture billing statement for paper comparison of billing rates and fee structures. CPS prides itself on being able to offer most merchants less expensive billing rates and a POS terminal lease to own opportunity, as well as comparatively good and reliable service.
3: To involve head office sales management personnel to add credibility and to support sales closing. Always to try at least 3 times to close a sale during the first interview…as giving merchants time to think about purchasing decisions often results in a lost sale.
4: To undertake Initial equipment set-up and removal of previous POS hardware with support from CPS and First data techs. This service earns the agent a $50.00 per location installation bonus. In my experience, this process can take anywhere from a single visit of approx.1 hour to up to 7 visits and 14 hours.
5: To prevent existing supplier rebuttal during the cancellation of contact advisory telephone contact with the previous supplier. Because the POS supplier being replaced has often seen First Data practices and can advise their customer concerning First Data pitfalls, CPS tries to avoid any such intervention.
Omissions: Any and all Information relative to actual First Data practices / limitations in equipment programming / billing & reporting practices / bank deposit time factors, etc.
1: Given that the processing of the merchants credit card and debit card payments is the purpose of the POS system – that is to say, collecting the money paid to a merchant via credit or debit card payments and transferring these funds into the merchants’ bank account - one of the key factors in fostering customer satisfaction is the comparative time period required for First Data to transfer payments into the customers’ bank account relative that of the previous POS supplier. During training, agents are led to believe that in so far as First Data procedures are concerned, debit card transfers will require 24 hours to appear in the merchants’ bank account, while credit card transfers will be effected within 48 hours. (Banking system suppliers effect both types of fund transfers within a max of 24 hours) In practice, however, First Data transfers will take up to 96 hours! NB: this critical time difference will only be unhappily discovered through customer experience; after the equipment has been installed and the customer has begun to process sales through First Data. Because many small businesses require quick access to their funds in order to purchase replacement inventory etc. this critical time delay is often the equivalent of the “kiss of death.”
2: The second most important service factor to the merchant is the ability of the POS system to permit him to easily track his money. NB: Unless requested to the contrary, First Data billing practice dictates that the company will deduct its’ fees on a per transaction basis. The result: the merchant suffers a virtual nightmare when attempting to track deposits into his business account. Moreover, in comparison to banking system POS account deposits which are reported in accordance with their respective origins, ie; Master card, Visa, debit card etc., First Data inexplicably lumps its’ fund deposits into merchant accounts. This means that while Master Card deposits are detailed accordingly, debit deposits are combined with Visa Card deposits and are detailed as miscellaneous. This protocol leaves the merchant to attempt, albeit, almost impossibly to try to track just which funds from which sales have actually been deposited to his business account. Not automatic by any sense, upon subsequent special application, First data will provide the merchant with access to a reconciliation web site where at the merchant can track his day to day credit and debit card transaction activity. None the less, in comparison to banking POs practices this system is both very time consuming and cumbersome. Merchants are in business to make money by doing business. The use of Credit and Debit card payment collection services is primordial in todays’ business environment. Merchants, therefore, contract with POs service suppliers to facilitate their POS money collection activities, not to ultimately have to invest additional time and effort to attempt to account = chase the money they are due as a result of their business endeavors. Moreover, often times, because the deposits being made to customer business bank accounts by First Data are not direct (as is the case when POS services are contracted directly through banking suppliers) each deposit will additionally suffer a banking service charge / fee – which situation, in many cases, negates the CPS forecasted monthly billing fee savings!
3: *Notwithstanding that the CPS prepared sales track questionnaire suggests that merchants will be able to have their POS terminals custom programmed to suit their individual business specifications / needs, this is far from actual reality. (In my opinion, this referred to questionnaire purposely misleads prospects). Moreover, not all of the POS terminals supplied by First Data can even be homogeneously programmed to comply with customers’ requirements. For example: as supplied by First Data: Not only is the VX 670 short-range portable unit - which relies on Wi-Fi technology - very troublesome to operate but also to initially install. This particular equipment also has comparative limitations in terms of its’ First Data programming. While a VX810 countertop model can accept a debit surcharge programming function, the VX670 as provided by First Data does not. The irony of this situation is that these specific portable units are generally employed in a restaurant setting, so as to provide at the table payment collection capability, so as to reduce pay at the counter line-ups. Therefore, should a restaurant business elect a debit surcharge function on this unit, it will turn out not to be available. This means that any of the merchant electing to include a debit surcharge will have to ask customers wishing to pay via debit card to report to the counter to pay via a counter mounted unit which can accept this function = a paradox. NB: At the point of signing a service contract, the CPS / First Data contract documentation permits the merchant to elect the inclusion of a debit surcharge programming function on types of terminals without exclusion = for both the VX810 and the VX670 – even though, in practice, only the VX810 can accept this function. When will the merchant learn of this short-coming? Only after the equipment has been installed in replacement of the previous suppliers equipment and then, only upon first attempt to actually make use of the non-existent function! Terminal screen displays are also problematic. Given that: often times the First Data POS equipment being supplied to the merchant is identical to that which is being replaced or if you prefer, that of the former POS supplier = exchange of a VX810 for another VX810; that the original equipment screen display font is large and easy to read, and notwithstanding that the screen itself could easily accommodate the installation of larger font, the display font size programmed into the POS hardware by First Data on certain screens only, is far too small to be easily read by either the merchant or their customers. Notwithstanding that the adjustment of screen font size is easily effected on identical competitor equipment, First Data simply declares this situation not to be adjustable.
