About 1.5 years ago, my wife received a call from a company that specialises in subsidies. They said there were grants available, but only a few EPUs were taking advantage of them. Liro Solutions specialises in applying for such grants and promised funding rates of up to 99 %. As I work as an IT service provider, my wife referred Liro Solutions to me. I was sceptical at first, and the high commissions (35 to 40 % of the project sum or funding sum, depending on how it is calculated) were rather off-putting. But Mr Robert Pichler is a good salesman and overall the company made a professional impression.
Firstly, a status and potential analysis was carried out, which was largely subsidised (cost: 500 euros). After that, funding for digitalisation was discussed. I immediately told my cousin about it, who also showed interest.
Liro Solutions always endeavoured to explain everything, but it later transpired that what had been explained verbally was very different from what had been agreed in writing.
Liro Solutions funding example no. 1
A grant was submitted for my wife with an advertised funding rate of up to 80 %. With Mr Johannes Hartl (a team member who is on the liros.net-website), it was discussed that the project would only materialise if both grants were approved. Initially, Liro Solutions never considered that only 30 % funding quotas could be achieved. It was always said that if the first submission was not successful, it would be resubmitted - and that it usually works the second time. It was repeatedly emphasised that practically everything was successful and "super".
But it wasn't successful or great. After the first grant was approved (30 % funding quota), Mr Hartl praised this "great success" in an email to my wife. The message read as follows:
"Congratulations to us - another success on the list! The next funding commitment is here."
What exactly Mr Hartl meant by "success" remains unclear - for us it was not. Quite the opposite: the 30 % funding rate contrasts with the 35 % (if billed via me, based on the project amount) or 40 % (if billed via my wife, based on the funding amount) in commission that Liro Solutions wanted to claim.
Particularly brazen: Since only a part of the funding was realised, Liro Solutions wanted, according to the contract??? the same both commissions demand.
This was then demonstrated to us live in a Zoom meeting by Mr Johannes Hartl:
The project volume was to be reduced from the original 20,000 euros to 10,000 euros (to minimise the damage for us?):
- 10,000 euros Project sum
- 3,000 euros Approved funding amount
- 1,200 Euro Commission to Liro Solutions because "only one grant was approved" - but this commission was generously waived.
My wife would therefore effectively have had to pay 7,000 euros (as she is not entitled to deduct input tax).
I would have received 10,000 euros from my wife:
- 1,666 Euro to the tax office
- 3,500 Euro Commission to Liro Solutions
Where exactly is the success here? According to his calculation, direct processing without Liro Solutions would be more favourable for us. However, Mr Hartl calculated the commission incorrectly in the Zoom conversation. It is 35% of the net project sum. In this case, the commission would therefore be just under the funding amount.
Savings compared to direct commissioning: 83.33 euros. And that's what LiroS calls a success.
Discrepancies in communication with LiroS
E-mail from Mrs Seles, the person responsible at Liro Solutions, to my wife after the second grant was rejected (reproduced verbatim):
"Unfortunately, the application to the Vienna Business Agency rejected. Please send me the rejection letter for review.
Since a AWS-If you have received a funding commitment of €6,000, I suggest that you settle the project using this amount. LiroS will take care of the processing - all we need from you is an invoice and confirmation of payment.
Please state whether the LiroS fee is to be paid directly or whether the supplier regulation is to be used."
We were initially given the option of paying the LiroS fee via me or my wife. Via my wife, this would mean 40 % of the subsidised amount. In the Zoom meeting with Mr Hartl, however, we were no longer offered this option and were referred to the non-transparent contract. Probably because the commission is lower for 40 % of the subsidised amount of 3,000 euros.
My personal conclusion about Liro Solutions
Overall, there is a lack of understanding for EPUs and small companies in this interaction. The non-transparent contracts differ from what was verbally declared. In our case, what was initially promised is very different from what was actually achieved. Perhaps Liro Solutions should rethink its approach to dealing with customers.
To be continued... (Funding example no. 2 - Financing commercial property, Funding example no. 3 - My cousin)