@Jay C wrote:

I agree the cheaters should be exposed but I find the belief of the OP that the MSC is responsible for fraud to be ludicrous. The client location is guity of fradulent behavior and the client's corporate office or franchiser should make good.

normally, i would agree with you. however, i suggest that the MSC exercises complicit awareness of it's client's violation when it first becomes aware of that violation and thereafter fails to pro-actively hold it's financial partner/affiliate legally accountable.

@ wrote:

The above is a bad idea, because the OP signed a ICA that included a confidentiality clause. He violates that clause if he identifies himself to the client location as a mystery shopper, or, worse, shows them an e-mail from the MSC.

entirely true. i am restricted from contacting the client directly due to contractual obligation. this is why i had granted intellishop the opportunity to resolve this issue directly with their client. however, they dropped the ball. since the law itself has greater authority than the confidentiality contract, adherence to such a contract may therefore be interpreted as an obstruction of justice if it impedes the collection of a financial debt. the confidentiality contract is therefore then appropriately discarded to legally fulfill financial recovery. the higher law trumps the lower law. the confidentiality contract loses the power of it's force.

@ wrote:

I wouldn't have signed the work order and paid it in the first place,

the work order was never signed at any time, neither before or after the fact. i have copies of unsigned work orders.

@ wrote:

but a call to the Better Business Bureau, communication with the main client location, or a dispute with the credit card company would have already ended this.

all three of these are in process.

Hi all

Vince, thanks for sharing the experience, and everyone else for your imput. As I said before, I USED to do the JL shops, but bought a new car in Dec and I get 6 free oil changes.

I used to pay the Perfecct Auto shop down the street for my smog tests, $7.99. Then, having made a connection with the owner, let them do the work on my 05 Saturn. Then, one time I needed work, about $300 worth, trusting them, I did it. Next work was around $1000. but she dropped it to $750 because of our friendship. That is when Mike stepped in, and our son as well. Son had us go to his mechanic in CA when we visited a few months later...damn if he didn't find another $1000 or so of work. Traded that money sucker in in Dec!

Moral of this tale is I don't think I need to do any more JLs, I haven't done a brake, and won't. Will stick to Sam's, Costco, Wal-Mart or the dealer in the future. And, no tired shops either, I am thinking. Thanks everyone for ponting out that some things need to be done the right way, and that we really do get what WE pay for. Free is not always free!!!

Hugs

@Ladychancellor wrote:

I'm so sorry this happened to you, Vince; and am glad you posted it so that others can beware! This was truly a horrible thing and I know what you mean about the company holding your car hostage to force you to pay to get it back!

thank you so much for your support. i purposely avoided escalating this issue by not involving the police, instead preferring a litigation approach if necessary. i could've called the police, but that would likely have inflamed the issue, as the police would just direct the issue back into the courts at best.

i don't necessarily view any party here as being outright malicious, but rather i interpret them as being negligent when it comes to ensuring the financial safety of their business affiliates and/or consumers, such parties preferring only to enhance their own immediate profit at others' expense. the MSC and it's client have engaged in a business endeavor together, each making an individual profit at others' financial expense. when their business endeavor then infringes on the financial safety of their sub-contractors and/or consumers, they therefore incur financial liability.

@imsuzie2 wrote:

Hi all

Vince, thanks for sharing the experience, and everyone else for your imput.

Hugs

thank you.

I hope you will keep us updated on this. I am extremely interested in the outcome.

If I had done this shop, the minute they tried to hold me hostage I would have called the police. I don't think Intelli is responsible. I would not have mentioned anything about being a mystery shopper, doesn't matter. I would never suck it up for $300 this is fraud. As mentioned I would first call the credit card company, the attorney general and make sure the company is responsible. You will win your case! Sorry this happened to you. Please let us know what happened.

thank you. i will let everyone know the results.

