I have been a mystery shopper for a few years and I have never had a shop rejected up until recently. After going back and forth with the scheduler, we have been unable to resolve the issue. Ultimately, we disagree on the interpretation of a specific part of the instructions. I took it at face value, but they are claiming it really meant something else. The language in the instructions seemed straightforward, but the scheduler's feedback makes it clear that there is a big discrepancy between what they were expecting and what they asked me to do.

So I'm being penalized because they poorly communicated expectations.

Luckily, I have multiple attorneys in my immediate family. I showed them the language in question, as well as the correspondence with the scheduler, and they all agreed it was ludicrous. They are encouraging me to take them to court.

Part of me wants to just let it go and never shop with them again, but the other part of me is furious about how unethical their behavior is. Also, I had to make a larger purchase for reimbursement + pay, so I'm out more money than I would have otherwise spent on something I would not have otherwise bought.

Just wanted to see if anyone else has been in a similar situation and find out how they handled it. Thanks for any input or advice!

I would have to see the language, how they interpreted it, and how you did, before making a judgement.

Can you return the purchase? Return the purchase and just LET IT GO. No sense in getting bull headed and burning bridges and losing your self respect. Or have someone else in the MSC evaluate the disagreement. You may have to go higher in the MSC chain.

As for the LAWYERS in your family, save and use them when you are really in a legal bind

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 02:09AM by sojo917.

Definitely return the purchase even if the shop guidelines said it could not be returned. When a shop is invalidated those guidelines are null and void.

Assuming that you can afford not to do further business with the MSC (and possibly get blackballed) then by all means get the lawyers involved. It would do wonders for the profession if the MSC fought it and lost.

I would copy and past the quote from the guidelines and the quote from the scheduler that seems to contradict the guidelines and send it to the project manager. At the very least, the project manager needs to know that the directions are misleading - it will undoubtedly lead to more problematic shops in the future - which is bad for everybody.

If you don't get anywhere with the PM, return the item and let it go. The lost time and fee are not worth the effort even minor legal action would take. Moreover, doing so would mean that you could likely never work for the MSP again. Perhaps, you don't want to work for this company again, but make that your choice, not theirs - and there is no need to tell them. Just quietly stop taking their jobs.

Rejected shops does not mean we have to take legal action. We usually don't get "blackballed" from a MSC. We move on. It is better to move on with our heads raised high. Then to runaway with our tail between our legs.

Rejection does not mean "we can not do further business with the MSC". It means your report was not accepted and you will not be paid. Perform your next shop and learn from your mistakes. One rejected shop in a MS "lifetime" is enough After all, you have been shopping for a few years.

I'm sure all of us have made legitimate mistakes while shopping. Some can be salvaged while others result in a rejected shop. The OP is in a different situation entirely. If the MSC has poorly worded guidelines yet held the OP to a different standard or level of effort, then the MSC should be held accountable for THEIR mistake and not penalize the shopper.

We, as shoppers, are responsible and accountable for our finished products and the MSC should be held to the same standard for their written products.

Of course, without actually seeing the discrepancy in question, all we can do is speculate whether the guidelines were in fact vague and poorly written or if the OP simply misinterpreted them.

Having said all of that, is it worth the time, trouble, and cost of legal action? The answer is very likely a resounding no.

@sojo917 wrote:

Can you return the purchase? Return the purchase and just LET IT GO. No sense in getting bull headed and burning bridges and losing your self respect. Or have someone else in the MSC evaluate the disagreement. You may have to go higher in the MSC chain.

As for the LAWYERS in your family, save and use them when you are really in a legal bind

I initially corresponded with an editor about the topic and she seemed to agree that it was a gray area. She deferred to a manager, who has taken a very hard stance against the points I raised. At this point, it's more a matter of principle to me.

My lawyer(s) feel this is pretty cut and dried and any effort on their part would be minimal. Granted, they're litigious by nature and good at what they do, so this is fun for them

@sojo917 wrote:

Rejected shops does not mean we have to take legal action. We usually don't get "blackballed" from a MSC. We move on. It is better to move on with our heads raised high. Then to runaway with our tail between our legs.

Rejection does not mean "we can not do further business with the MSC". It means your report was not accepted and you will not be paid. Perform your next shop and learn from your mistakes. One rejected shop in a MS "lifetime" is enough After all, you have been shopping for a few years.

I don't have any problem admitting fault when it is mine, but I genuinely believe this MSC is operating in bad faith. Enforcing additional unspecified instructions and penalizing a shopper for otherwise complying with the provided materials is unethical.

I am not a career mystery shopper so maintaining a relationship with a shady MSC is not important to me. Either way, I will be more cautious about the MSCs I shop for in the future.

