Vince, was your report accepted and/or are you being paid for the assignment?

I can't see how this could necessarily be construed as misrepresentation unless the majority of shops ended up in this scenario or Intelli is somehow aware of the scam my nature of the client and purposefully signing shoppers up to create victims. I seriously doubt either of those is the case, and it would be difficult to prove even if it were so.

Would it not be easiest to simply take this up with the end client?

@SteveSoCal wrote:

Vince, was your report accepted and/or are you being paid for the assignment?

yes, the shop was accepted and i'm being paid for the assignment. the shop was done correctly on my end.

@ wrote:

I can't see how this could necessarily be construed as misrepresentation unless the majority of shops ended up in this scenario or Intelli is somehow aware of the scam my nature of the client and purposefully signing shoppers up to create victims. I seriously doubt either of those is the case, and it would be difficult to prove even if it were so.

it is not necessary for intentional malice to be present to constitute misrepresentation. unintentional negligence is only necessary.

for example, let's say that one accidentally runs a pedestrian over with their car. nothing intentional. even though the intent was not malicious, responsibility/accountability still exists. it's called negligence. malicious intent need not be present. furthermore, this need not occur with the majority of pedestrians that one encounters before guilt can be construed. it only needs to take place once. we then measure the severity of the act by the damages rendered. in this case $300, within the legal claim amount.

@ wrote:

Would it not be easiest to simply take this up with the end client?

i'm actually taking it up with all parties involved. they are affiliated and are therefore jointly responsible. intellishop has represented it's client. it is not merely one party or the other.

Thanks for the heads up. I will not be doing those shops and am now wondering if I should be getting my oil changed for free. Hope it all works out in your favor. They were dishonest with you and probably many other customers.

@vince wrote:

I have had to dispute two auto repair shops (not mystery shops) in the last 5 months. I will never do another auto repair shop because I think that is where the trouble started.

I would suggest talking directly to your credit card. they usually credit it back on good faith, but two auto shop disputes plus the mystery shop drama indicates your car is not in top condition. Perhaps it is probably best for everyone you avoid auto shops.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2015 08:42PM by Customer_Service_Police.

Regardless of where you go to get your oil changed, a mistake can happen. I related my experience of having the filler cap left unsecured at a national chain (not the brake place). A friend of mine had the cap left off by a Chevrolet dealer. My advice is to take a photo of the hood area (they check all fluids and any cap could be left off) before you go in for the oil change, and then open the hood and compare it afterwards. Also look for oil under your car when you park. And if you smell oil burning after you get your oil changed, something is wrong. Go back and make them look.
\

@teriraia wrote:

Thanks for the heads up. I will not be doing those shops and am now wondering if I should be getting my oil changed for free. Hope it all works out in your favor. They were dishonest with you and probably many other customers.

Vince, your example neglects the presence of an independent third party and how the represntation of their client somehow makes them responsible. If you ran that pedestrian over while driving to this shop, is the MSC responsible?

The fact that the shop has been accepted and paid may help to support the fact that you were contracted to be at that location on behalf of the MSC, but it seems to me you were contracted to report on customer service and the unprofessional behavior by their client is part of poor customer service. Was their some gaurentee in the shop instructions that no poor customer service would take place?...or that you would be remunerated if unfairly charged for services? I don't really work this MSC any more since I find them to be very unsupportive of shoppers, so I can't imagine any promise like that being made...

How was the MSC negligent? Is an MSC responsible to have only honest clients?

I would say that it would be kind and/or professional of them to negotiate with their client on your behalf, but that's not really a quality I have recently seen with this MSC.

If the mechanic is willing to give you the money back and the MSC pays you for the shop, that it seems like everyone has done their part. Is the client unwilling to return your money?...and is this whole process really easier than simply having refused to pay when the service was apparently illegally performed?

I know that you claim they would have destroyed your credit, but surely you can see an argument for taking up this fight on the spot, rather than trying to sue all parties involved after the fact.

HaHaha at all the people going on about credit being destroyed. stop Being melodramatic.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

Vince, your example neglects the presence of an independent third party and how the represntation of their client somehow makes them responsible. If you ran that pedestrian over while driving to this shop, is the MSC responsible?

thanks much. the specific example refers to negligence and malicious intent, as per your previous comment. you're asking a different question now after the fact, so the context of this example would not apply to your new question. this example has nothing to do with your new question about representation after the fact. ask a new question, and i'll give you a new example, if you'd like, to fit your new question.