Vince, I am referencing the Shopper Policies and Guidelines you signed off with the actual MSP upon signing up as a shopper for the company, not the instructions for the specific mystery shop. The Policies and Guidelines you signed off on most likely ARE legal guidelines, which is why you're required to sign off on them upon entering their system, regardless if you read them thoroughly or not. I wouldn't doubt that there is a safety net in there for this MSP (and other MSPs) for when situations like this, entirely out of their control, occur during a shop. Unfortunately, and I'm sure this is an anomaly, this could happen to shoppers while on the job. As I mentioned earlier, it could have happened to ANYONE... it just so happened to a shopper.

I understand that we're just going in circles and your opinion is not swaying, and you still expect that the MSP and client are both to blame, but I'd suggest taking a step back, and taking a view at the situation with less heat and a level head. As someone else mentioned, is the MSP to blame if you get food poisoning after completing a restaurant shop? The MSP did not prepare the food, nor did they teach the cooks how to gauge if the food is cool thoroughly. What if you trip and fall on a wet floor during a retail shop? Was it the MSP's fault that it wasn't mopped properly and/or you walked directly on the slippery area? On an auto sales shop, what if a sales associate backs a brand new car into your current car? Was the MSP responsible for the driving of the sales associate? You get my point.

My point is that, there is no way that the MSP had control over the situation. You think that all auto repair shops belonging to this client are run exactly the same across the country? Doubtful. This is actually a perfect example of WHY mystery shopping programs are in place, and I think you've lost sight of this. The client needs to know of these happenings so they can handle as necessary.

So, in response to your twofold contention:

1) The shop actually was a "free brake inspection shop" before you handed over your credit card for payment. It really just boils down to the fact that you should have refused paying for work you didn't authorize. Honestly, they may even have it all on video you could use as proof. The MSP had no control over what the associates did/did not do, and in no way, shape or form was the MSP to have any idea this could/would be the case. Again, this is why mystery shopping programs are in place. I'm sure for the hundreds of other shoppers that have done this same shop, the majority of them actually did just get a free brake inspection... I don't see any other complaints about this on the forum...

2) Something tells me that the situation wasn't approached appropriately with Intellishop. You're contractually prohibited from contacting a client about A SHOP. You're not contractually prohibited from contacting the client about an experience you had as a regular customer. If I were you, I would've simply not told the client I was a shopper and that this had occurred during a shop. Obviously, if this was all explained in your mystery shop report the client would eventually find out it occurred during a shop, but then what? The worst that could happen is that you're no longer able to mystery shop at that particular location since your cover is blown.


Anyway, sorry to beat a dead horse.

@vince wrote:

@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.

Or, IS just doesn't pay for the yellow auto repair (exhaust system) locations. IS is just about the sleaziest MSC out ther.

Well said

Like this thread has not been going on long enough, now there are two threads with the same exact name. Really now? Ugh!

Intellishop caused me $300 in financial damages This topic has been moved. This topic has been moved.
Intellishop caused me $300 in financial damages New (Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6)

I'm not taking issue one way or the other about Intellishop's reputation. Everyone has their own opinion.

The problem I have with this post is that if a forum member made a post about another forum member saying they were sleazy, that post would be addressed by the moderators. But -- it's okay with the moderators for a forum member to say an MSC is sleazy. Double standard? Or perhaps no standard at all?

@winemaker wrote:

Or, IS just doesn't pay for the yellow auto repair (exhaust system) locations. IS is just about the sleaziest MSC out ther.

I made this exact same post on the other thread, the one that was moved. Strange that when it was moved my post was the only one that showed up on the moved thread. Will wonders never cease? Apparently not.

@MDavisnowell wrote:

I'm not taking issue one way or the other about Intellishop's reputation. Everyone has their own opinion.

The problem I have with this post is that if a forum member made a post about another forum member saying they were sleazy, that post would be addressed by the moderators. But -- it's okay with the moderators for a forum member to say an MSC is sleazy. Double standard? Or perhaps no standard at all?