@MFJohnston wrote:

I would copy and past the quote from the guidelines and the quote from the scheduler that seems to contradict the guidelines and send it to the project manager. At the very least, the project manager needs to know that the directions are misleading - it will undoubtedly lead to more problematic shops in the future - which is bad for everybody.

If you don't get anywhere with the PM, return the item and let it go. The lost time and fee are not worth the effort even minor legal action would take. Moreover, doing so would mean that you could likely never work for the MSP again. Perhaps, you don't want to work for this company again, but make that your choice, not theirs - and there is no need to tell them. Just quietly stop taking their jobs.

Unfortunately, I have already corresponded with a manager and they have taken a firm stance. Even though their editor actually seemed to agree that the language was unclear, she was unable to do anything for me.

You are right that I definitely don't plan to work for this MSC again haha! But my "built-in" legal resources seem to think the effort of pursuing action would be worth it - especially since the law is on my side as far as contract disputes go. I'm going to sleep on it a few nights before I make any decisions. I appreciate your suggestions, thank you

@Rousseau wrote:

Assuming that you can afford not to do further business with the MSC (and possibly get blackballed) then by all means get the lawyers involved. It would do wonders for the profession if the MSC fought it and lost.

As it stands, I don't intend to shop for them ever again. I am a casual mystery shopper and any income I generate is purely supplemental, so I think that gives me some latitude to burn this bridge (it's already on fire). We'll see what I end up doing...

I had a company admit they wrote the instructions bad, but said I should have known they were written wrong...but they did work the way they were written...they said they would still pay me, but never did. The particular MSC only has 2-3 jobs in my area per year (could only do each one once per year) and they were extensive, mostly reimbursement....its been about 4 years, I have not done another shop for them. The reimbursement was for something I would have spent money on anyway..it was just a bonus getting it for free...so I didn't worry about the money I put out....

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 05:17AM by jmitw.

@msimon-2000 wrote:

I'm sure all of us have made legitimate mistakes while shopping. Some can be salvaged while others result in a rejected shop. The OP is in a different situation entirely. If the MSC has poorly worded guidelines yet held the OP to a different standard or level of effort, then the MSC should be held accountable for THEIR mistake and not penalize the shopper.

We, as shoppers, are responsible and accountable for our finished products and the MSC should be held to the same standard for their written products.

Of course, without actually seeing the discrepancy in question, all we can do is speculate whether the guidelines were in fact vague and poorly written or if the OP simply misinterpreted them.

Having said all of that, is it worth the time, trouble, and cost of legal action? The answer is very likely a resounding no.

I agree with you that they should be held accountable for the materials they provide shoppers. And a quick google search shows that this is not the first time this MSC has behaved this way. I just read a complaint from the Better Business Bureau that shares a lot of similarities with mine. At the very least, I will probably also report this to the BBB. I would provide more specifics, but I would like to maintain some anonymity and keep the details confidential for the time being. I appreciate your input

Will your "lawyer" family be waiting on pins and needles for you to initiate your case. (Lord, knows there is enough unlawful acts to be adjudicated).

While the final cause of a rejection is up to the Client, the MSC is there to check and recheck that the requirements are fulfilled. If there is a flaw in the guidelines, other Shoppers will notice it as well. Then the MSC responsibility is to bring it up to the Client. The MSC may pay you the closed shop fee, just to "get you gone". But that does not even serve the MSC justice.

There is nothing more wrong than a right fighter. After all, "I have NEVER had a shop rejected until recently". NEVER. NEVER.

Return the purchase to the store------------>Let it go, move on.

It's hard to express an opinion since no details have been communicated here and the name of the MSC has not been provided. The only information provided is that it is your perception, along with the agreement of a couple of family members who may have a legal background, that the guidelines were poorly written and that you have "NEVER NEVER" had a shop rejected after shopping "a few years."

Since you are posting anonymously, and you registered here on the forum less than an hour before posting, there are no previous posts that would indicate your experience level, the types of shops you perform, or your general outlook on MSing. With virtually no details provided, it's hard to take the post serious and provide an opinion, but I would agree with the majority of the above posters. Return the purchase and get your money back and write it off as a job performed as an Independent Contractor that was not acceptable to your customer. Based on the lack of details, I would say a lawsuit is not a good idea.

I don't see why you're considering formal legal action at this point. Can't you just have one of these attorneys (or hire your own) who has looked at this write the MSC a letter (you'd pay them for doing so, of course, or offer to), pointing out the discrepancy between the written guidelines and what they now say the guidelines mean? Citing both the applicable sections and your correspondence with the scheduler. Court action isn't always necessary in order to get what's due you.

