Vince what is the latest update on this?

I'm too new. How do I find the original post? Sadly, most of what's here is only somewhat helpful, as I don't know the original situation. I have never formally "introduced" myself. Is this necessary/recommended before I can question or comment?

OK. I found it. Sorry. I have never participated in a forem before. I have appreciated much help from you all. Thanks.

@HorseFeathers wrote:

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.

agreed. thank you. intellishop gave absolutely no warning at all, and i'm not the only one. a contention that i have with intellishop is that they have risked my financial safety by failing to pro-actively warn me (and othershoppers) of a long-term potential problem like this beforehand. intellishop has made a profit at my financial expense. they infringed on my financial safety, and now they sit and do absolutely nothing. but i will call them out on it.

@audrialyn30 wrote:

Vince what is the latest update on this?

i've placed a dispute with the credit card company. they are waiting for the merchant's response. when the merchant responds, i'll begin a legal process. i will involve intellishop with the legal process.

@taeg wrote:

I'm too new. How do I find the original post? Sadly, most of what's here is only somewhat helpful, as I don't know the original situation. I have never formally "introduced" myself. Is this necessary/recommended before I can question or comment?

thanks for joining us. we're glad to have you.

you may participate freely in any thread, although it would be nice if you introduced yourself in the new member forum. just click the following link: [www.mysteryshopforum.com]

@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

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.

I too had an incident with a different msc while doing a post office shop. My box was lost which resulted in financial loss to me of the contents of the box even though I got paid for the job. I contacted the msc and they had no problem with me persuing this with the post office. I in no way held the msc responsible for what happened. I have not worked for this msc and it sounds as though they may not be as accomodating...I will be wary of them. As many other posters have said we need to decide whether or not a particular job offer is a good one for us before we accept it. I recently had a dental procedure where I personally decided to avoid the dentists who advertise these services for $800 and ended up paying thousands to go to a place I trusted. This was not a shop but if I had been offered to get this service for "free" on a shop at one of the $800 places I would not personally have taken it for the same reason you might have considered the reputation of the yellow shop before you took your car there for a "free' brake inspeciton. We all need to be aware of where we are going on a shop and whether it is worth is to us in many ways..potential damage and neighborhood if that is something that bothers you and your time are all part of the determination of whether or not to take any job.

And the offer of a "free service" argument? How many mystery shops do I accept where the offer includes the word "free" in it? We all know that the mystery shop is never a "free" offer. In fact there are many threads about this particular phrase being used. I am putting in my valuable time to do a shop. Nothing is ever free but if I avoided every shop where it said free I might not have a business going. And if I decided to sue every mystery shop company because they represented a meal to me as free when I spent two hours of my time writing a report I also would not have a business going.

On the subject of getting a refund through a credit card I do not know the law but I have several times been told when I have persued an issue with my credit card company after trying a different avenue first that they will not cover the damage if I already have started the process elsewhere so be careful in future. My credit card company is very good at getting something settled in my favor if I give them the first crack at it. Report to them first and take their advice before asking somewhere else to handle the matter. This is just my personal experience and may not be true for others.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2015 06:59PM by sandyf.

@sandyf wrote:

On the subject of getting a refund through a credit card I do not know the law but I have several times been told when I have persued an issue with my credit card company after trying a different avenue first that they will not cover the damage if I already have started the process elsewhere so be careful in future. My credit card company is very good at getting something settled in my favor if I give them the first crack at it. Report to them first and take their advice before asking somewhere else to handle the matter. This is just my personal experience and may not be true for others.

thank you. i started first with the credit card company.

@vince wrote:

intellishop has made a profit at my financial expense.

Vince, I think almost everyone agrees that you are due your money back for the repair, and I think it's a safe bet that your credit card company will resolve that, but you've still failed to connect the dots of how Intelleshop possibly possibly makes a profit based on you paying money to their client?

They would get paid for a correctly submitted shop. Not paid if the shopper didn't follow the guidelines. Do you think they are somehow asking for a percentage of ever dollar taken from shoppers?