@winemaker wrote:

Or, IS just doesn't pay for the yellow auto repair (exhaust system) locations. IS is just about the sleaziest MSC out ther.

Something funky is going on in the forum today. Moved posts. Double postings. Welcome back, MDavis!

@MDavisnowell -- I moved your post to a new discussion on the Meta forum because I think you brought up points that should be discussed. They were also a completely different topic than this discussion. For those who wish to continue that discussion, please do so here:

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

@BamBam33 wrote:

Vince, I am referencing the Shopper Policies and Guidelines you signed off with the actual MSP upon signing up as a shopper for the company, not the instructions for the specific mystery shop. The Policies and Guidelines you signed off on most likely ARE legal guidelines, which is why you're required to sign off on them upon entering their system, regardless if you read them thoroughly or not. I wouldn't doubt that there is a safety net in there for this MSP (and other MSPs) for when situations like this, entirely out of their control, occur during a shop. Unfortunately, and I'm sure this is an anomaly, this could happen to shoppers while on the job. As I mentioned earlier, it could have happened to ANYONE... it just so happened to a shopper.

I understand that we're just going in circles and your opinion is not swaying, and you still expect that the MSP and client are both to blame, but I'd suggest taking a step back, and taking a view at the situation with less heat and a level head. As someone else mentioned, is the MSP to blame if you get food poisoning after completing a restaurant shop? The MSP did not prepare the food, nor did they teach the cooks how to gauge if the food is cool thoroughly. What if you trip and fall on a wet floor during a retail shop? Was it the MSP's fault that it wasn't mopped properly and/or you walked directly on the slippery area? On an auto sales shop, what if a sales associate backs a brand new car into your current car? Was the MSP responsible for the driving of the sales associate? You get my point.

My point is that, there is no way that the MSP had control over the situation. You think that all auto repair shops belonging to this client are run exactly the same across the country? Doubtful. This is actually a perfect example of WHY mystery shopping programs are in place, and I think you've lost sight of this. The client needs to know of these happenings so they can handle as necessary.

So, in response to your twofold contention:

1) The shop actually was a "free brake inspection shop" before you handed over your credit card for payment. It really just boils down to the fact that you should have refused paying for work you didn't authorize. Honestly, they may even have it all on video you could use as proof. The MSP had no control over what the associates did/did not do, and in no way, shape or form was the MSP to have any idea this could/would be the case. Again, this is why mystery shopping programs are in place. I'm sure for the hundreds of other shoppers that have done this same shop, the majority of them actually did just get a free brake inspection... I don't see any other complaints about this on the forum...

2) Something tells me that the situation wasn't approached appropriately with Intellishop. You're contractually prohibited from contacting a client about A SHOP. You're not contractually prohibited from contacting the client about an experience you had as a regular customer. If I were you, I would've simply not told the client I was a shopper and that this had occurred during a shop. Obviously, if this was all explained in your mystery shop report the client would eventually find out it occurred during a shop, but then what? The worst that could happen is that you're no longer able to mystery shop at that particular location since your cover is blown.


Anyway, sorry to beat a dead horse.

@vince wrote:

@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.

BamBam33....Exactly and very, very well-put and maybe, just maybe the last word (hopefully).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2015 01:50PM by parkcitybrian.

I've done a few shops for Intellishop. The brake inspection was not one of them; I stuck to fast food and parking. I'm not sure blaming the MSC is the right move here, I'd sue the brake shop in small claims court for what you paid, saying you never authorized the work on the car. I also would have put it on the report what the shop did... to hell with trying to preserve anonymity, that's only a real concern if you plan to shop the place again, which you obviously don't.

Brian, you must work for Intelli-Shop...hmmm , well, now that I think of it, you do!