4: Not generally understood by the merchant and almost never divulged by the agent, monthly either rental or equipment lease costs are directly correlated to a sliding commission scale. The higher the monthly equipment billing price, the greater the agent commission. Also, the longer the agreed to lease period the greater the agent commission. Buyer beware!
5: Given that CPS sales agents are required to install all new First Data POS terminals at their respective new customers’ locations, as a CPS agent I have had the experience of having had to deal directly with First Data service staff / techs myself. Case in point: the installation of a VX670 short-range portable terminal in a bar / restaurant. Following my having received email notification that the equipment in question had been delivered to the merchant, I travelled to his location to undertake its’ installation. Upon opening the sealed box in which the equipment had been delivered by courier service, I discovered that a devise referred to as a dongle was missing from the box. This devise is necessary to connect the Wi-Fi operated VX670 with a telephone line so as to effect downloads to the machine during installation. When I informed the First Data service rep with whom I was working to effect this terminals’ installation of the fact that this part was missing, she informed me that because this shipment had been verified by a First Data inspector prior to its’ departure from the warehouse, I had to have lost the missing part. Not only did the First Data tech refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that her company had made an error, but in order to proceed with the installation, CPS ultimately had to accept to both purchase a replacement dongle and to ship it to the customers’ location at its’ expense…because without this service part the installation of the contracted for terminal could not have been completed. Notwithstanding the later date replacement of the missing dongle, even this parts’ employ did not ultimately resolve the installation programming problems with this particular VX670 terminal. Therefore, following another visit to the merchants’ location and another attempt at the VX670’s installation, First Data had to finally agree to send a pre-programmed replacement VX670 to this merchant. This meant that I had to again wait for the arrival of the replacement before once again returning to the merchants’ location to attempt its’ proper installation – which was ultimately successful. However, because, at application signing, the merchant had elected to have a $0.75 debit surcharge programmed into both the problematic VX670 unit in question and another VX810 counter mounted terminal ordered at the same time, I had to return to visit the merchant yet again to implement this request. No problem with the VX810 - a 5 minute program modification. However, when it came time to reprogram the missing function into the VX670, the First Data service rep simply reported that this function was not available on this type of terminal. Say What? First Data had to have reviewed this merchants’ application, after all, it was First Data that had accepted same. And given that the requested function had been clearly elected for both machines, how could it be that I was only informed of this short-coming after the merchant had cancelled his contract with his previous supplier and was processing payments via First Data? To say the least, I was shocked; not only by this short-coming, but by the First Data techs’ nonchalant “too bad, so sad” attitude. Following his having informed me that the VX670 did not permit a debit surcharge, the First Data tech then asked me if there “was anything else he could do for me?” leaving me to have to try to explain this apparent inexplicable bungle to the merchant. In total, I actually had to travel to this merchants’ location on 7 different occasions to try to effect the above referred to installations, costing me a total of 14 hours of my time…all for a $50.00 installation fee. Let me add that, during this same time period I was involved with the installation of some similar POS terminals at another local merchants’ location. When I opened the boxes containing said customers’ POS hardware, low and behold, I discovered that relative the 5 POS terminals sent to this merchant, First Data had sent out not 5 but 7 dongles! Another tangible example of First Data due diligence!
After sales Service:
Focus:
1: In case of service difficulties, CPS sales agents’ are encouraged to do their best to motivate their customers to, in order of priority, call them first, so that the agent him or herself can either attempt to deal with problems directly or so that they can refer the problems to CPS operations techs instead of having the customer deal directly with First Data Service – which would be the last choice. CPS tries to act as an intermediary (buffer) between its’ merchant customers and First Data service personnel. Unfortunately, all too often, intermediary or no, there is simply no correction available from First Data for the experienced problem/s. First Data systems protocol ever seems to take priority over customer requirements / satisfaction. In the First Data scheme of things, the customer is far from always being right! As I have been verbally advised by CPS head office sales management: “the business you save may be your own.” As an experienced CPS agent I have come to believe that CPS feels that the longer a given customer remains a First Data customer- without experiencing direct contact with First Data service the better, because First data Service is anything but warm and fuzzy! Moreover, direct dealings with First Data service often spells: contract cancellation!