@ wrote:

The fact that the shop has been accepted and paid may help to support the fact that you were contracted to be at that location on behalf of the MSC, but it seems to me you were contracted to report on customer service and the unprofessional behavior by their client is part of poor customer service.

the dispute is not about poor customer service, but about financial damages. you've done hundreds of mystery shops i'm sure. you know the difference between poor customer service and financial damages. i expect to receive poor customer service on shops. i don't expect to receive financial damages.

@ wrote:

Was their some gaurentee in the shop instructions that no poor customer service would take place?...or that you would be remunerated if unfairly charged for services? I don't really work this MSC any more since I find them to be very unsupportive of shoppers, so I can't imagine any promise like that being made...

the dispute is about misrepresentation resulting in financial damages, not poor customer service. it is not necessary for shop instructions to guarantee anything. the law itself is the guarantee.

@ wrote:

How was the MSC negligent? Is an MSC responsible to have only honest clients?

an MSC and it's clients are required to abide by the law. so yes, they must be honest enough to obey the law. the MSC was negligent when advertising a "free" brake inspection when actually there was a potential of hidden fees/financial risks associated with the shop. since the two companies are working together in contractual partnership, they both bear responsibility to correct this matter. and they have both been negligent in this regard. if one company violates the law, the other is culpable, and vice versa.

@ wrote:

I would say that it would be kind and/or professional of them to negotiate with their client on your behalf, but that's not really a quality I have recently seen with this MSC.

well, that would have gone a long way, since they instruct me not to contact the client in the first place after a shop. i asked intellishop to resolve this directly with their client since i'm contractually prohibited from contacting the client directly. but they dropped the ball.

@ wrote:

If the mechanic is willing to give you the money back and the MSC pays you for the shop, that it seems like everyone has done their part. Is the client unwilling to return your money?...and is this whole process really easier than simply having refused to pay when the service was apparently illegally performed?

i'm prohibited from contacting the client directly. a neutral party has contacted the client, since intellishop would not.

@ wrote:

I know that you claim they would have destroyed your credit, but surely you can see an argument for taking up this fight on the spot, rather than trying to sue all parties involved after the fact.

i can see your argument, but i'm not willing to risk my credit for it. the path that i've chosen is legally feasible and available, and it is already underway. at least my credit is safe now, which is even more important to me than the financial damages incurred.

thanks for your inquiry and comments.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2015 09:31PM by vince.

There won't be a credit hit.... that's an irrational fear. Car repair stores don't report to credit bureaus and you'd need them to file and win in court to get a judgement on your credit report.

@Customer_Service_Police wrote:

I would suggest talking directly to your credit card. they usually credit it back on good faith, but two auto shop disputes plus the mystery shop drama indicates your car is not in top condition. Perhaps it is probably best for everyone you avoid auto shops.

i'm sorry, but you had accidentally quoted someone else and put my name as the person quoted. i did not make this statement. you put somebody else's words with my name, incorrectly representing their words as mine. please check the original post and requote it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2015 09:52PM by vince.

@jrossetti wrote:

There won't be a credit hit.... that's an irrational fear. Car repair stores don't report to credit bureaus and you'd need them to file and win in court to get a judgement on your credit report.

this is entirely untrue. it's my understanding that car repair stores report to debt collectors regarding unpaid debts, whether substantiated or not. debt collectors then report to the three credit agencies, experian, equifax and transunion. the credit blemish is then seen on all credit inquiries. unpaid debts need not be substantiated in court before affecting the credit score. an unsubstantiated debt is only cleared from the credit report 'after' proper legal procedure, not before. the credit report is not a collection of judgments against a person. it is merely a collection of claims of unpaid debt, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated. the law does not necessarily involve itself before a negative credit score is assessed on unsubstantiated debt.

I offer a thousand apologies for the confusion, but I would add that the same principle applies to you. You were performing a Mystery Shop assignment. Why were you not more attentive during your observation? Are you happy with the repair? The only way this can affect your credit is only by refusing to pay your credit card bill.