I totally agree, here on the south border I am always looking out for scammers and dishonest mechanics. You should know your vehicle and know how and what it takes to do basic repairs before leaving your vehicle in the hands of mechanics and some that are not ASE certified. The MSC should be made aware of those locations and talk to the client about what happened at the location and then the shopper should report them to the BBB in their city or state. I have done this numerous times and even called the health department in my city when I have done food shops. Where I live alot of people don't care about quality work nor good customer service.

@winemaker wrote:

Brian, you must work for Intelli-Shop...hmmm , well, now that I think of it, you do!

winemaker...There is a Brian who works/worked for Intellishop but there are more than 1 Brians in the world (or maybe even in this forum). I prefer to use my real name, too (why hide behind the cloak of anonymity is my motto).

@BamBam33 wrote:

As someone else mentioned, is the MSP to blame if you get food poisoning after completing a restaurant shop? The MSP did not prepare the food, nor did they teach the cooks how to gauge if the food is cool thoroughly. What if you trip and fall on a wet floor during a retail shop? Was it the MSP's fault that it wasn't mopped properly and/or you walked directly on the slippery area? On an auto sales shop, what if a sales associate backs a brand new car into your current car? Was the MSP responsible for the driving of the sales associate? You get my point.

fair enough. however, since the MSC is complicitly aware of their business affiliate's legal violation, i expect them to pro-actively take steps in correcting it. i'm already pursuing compensation indirectly with the yellow shop in the meantime. thanks for your comments.

Frankly I would find a $300 issue to be rather major. And I have been doing Mystery shops for more than 10 years.

But I do think you have to review shops the same way you would any service. For example I don't choose to let Jiffy Lube to do anything to my car, so I skip those shops. I recently was offered a hotel shop but it was for a Red Roof Inn, and I won't stay in a Red Roof if I am on my own dollar so I am not going to do a shop involving one. I think you have to use your judgment and review the shops carefully.

@res820 wrote:

Frankly I would find a $300 issue to be rather major. And I have been doing Mystery shops for more than 10 years.

But I do think you have to review shops the same way you would any service. For example I don't choose to let Jiffy Lube to do anything to my car, so I skip those shops. I recently was offered a hotel shop but it was for a Red Roof Inn, and I won't stay in a Red Roof if I am on my own dollar so I am not going to do a shop involving one. I think you have to use your judgment and review the shops carefully.

thank you, that's good advice. i won't give anyone access to my car for a mystery shop in the future. nor to my home. or anything that i own.

I don't know but as I have been an Independant Contractor for many years the risk is on me if I accept the assignment and between me and the client. I worked for a gentalmen that took his car to have an oil change and when he got home and re-started the auto an hour later it was making a ton of noise and there was oil all over the place. The garage failed to tighten the oil pan bolt and the oil leaked out. The act resultes in the engine throwing a bearing. after haveing the car towed to the garage and inspected their insurance company payed for the 1,300.00 repair and rental car. Garage have insurance to cover that type of thing as long as there is proof.

Take it on the chin and move on.

I've never had any serious problems with the brake inspection shops.

@Michshopper wrote:

Take it on the chin and move on.

i'm still getting my money back.

@alannajm wrote:

I've never had any serious problems with the brake inspection shops.

hit or miss.

Since this type of thing has been going on for quiet awhile I think Intellishop should have warned shoppers of what may potentially happen. Since shoppers have been forced to accept unauthorized work or have their cars held hostage, I think Intellishop had the duty to warn shoppers that this MIGHT happen and explain what to do if it does. If this were the very first episode of this type of occurrence in the entire brake inspection program, then they would be innocent, but since, according to shoppers posting on here, Intellishop knew very well that a shopper could and DID have this happen in the past, and $300 is a lot considering that shoppers make about $10 for the report, they were bound to at least warn people who were going to do the job. In a grocery store, when someone spills and you slip on a newly spilled item, the store is not at fault because they didn't know. But if it is obvious that the spill has been there a long time, there are tracks through it, it is partially dried, someone reported it already, then the store is liable because they have a duty to do something when they know or should have known about a problem.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2015 09:40PM by HorseFeathers.