I'm sure you're right in that the guidelines were poorly written--it happens all the time. I've seen guidelines that "said" exactly the opposite of what they meant! (I don't understand why many shoppers are always so skeptical about this--must be they've "never" run into incompetently written guidelines and questionnaires!) But, IMO anyway, it seems like you're a way from needing to bring formal suit. My husband and I, together and individually, have had contract situations in which the other party has failed to perform. (Not mystery-shopping related.) A well-written letter, backed up properly by law, can sometimes get results. My husband had an issue where the language of an employment contract was contradictory. I talked to my ex-husband, who's an attorney, got his opinion, and my husband talked to his employer. They paid up, based on the just the phone call. In two other cases, I had to write letters to people for contract non-performance, explaining that I had already spoken to my attorney (which I had) and that I would pursue legal action if they didn't fulfill their obligations. In both cases, the other parties did what they were supposed to do. And quickly!

Of course, they're gonna fight with you over this, but if they know that you're consulting with an attorney, and that attorney can write a good letter, with proper legal basis, it might be a different matter. I'm surprised, actually, that all of these attorneys you know haven't suggested or offered that option. Avoiding court is usually preferable if a settlement can be reached privately.

Good luck! And, personally, I wouldn't just drop it. It's easy for people to tell you it's not worth it--they don't know how much money was involved and if you can afford to be out of pocket. But, regardless, the MSC was apparently in the wrong, and you shouldn't be penalized for it. It's ludicrous for them to say you "should have known" what the guidelines meant, especially if, on the surface, they were clear. And again, I'm sure they probably were.

And don't let folks here get to you. None of us needs to know the MSC, the exact wording of the guidelines in question, the amount of $$ involved, etc. If every detail isn't provided, some people here don't believe a fellow shopper. They think people are lying unless they provide every minute detail. And some folks apparently can't conceive of a case in which an instruction was written the opposite of how it should have been. Or that someone who's a new member here has as much as experience as he or she states. Newbies here are sometimes assumed to be newbies to the business.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 02:14PM by BirdyC.

I run across poorly written guidelines constantly. Sometimes I call or e-mail for clarification, sometimes I don't. Yesterday I did a shop that required I wear "any color khaki pants". Say what?

Nevertheless, Judge Judy hears a lot of cases where ICs (such as plumbers, painters, car repair places, etc.)
sue the people who refuse to pay them after the work is done.

Normally, it seems that if the person who contracted the work done had to pay someone else to re-do the work, the IC loses.

And sometimes guidelines are poorly written, but if the IC can figure out the objective of the shop, they can still complete the shop.

Best of luck, however it turns out.

@ceasesmith wrote:

I run across poorly written guidelines constantly. Sometimes I call or e-mail for clarification, sometimes I don't. Yesterday I did a shop that required I wear "any color khaki pants". Say what?

Pink khaki pants? Black khaki pants? I bet they meant twill or gabardine pants, and don't know that "khaki" refers to a specific range of colors!

I always e-mail for clarification when the guidelines are ambiguous or contradictory on their surface. But even so, I once had a scheduler give me "clarifying" information that ended up being the opposite of what the survey prompted for (it was one of those deals where you don't see all of the questions ahead of time, because you get different drop-downs depending on your responses). But I had already prepared for the "what if the scheduler is wrong" scenario and was able to answer the questions properly. I'd interpreted the guidelines one way, she interpreted them another. (I was right, but I still did the shop from both POVs, in case she was! )

But sometimes wording is clear on its face, and the shopper can't be expected to be a mind reader and know that there's something not right....

You are asking for advice. Here is mine: Play the long game. You may want to stop doing business with this MSC entirely, and that is probably a good decision. As has been written already, you can do that discreetly and quietly. Next time they come begging for you to complete an assignment, you can just say no.

Keep in mind that these MSCs communicate with each other and staffers move from company to company. You don't want THEM to blacklist YOU throughout the industry due to a situation where you have already been wronged.

Unfortunately, these MSCs hold most of the power in these situations. Yes, you can claim a victory after successfully pursuing one incident, but the law of unintended consequences is usually hidden from view, yet always at work.

I have been burned by companies when it has not been my fault. After trying to right matters through calls and emails, I usually give it some time so I can calm down and wisely assess which action will bring the best outcome for me.