The reality is that Intelleshop makes LESS money on a shop like yours because they have to spend all of the time dealing with the hassle of the problem that happened, and they are paying employees to do that....

thank you for your comments.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

The reality is that Intelleshop makes LESS money on a shop like yours because they have to spend all of the time dealing with the hassle of the problem that happened, and they are paying employees to do that....

as far as i'm aware, they've done nothing at this point.

i've been a manager with 400 employees. i'm now semi-retired in my 40s having paid off the mortgage. i had to personally protect my employees from death and dismemberment which had commonly occurred throughout the scope of my former industry. we had attended daily management meetings where we were briefed regarding each individual injury which took place throughout the nation within the company. reports of death and decapitation took place annually, sometimes several times a year, working for the company that i had worked for in my former industry. litigation was common.

when a corporation engages in a business endeavor of any kind, while perpetuating a safety risk in the absence of proper warning and safeguards, they share liability for any adverse outcome imposed on their recruited servants, whether sub-contractors or direct employees, whether financial or bodily. intellishop is complicitly aware of their business partner's violation, and i expect their pro-active involvement, both in resolving this issue and warning future shoppers regarding the financial risks that they've exposed their sub-contractor recruits to.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2015 04:20PM by vince.

Actually, I think you may somewhat confused about the liability that occurs in a business-to-business transaction. We are not talking about death & decapitation here....nor an employer/employee relationship. Just a potentially unscrupulous business. We (shoppers) all have to take some personal responsibility for being aware of basic pratfalls in life, like offers of anything being free!

The one thing that we have not established in this conversation is if Vince's car needed the repair performed in order for it to be safe to drive. For all I know, the client could have been under a legal requirement to perform the repair. Did they give a reason why they initiated the repair without asking for your consent?

It would be a really nice courtesy for the MSC to warn shoppers, and to step in when a problem occurs, but I still don't see any legal requirement for it. There has been a lot of insisting of their liability, but I have not seen any legal precedent or specific law quoted that makes it a requirement.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

Actually, I think you may somewhat confused about the liability that occurs in a business-to-business transaction. We are not talking about death & decapitation here....nor an employer/employee relationship. Just a potentially unscrupulous business. We (shoppers) all have to take some personal responsibility for being aware of basic pratfalls in life, like offers of anything being free!

The one thing that we have not established in this conversation is if Vince's car needed the repair performed in order for it to be safe to drive. For all I know, the client could have been under a legal requirement to perform the repair. Did they give a reason why they initiated the repair without asking for your consent?

It would be a really nice courtesy for the MSC to warn shoppers, and to step in when a problem occurs, but I still don't see any legal requirement for it. There has been a lot of insisting of their liability, but I have not seen any legal precedent or specific law quoted that makes it a requirement.

SteveSoCa and almost everyone else...Vince just doesn't get it and seems to be so fixated on his theory that Intellishop has a responsibility (not so) and his arm chair legalese that he doesn't see the trees cuz of the forest (big picture). But let him blather onandonandonandon, ad nauseum.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

The one thing that we have not established in this conversation is if Vince's car needed the repair performed in order for it to be safe to drive. For all I know, the client could have been under a legal requirement to perform the repair. Did they give a reason why they initiated the repair without asking for your consent?

if the car needed the repair so badly, they didn't tell me. either way, i would reserve the option to get the work done elsewhere. the car drove fine however. the credit card company is awaiting a response from them.

Vince, I don't understand how you can consider Intellishop responsible unless you believe they got a financial payoff. Is that what you're saying?
And if it is what you're saying, why do you believe they got a payoff?

Mod Note: Personal attack deleted - name calling
Please be respectful of all forum members, even ones you do not agree with.

@MDavisnowell wrote:

Vince, I don't understand how you can consider Intellishop responsible unless you believe they got a financial payoff. Is that what you're saying?

no, i'm not suggesting a payoff.