I am not a mechanic. I can however stare and look like I know what they are doing. However, for all the reasons below, I take my car to my trusted mechanic. Why do I trust them? Once while they were backing my mom's car out of the garage, they scraped the garage. The scratch was so minor that mom and I had to try and see which one among her many scratches they were pointing to. They were the ones who initiated the inspection when we arrived to pick up the car. They had also started the process of ordering a new bumper, free of charge, before we arrived. The mechanic was very apologetic. The scrape stayed and there has never been a problem with the bumper. That was over a year ago. So now I alternate oil changes between my mechanic and the dealer (shopped). BTW - this mechanic has also returned my car to me with no charge, saying that the work I was looking at, really wasn't needed, i.e. brakes squeek (they did that twice and then no more).
But if you ask me about my computer, I can tear it apart and put it back together, both from a hardware and a software standpoint. I guess we all have our own "expert fields".

As for vince's problem, I'd check with my credit card company about refusing payment too. They may or may not go along with it.

@scanman1 wrote:

I do my own brake work. The one time I took it in to have them check it, they removed the two caliper bolts and literally let the weight of the entire brake caliper HANG on the brake hose while they brought me the pad that still had 30,000 miles worth of meat on it. (Not even half worn) and told me the OEM rotors I replaced las time I did the pads were worn out and needed replacing. They did not have a scratch and were not heat warped. This is when I walked into the garage and saw my caliper dangling by the hose and took a photo of it. I threatened to post that photo on Yelp and the manager agreed to replace the hose if it leaked and then admitted there was nothing wrong with my brakes.

He then asked me, "If you do your own brakes, then why did you come in for the free brake inspection in the first place?"


Now I NEVER let my car out of my sight when I take it in for even an oil change. If I have to observe the waiting room or the restrooms, I do that before they have a chance to pull my car in. I will stand on the other side of the yellow chain if the car is on a lift. If it is an oil change, I set down an old bath mat and get low enough to see what they are doing or not doing.

I have had the following things done to me having a simple oil change done:

1. Simply not change the oil filter at all.

.................

9. My car requires a ODB2 scan tool to reset the oil change indicator light. There is a method of cycling the ignition x times and tapping the brakes on a sequence that works after a few attempts that I can do. (They fail at this 50% of the time.


Tire rotation can even be a real problem if they do not use the proper torque stick and over tighten the lug nuts and strip the studs. If I buy new tires, I bring my own torque wrench set to the proper tightness and hand it to them with the lug nut lock tool. I demand that they hand tighten the lugs until the wrench clicks. Torque sticks are not very accurate.

Vince, what does Intellishop's Shopper Policies and Guidelines say about legal responsibility for issues arising during a shop? You signed up for the shop, knowing you could be exposing yourself to bad service, long wait times, an unpleasurable experience, etc.

I had a similar issue with a slightly different plot line. I visited a dealership on a mystery shop to get an oil change. I got my oil changed, interacted with all associates I was supposed to, got home, did my report, blah blah that was it. When I got in my car later that day, I noticed a big oil stain in my garage as I pulled out. The service associated forgot to plug my engine oil container back up, thus, the leakage of oil all over my garage, driveway, and probably the roads I took to get home. I knew this was BAD, and could potentially total my car as a result. I called the MSP immediately and told them the story. They were empathetic and did what they could to help me out. I knew it was not the MSPs fault that the service advisor didn't cap my oil tank. This could have happened to ANY customer, and it just so happened to happen to a mystery shopper. I ended up taking it up with the client, WITHOUT telling them I was a shopper, because, why would it matter if I was a shopper or a regular customer? The result was the same, and it's not like the MSP had any control over the situation; I opted into completing the shop as a regular customer, and it's not like the MSP is responsible to train the client's employees on effectively capping oil tanks after an oil change. All in all, the client resolved the issue with me (on their dime) without any reference at all to the MSP.

It sounds like you're trying to place blame where blame shouldn't be placed. I'd suggest taking it up with the client, as they are the ones to be held accountable for what happened. You should also think about the legal contracts between the client and the MSP; I'm sure there are clauses in there referencing negligence and other issues of the sort, that withhold the client from being responsible for issues that are the responsibility of the client... just sayin.

