I recently did a large weekend long hotel shop which included visits to the bars, restaurants, amenities, etc. of the hotel as provided in the directions. I completed the shop and the hotel general manager has said that one of their servers suspected that I was a mystery shopper (because I was looking at her name tag). The client is threatening not to pay, which will likely mean that the mystery shopping company won't pay. If this was a $10 burger shop, I would just write it off, but this much money, I feel like I have to take action. The $750 is just costs incurred on the shop and the shop fee was also $75. A side note, the shop was a cash integrity shop that had never been done at this facility so I would assume that employees would not be wise to this type of shop. Also, supposedly, this client and the mystery shopping company had a strained relationship before and so that doesn't help matters.

My ideas at this point if the client doesn't change their mind:

1. Small claims court, with the hope that the client elects to just refund the charges (because they're out very little) rather then put forth the effort.
2. Dispute the half of what I am out which is on my credit card with my credit card company and hope for the best and at least I am taking a smaller loss.

Thoughts?

Maybe your credit card Co. will credit the amount and do an investigation. The rough thing is if the client doesn't pay, the MSC won't. Did the report get accepted, and was looking at a name tag the only decision for report denial. That alone doesn't seem enough to not get paid, I would report this. Good luck, that's a bummer way to strart the new year.

Is this an MSPA member company? From what you are saying, there is not question regarding the acceptability of the report you provided, there is no question regarding fraudulent behavior on your part, there is no question regarding your performance of the shop, just an employee accusation that they spotted you because you were looking at their name tag. Since when are name tags not to be looked at? It sounds to me, from what you have stated, that you are entitled to 100% payment and reimbursement and it would be unethical for the company to do otherwise.

When companies take on clients they are not free of all risk from their clients. And yes, I know, that many of them want to leave the shopper hanging in the wind if the client does not pay. But that does not mean that the shopper needs to be the one picking up the tab--especially when the shopper performed what they were required to perform, in the manner they were instructed to perform it and reported it in a timely fashion accordingly. You may be willing to take some of a loss, but since the company evidently does not have adequate contracts with their client to prevent such situations, you should hardly be eating much, if any, of the loss.

While I would give the company a little leeway to work this out and thank them for the 'heads up' that there may be a problem, I would also make it perfectly clear to them that they need to work it out with their client. In a hotel/resort setting it is a fairly minor loss the client would take by backing out the charges. Somebody with the company should be negotiating that with the client even if the client does not ever pay for the shop. Far better to have your loss only the fee from the shop rather than the whole expense.

These are the kinds of things that scare the daylights out of me! Where is a shopper's recourse? I feel like we are really pretty powerless and at the whim of someone's bad mood, etc. It's bad enough to get a low score or to have a shop rejected that didn't include a purchase, but to have spent your own money to do something this big and not get reimbursed is a whole different thing.

I had three shops rejected in Nov. for reasons I didn't agree with, but thankfully I didn't put out any money, just time and a little gas. I emailed the contact person and told her I completely disagreed with their claim and heard nothing. It happened to be the same MSC as does the post office shops, and I had a couple of those scheduled too, so I canceled them out of frustration. I got over it and started doing the post office ones again, but I still felt completely powerless. If they don't like the way you dot your "i's" or cross your "t's", then you're just plain out of luck. It stinks!

SpyGirl, part of the point is that companies need to be responsible for the work they contract to have done. That means, in part, having a good working relationship with the client so that these kinds of "issues" can be worked out. It also means not sending shoppers into situations where they would stand out like sore thumbs or not have the ability to do the required observations and present a literate report. Most responsible companies do precisely this. Most responsible companies also adequately represent both their shoppers and their clients where there is an issue in progress. We all end up in dust up situations from time to time. Those companies that cannot appropriately serve as intermediary to get the shop accepted and paid to them and in turn pay the shopper are not companies worth working with further, especially in situations where "Shopper Error" was not involved.

I keep reading that shoppers lost out because they were identified. Since when is identifying the shopper regular business? Is this some kind of game? Even if they did recognize the shopper, they should have a perfect report. If they don't, then they didn't recognize the shopper until after the fact, if then. How can any client possibly use identification as a regular business procedure?

I agree with the other posters. Don't give up. Keep after it, but give them some leeway to work it out. And don't decide to take less just to get something.

I agree with Sandra Sue. If the shopper has been identified, I can understand that it would eliminate the shopper from shopping that location (or even any location for the same chain/client/whatever), but why would it totally negate the shop and make the client refuse payment? This situation smells. Since the client has not been identified, can we know the MSP? I'm strictly low-money-output so I'm not likely to do a shop like this, but this doesn't sound like an MSP I would want to work for even at lower cash outlay.

It seems to me that mwa423 has not been denied payment at this point and this is all based on conjecture, so perhaps we should reserve any judgement on the MSC in question until a decision has been made.

I can't imagine any reputable MSC denying reimbursement for a hotel shop that was performed to specifications. You contract with the MSC to perform this type of job and what happens between them and their client is irrelevant, so far as you getting paid.

On that same note; your beef is not with the client in this instance and you would have no case for denying the credit card charges, or seeking any kind of relief from your CC company. You DID utilize the services at the hotel and authorized the charges on your card. Any legal claim would be against the MSP for not paying you. Not the hotel.

A follow up to the post, I talked to the MSC today and they have been paid by the client for my visit and all is well and I'll be paid full fees for my services. All's well that ends well I would say.

That is appropriate and I'm delighted that it has worked out that way.

Glad that worked out. The one time that a hotel employee claimed that I was spotted, I was also paid and reimbursed. BTW, the employee, as it turned out, was lying about what he said he saw me doing, but broadcast to the whole place that I was a shopper. He was "lucky"; I was unlucky. Sometimes life is unfair.

Perhaps ICAs should include mandatory arbitration.