Vince,

Were you in charge of industrial work injury claims?

@SunnyDays2 wrote:

Vince,

Were you in charge of industrial work injury claims?

no, not directly. i worked for UPS (united parcel service). they have a very high fatality rate each year. the internal buildings have very dangerous machinery, slightly similar to a construction site. all of the managers were responsible for employee safety, so we would receive briefings with specific injury reports at the beginning of each workday. sometimes manager negligence led to incarceration.

Deleted for another personal attack.

Vince, as a long time member yourself you are surely aware that Brian has been with us for many months now. Just because you find him disagreeable does not make him a troll. Agreeing with you is not a forum requirement and not agreeing with Vince is not in the definition of troll. Name calling is unbecoming and unnecessary, and actually rather trollish.

@MDavisnowell wrote:

Vince, as a long time member yourself you are surely aware that Brian has been with us for many months now. Just because you find him disagreeable does not make him a troll. Agreeing with you is not a forum requirement and not agreeing with Vince is not in the definition of troll. Name calling is unbecoming and unnecessary, and actually rather trollish.

you propagate a double standard. he's already called me a dozen names. the moderators have already deleted a number of his posts for doing so. i've never required anyone to agree with me. he fits the exact definition of a troll, and i'll call him on it. if you wish to take sides, then that's fine with me. this forum didn't have this problem four years ago.

@vince wrote:

this forum didn't have this problem four years ago.

The problem of posts being edited by admin? I agree that policy was different years ago, but the attitude of forum members...just about the same, IMHO, as 4 years ago. Mary has long been a voice of reason here.

The supposition that Brian is an employee of Intelleshop, and trying to confuse the issue, is pretty ridiculous, however. I think most of us agree that they are on the lower end of companies to work for, which is why it then surprizes me that you expect any more that what you have received from them.

Vince's opinion of how the MSC should be handling the issue is clear. Their responsibility on this issue remains unproven, however....and it's frustrating to some that he cannot see an argument for that.

To me, it's surprising that Vince would pay for repairs and the drive away without asking why they were performed without permission. Saying that the car drove fine is not the same is saying it did not need to be repaired, and I keep getting a sneaking suspicion that some important information is being withheld here.

I think everyone would agree that you have a right to be informed about a problem with your car and given the option of who will do the work in advance of it being done, but what was the specific problem that was repaired?..and is it your opinion that the car did not need this repair?....or are you just taking issue with the fact that it was done without permission?

@SteveSoCal wrote:

To me, it's surprising that Vince would pay for repairs and the drive away without asking why they were performed without permission. Saying that the car drove fine is not the same is saying it did not need to be repaired, and I keep getting a sneaking suspicion that some important information is being withheld here.

perhaps you're just a suspicious person, so you assume dishonesty before you engage in thorough questioning. i stated previously that the dealer had apologized for the miscommunication after beginning repairs on my car. he never stated that the repairs were immediate or imperative. he merely stated that he couldn't terminate the work after it had begun.

@ wrote:

think everyone would agree that you have a right to be informed about a problem with your car and given the option of who will do the work in advance of it being done, but what was the specific problem that was repaired?..

it was a brake inspection. the brakes were worn.

@ wrote:

and is it your opinion that the car did not need this repair?....

not immediately. this is precisely why i had desired to get a second opinion. i routinely get two quotes from two different mechanics before i begin any work. i never rely on a single mechanic on any large job.

@ wrote:

or are you just taking issue with the fact that it was done without permission?

both. but i'll never know for sure, because i was denied the opportunity to get a second quote.

Vince, why do you think I'm taking sides? Should I be taking sides? You are well aware that Brian is not a troll. Perhaps he has called you names and perhaps those posts have been deleted. That's not pertinent to the issue of your calling him a troll.

If the moderators made name calling deletions, good for them. To bad, though, that the moderators have not taken care of your name calling posts designating Brian a troll. If they deleted his posts and left your name calling posts standing, then what we have here is a case of favoritism and I would call that propagating a double standard for sure.