I agree with most (let it go), however, morally, why should you. Thinking about this, your having Atty's helping you is a big plus on your side, I say, "Go for it", and I hope you win. Remember, their not used to shoppers fighting for what's right, this will set a precedent

I've read some poorly written ambiguous instructions so while I don't know if the OP is in the right, I can believe it might have happened. The general opinion of this forum is to let it go. It seems like part of the problem with our industry is that so many of us "let it go" and don't address the issue that we do ourselves a disservice. The MSC's are used to not paying (or agreeing to pay a smaller amt. as a courtesy) when we've followed the instructions as listed in our contract since we don't require them to do otherwise. I'm not sure what the right choice of action is but I wish you luck.

@BirdyC wrote:

@ceasesmith wrote:

I run across poorly written guidelines constantly. Sometimes I call or e-mail for clarification, sometimes I don't. Yesterday I did a shop that required I wear "any color khaki pants". Say what?

Pink khaki pants? Black khaki pants? I bet they meant twill or gabardine pants, and don't know that "khaki" refers to a specific range of colors!
.

khaki is color & fabric. they do come in diff colors.

noun, plural khakis.
1.
dull yellowish brown.
2.
a stout, twilled cotton cloth of this color, used especially in making uniforms.
3.
Usually, khakis. ( used with a plural verb)
a uniform made of this cloth, especially a military uniform.
a garment made of this cloth, especially trousers.
4.
a similar fabric of wool.
adjective
5.
of the color khaki.
6.
made of khaki.

[www.shopstyle.com]

Could it be that you just feel burned about the shop being rejected, and are trying to find a way to justify that the job was not done correctly? Not accusing you of that!! Just a thought that went through my mind, because i have had shops rejected and always felt burned!

Would you mind sharing any additional information such as the company (so others can stay clear), or the guidelines - or an idea of the problem more specifically?

Best of luck!

forum dbl posted

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 11:05PM by MSNinja.

Yes, khaki refers to a fabric as well as a color, but as you posted above, it refers to a fabric that is of this color, which can be brownish, olive-ish, tan-ish, etc. As I said, a "range" of colors, of the same general shade. But it doesn't refer to a fabric that comes in blue, red, pink, orange, black, yellow, etc. "Khaki of any color" is pretty much an oxymoron, unless they mean a khaki of any khaki shade.

[vintagefashionguild.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 11:47PM by BirdyC.

@BirdyC wrote:

Yes, khaki refers to a fabric as well as a color, but as you posted above, it refers to a fabric that is of this color, which can be brownish, olive-ish, tan-ish, etc. As I said, a "range" of colors, of the same general shade. But it doesn't refer to a fabric that comes in blue, red, pink, orange, black, yellow, etc. "Khaki of any color" is pretty much an oxymoron, unless they mean a khaki of any khaki shade.

[vintagefashionguild.org]

did u click link in my post? that link has current trends & examples not old fashioned vintage stuff. if u really have free time to do more research have at it. I dont.

@MSNinja wrote:

did u click link in my post? that link has current trends & examples not old fashioned vintage stuff. if u really have free time to do more research have at it. I dont.

Yup, I did click the link in your post. And, as far as I can tell, all the colored examples are being called chinos, not khakis. Chino and khaki aren't synonyms. As far as I can tell, khaki still refers to a certain range of colors or a fabric in that range of colors. I checked my sewing and fabric books as well. (And since I've been sewing since I was 12 years old, I drew on my first-hand fabric knowledge.)

The VFG definition doesn't refer only to vintage items.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2016 07:02PM by BirdyC.

Sorry but I'm with MSNinja on this one. At least in the south khaki is the fabric and it does come in a wide range of colors, not just particular shades of colors.

[www1.macys.com]|BS|BA%26slotId%3D17%26rdppSegmentId%3DCONTROL

For example these Docker Khakis come in Charcoal Heather, Dark Olive, Black, Cloud, Dark Khaki, and Navy. I have seen Khakis in brighter colors as well such as Red, Green, and Yellow.

I have to weigh in with MSNinja and bgriffin. Maybe it's a generational thing or maybe it's geographic. The word "khaki" can mean the khaki color, but the word is also used to denote casual slacks similar to cargo pants. My friends and I frequently use the term khakis to mean the same as cargo pants regardless of the color. In addition to the Macy's link bgriffin has provided, here's a link to Gap: [www.gap.com]

Gap has several different pants on their website for sale that are referred to as khakis, including lightweight khakis, stretch khakis, skinny fit khakis, straight fit khakis, slim fit khakis, and khakis in red, blue and gray.

While the longtime definition of khaki may have been one of color, it has now expanded. The Free Dictionary,
[www.thefreedictionary.com]
defines Khaki as

1. A light olive brown to moderate or light yellowish brown.
2.
a. A sturdy cloth of this color.
b. khakis A uniform made of this cloth.
c. khakis Pants made of a twilled cotton fabric of this color or another solid color.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2016 10:13PM by Jay C.