@Customer_Service_Police wrote:

I offer a thousand apologies for the confusion, but I would add that the same principle applies to you. You were performing a Mystery Shop assignment. Why were you not more attentive during your observation? Are you happy with the repair? The only way this can affect your credit is only by refusing to pay your credit card bill.

no problem. i had been directed by the mechanic to wait in the waiting room after being notified of brake wear on the vehicle. i then awaited an estimate, while viewing the vehicle being cleaned through the waiting room window. when the estimate was not given after a few minutes, i then inquired about it. it was then that i was told that work had already begun. since an estimate is legally required before work begins, it was therefore my assumption that work had not begun prior to an estimate being given.

@BamBam33: In my opinion, what you chose to do was very professional and very productive. Hopefully, your post will be helpful to Vince.

(heart)

@BamBam33 wrote:

Vince, what does Intellishop's Shopper Policies and Guidelines say about legal responsibility for issues arising during a shop? You signed up for the shop, knowing you could be exposing yourself to bad service, long wait times, an unpleasurable experience, etc.

thanks much. i greatly appreciate your input.

it's my understanding that the law has greater authority than mystery shop guidelines. nowhere in the mystery shop guidelines does it state that a mystery shopper need submit to a client's legal disobedience. for example, a mystery shopper need not submit to an illegal sock in the nose from a client simply because they are performing a mystery shop and agreed to a set of guidelines. mystery shop guidelines do not override the law or waive one's legal rights. in this particular case, the client's legal violation incurred financial damages.

my main contention with intellishop is twofold actually:

firstly, intellishop did not accurately/completely represent the financial risks of this shop, instead representing their client as offering a "free brake inspection shop". this negligence in the representation of their client has rendered financial damages in the amount of $300.

secondly, intellishop dropped the ball when asked to correct this issue directly with their client, since i am contractually prohibited from contacting the client myself after performing the shop. i had offered the opportunity to intellishop to correct this issue before pursuing stricter options.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2015 10:40PM by vince.

@jackaroe wrote:

The shop instructions on these state if work is necessary you MUST decline and re schedule if you want that work.

A good attorney would be able to prove collusion between the car repair client and the MSC

An attorney and all this drama for $300? Just eat it and move on.

...and I still don't see how the MSC is responsible for "financial damages" in this case. You volenteered the payment for services from what I understand.

If your car (or credit) had actually been damaged, there could be some case for financial damages, but at this point, you just want the money that you surrendered for the unautorized work back...correct? Seems like a simple dispute filed with the credit card company would solve the problem.

I have performed thousands of shops over the past decade, had my credit impacted negatively numerous times and had my share of arguments with MSCs. If something is misrepresented by an MSC, I can see an argument for lodging a complaint with them. Perhaps they are negligent for not warning shopers to avoiding using cars that are in need of service. The MSC in question is certaily guilty of not remunerating shoppers well for the time and amount of work involved, but impact on your credit and the possibility of dealing with some unscrupulous businesspeople is the NATURE of our work. We are not employees and the MSC is certainly not reponsible for 100% of everything bad that happens to us in the course of performing assignments. If in fact your car was in need of the service performed to be safe to drive, and and the service was correctly performed, I could see an argment from the client side about you owing the money. If you end up getting the service for free due to the technicality of them not having you sign the work order, then good for you, I guess.

Ultimately, I guess it boils down to the laws that exist where the work took place. Hopefully you get it worked out.

@Customer_Service_Police wrote:

@jackaroe wrote:

The shop instructions on these state if work is necessary you MUST decline and re schedule if you want that work.

A good attorney would be able to prove collusion between the car repair client and the MSC

An attorney and all this drama for $300? Just eat it and move on.

Customer_Service_Police...I've been saying this for days but this tool refuses to listen to the voices of reason. I am verrry suspicious of his whole scenario.

@Customer_Service_Police wrote:

@jackaroe wrote:

The shop instructions on these state if work is necessary you MUST decline and re schedule if you want that work.

A good attorney would be able to prove collusion between the car repair client and the MSC

An attorney and all this drama for $300? Just eat it and move on.

an attorney is not yet necessary. there is already a neutral party involved. no need to eat the cost. i have full legal documentation against the client.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

If your car (or credit) had actually been damaged, there could be some case for financial damages, but at this point,

the credit was not damaged. no one's been accused of damaging credit.

@ wrote:

you just want the money that you surrendered for the unautorized work back...correct?

correct.

@ wrote:

Seems like a simple dispute filed with the credit card company would solve the problem.

this is already underway.