Analysis:
While CPS sales agents are encouraged (required) to produce new business applications so as to both generate profits for the company and to earn sales commission for themselves, the actual pre-contract promise of post-sale service is not tested until the POS equipment has been: delivered to the customer; satisfactorily installed at the location by the agent; the original (now replaced) POS supplier has been informed of the replacement of its’ services and finally, the installation has been signed off on by the customer. It is only after this sign-off point in the sales / service relationship that situations arise which result in customer dissatisfaction. Notwithstanding CPS experience, during both initial formal training and post-training sessions, sales agents are told that any problems that their customers might experience are very unusual / do not occur with regularity. However, the truth of the matter is totally to the contrary. Not only is CPS fully aware of the many short-comings in First Data service, but, in all too many cases, the resultant CPS operations division techs interventions do not result in appreciable service improvement. Given that many sales are lost due to failed First Data service, it quickly becomes obvious to COS sales agents that CPS’s sole objective is to have them generate as many new applications as possible in the shortest time period following their signing on to officially represent CPS / First Data. Given that repeated service failures / short-comings will ultimately - and justifiably so - result in contract cancellations, agents will then learn that after their having invested (wasted) great amounts of time and effort both in generating new business and then attempting to correct said businesses’ POS problems, it will be they themselves who will ultimately forfeit via claw-back, the commissions previously earned via the affected sales - notwithstanding that the respective contract cancellations will have occurred as a direct result of First Data service short-comings/failures. Therefore, due to the fact that they find themselves having to handle high volumes of dissatisfied customer telephone complaints, albeit, without any financial compensation for return service visits to said dissatisfied customers = not only while investing further time virtually for nothing, but while also having to absorb all travel related expenses. It is any surprise that it is at this point that sales agents often resign? From the CPS perspective, because its’ sales agent commissions will be reversed following contract cancellation, the cost of said First Data service failures to CPS is minimal. However, if CPS can manage to retain some of the respective business generated as a result of a given sales agent’s field activities, the company ultimately comes out ahead - since all sales related: travel, paperwork and customer service expenses would have also been born exclusively by the agent. Given that the sales agent is the personification of CPS / First Data before the customer, I can speak with some experience to the fact that it very embarrassing to have to face and try to explain to sometimes relatively irate customers why they are not receiving the services I (CPS) promised to them .
Notwithstanding that every stitch of information provided to the customer originated directly from CPS, it is the CPS sales agent who the dissatisfied merchant will ultimately hold responsible for any and all CPS / First Data service failures. It is therefore my developed opinion that CPS operating principle = Throw enough mud against a wall – some will ultimately stick! The loss of dissatisfied sales agents is simply the cost of doing business. No problem; simply recruit replacements so as to keep the sales mill wheel turning. After all, sales is simply a numbers game; and while it is most certainly not possible to fool all the people all the time, statistically speaking, it is most certainly possible to fool a few on a regular basis! Buyer beware!
Resolution:
If you are a sales professional seeking a stable sales position…I highly recommend that you pass on representing any non-banking POS company. You will ultimately not only save yourself valuable time, effort and ultimately money…but also your credibility / reputation.
If you are a small business owner who is contacted either by a telemarketer or in person by a sales agent representing a non-banking POS service supplier….take advantage of the contact and accept to meet a sales agent. This meeting will permit you an opportunity to receive a written billing statement comparison for that POS suppliers’ credit and debit card processing rates and fee structures which you can then compare with those of your existing POS service supplier. After all, in business, it is always wise to, every once in a while, run a check on your suppliers to ascertain that you are actually getting the best possible deal. However, regardless of whatever sales techniques are applied, simply refuse to sign any replacement of POS services “deal” with the visiting representative. Keep a copy of the written comparison provided to you and use this document to your advantage. Contact your existing POS supplier, explain that you are considering replacing their service because you have received a better quotation. Your current supplier will suggest that based on the better offer you then have in hand, in order to remain competitive, and so as to retain your business, a rates and fees review is warranted. Most banking system suppliers will ultimately lower your existing rates in order to retain your business. In other words: turn the tables on the non-banking POS companies and use their efforts to your advantage without falling prey to their loaded sales pitches.

Similar situation here. Sent info to set up account on March 9, 2013. Requested that be cancelled on March 13, 2013 and was assured via email that it would be and nothing more was required. Was charged for end of March, Apr and May and INKAS and Elavon refuse to refund money.