@ wrote:

Ultimately, I guess it boils down to the laws that exist where the work took place. Hopefully you get it worked out.

thanks. basically, laws were violated with damages rendered, and i have complete documentation to prove it. so i'm pursuing the matter legally.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2015 11:00PM by vince.

@parkcitybrian wrote:

I've been saying this for days but this tool refuses to listen to the voices of reason. I am verrry suspicious of his whole scenario.

why would i do this, troll? i already have a full case with documentation. you're just overworked. and perhaps a bit cynical.

@parkcitybrian wrote:

Customer_Service_Police...I've been saying this for days but this tool refuses to listen to the voices of reason. I am very suspicious of his whole scenario.

I agree, this is a classic "Jerry Springer" play executed to the max. The "Jerry Springer" play is hoping for is that if one makes enough noise and exerts enough energy. One of the businesses will have to eat the cost to move on. That is not right. This annoys me on many levels.

I am fairly new to mystery shopping, but I feel a lot of mystery shoppers do it for the wrong reasons. If $300 is going to cause a financial apocalypse don't do assignments. This drama over the repairs makes me question the condition of the vehicle.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2015 11:20PM by Customer_Service_Police.

@vince: Maybe you were too busy posting to carefully read @AustinMom's excellent words of advice. I reported your latest offensive name-calling post.

(heart)

@AustinMom wrote:

Not everybody here agrees OR disagrees with Brian. Nor does everyone agree or disagree with you, vince. But I find calling Brian a troll extremely offensive. Just as I would find it offensive if Brian called YOU a troll.

Either way, name-calling is unnecessary. Because someone expresses a different opinion than yours does not make him a troll.

If anyone believes he has spotted a troll, or if a post is offensive, he should use the Report feature to report to a moderator, who will determine whether that is the case. The moderator will take whatever action is necessary.

Name-calling is offensive. Anyone offended by the name-calling (I certainly am) should use the Report feature to report the name-calling post to a moderator.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2015 11:18PM by stilllearning.

Again Vince, you haven't really made a case for "damages" that I can see, You admit that your car and credit were not damaged. You admit that you volenteered the payment.

Due to a technicality of the work order not being signed, you are probably due a refund of the money paid. I don't see any malicious intent on the part of the MSC, nor reason that they would be financialy repsonsible to you for the money you paid the mechanic. Intelleshop did not "cause" this to happen. You volenteered for the assignment. You volenteered the payment because of your own personal issue with the possibly of it impacting your credit. They did not request shoppers to pay for unauthorized work. In fact, I think I read that there is a specific instruction to not have any work performed.

In the end, I don't wish you financial harm and hope the credit card dispute solves the problem, but the title of this thread is misleading. You need to better understand the nature of the work we do, I think. Sometimes problematic things occur in the course of acting like a customer. This would be the equivalent of suing an MSC because you contracted food poisining on a dining assignment. That scenario is long been debated and it's pretty well understood that the MSC is not responsible.

The complaint that the client was innapropriate and the MSC failed to step in and help is valid, but that's where it ends. What don't you amend the post to accurately replect what took place? Intelleshop refused to assist you with getting a refund when the brake inspection client performed unauthorized work.

@Customer_Service_Police wrote:

What Vince is hoping for is that if he makes enough noise and exerts enough energy. One of the businesses will have to eat the cost to move on.

they should probably share the cost, but at least one of them should take responsibility.

@ wrote:

That is not right.

what is not right? the law was broken.

@ wrote:

This annoys me on many levels.

calm down. you were doing quite well. now you're getting upset.

@ wrote:

I am fairly new to mystery shopping, but I feel a lot of mystery shoppers do it for the wrong reasons. If $300 is going to cause a financial apocalypse don't do assignments.

i'm going to sacrifice $30,000 of mystery shopping pay in the last three years over $300? that $30000 paid off my mortgage. you can wear your wallet loosely if you'd like.

@ wrote:

This drama over the repairs makes me question the condition of the vehicle.

the vehicle runs fine. the mechanic never told me that it was unsafe in any respect. just that the brakes were worn.

@stilllearning wrote:

@vince: Maybe you were too busy posting to carefully read @AustinMom's excellent words of advice. I reported your latest offensive name-calling post.

good for you. does this work both ways, since i had responded to name-calling against me in that very post?

@vince: Apparently that worked with your parents when you were a kid. As an adult, and surely you know by now, you take responsibility for your own behavior.

(heart)

Deleted by admin