I regret the issue with the repair of your car and I wish that had not happened to you. I have no comment regarding whether you bear partial responsibility because I realize you did what you thought best at the time and hindsight is not necessarily 20/20.

You don't seem to accept the validity of opposing opinions and give others the consideration due to what they have to say. Your experiences as a supervisor elsewhere and your past career accomplishments are meaningless as related to this issue of repairs to your car and your determination to carry this discussion forward day by day so you can hopefully further damage Intellishop.

It is my opinion (and I don't care if you don't care) that you are being vindictive and unreasonable, and it is my sincere hope that Intellishop will identify you to fellow MSCs so they can be aware of your vendetta and take whatever action or inaction they feel appropriate. It is my opinion at this point, after your day to day derogatory comments regarding the company, that you have earned their complete attention.

Beautifully said, Mary. Yes, one of Brian's posts was deleted. One of Vince's posts was also deleted. Unfortunately, all of Vince's many troll-calling posts were not deleted and I find that unfortunate.

I find it extremely offensive when a forum member posts "Troll Alert" or calls another poster a "troll" because that postter has posted something that disagrees with him. IMHO, that's a name-calling post and should be moderated. Unfortunately, the moderator appears not to agree and has not edited any of Vince's troll alerts directed at Brian (and there have been several which I, and others, have reported), but I continue to believe that name-calling is troll-like behavior. Although the moderator disagrees and has ignored the reports, I will use the Report function to report troll-like behavior each time I see Vince or anyone post "Troll Alert" or call another poster a troll. IMHO, that is a direct personal attack.

Jacob has told how he wishes us to handle trolls. He has asked that we report them to him rather than interacting with them. To me, this means even if we encounter a real live troll, rather than name-calling, Jacob has asked us to use the Report function.

@AustinMom wrote:

Beautifully said, Mary. Yes, one of Brian's posts was deleted. One of Vince's posts was also deleted. Unfortunately, all of Vince's many troll-calling posts were not deleted and I find that unfortunate.

I find it extremely offensive when a forum member posts "Troll Alert" or calls another poster a "troll" because that postter has posted something that disagrees with him. IMHO, that's a name-calling post and should be moderated. Unfortunately, the moderator appears not to agree and has not edited any of Vince's troll alerts directed at Brian (and there have been several which I, and others, have reported), but I continue to believe that name-calling is troll-like behavior. Although the moderator disagrees and has ignored the reports, I will use the Report function to report troll-like behavior each time I see Vince or anyone post "Troll Alert" or call another poster a troll. IMHO, that is a direct personal attack.

Jacob has told how he wishes us to handle trolls. He has asked that we report them to him rather than interacting with them. To me, this means even if we encounter a real live troll, rather than name-calling, Jacob has asked us to use the Report function.

AustinMom...thanks to you and all the others for the support but...I really don't find being called a troll to be offensive especially when one considers the source. This topic seems to be all-consuming for the OP and letting it go seems to be a course of action that is elusive for him...kinda/sorta a pity, eh?

@MDavisnowell wrote:

You are well aware that Brian is not a troll.

i believe otherwise.

Trolling: definition
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling
1.
informal
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

i merely have a different opinion than you, and you have difficulty accepting that. since you assume that you are correct, you therefore assume that i must agree with you. but that is not the case.

@ wrote:

You don't seem to accept the validity of opposing opinions and give others the consideration due to what they have to say.

you're projecting. i've not invalidated anyone's opinions. i may merely disagree on some points as is permissible for any member within the forum. yet if i disagree with someone, you interpret me as a villain. if someone disagrees with me, you take the opposite stance, and then accuse me of the same. your interpretation is merely colorized on the basis of your judgments.

@ wrote:

It is my opinion (and I don't care if you don't care) that you are being vindictive and unreasonable, and it is my sincere hope that Intellishop will identify you to fellow MSCs so they can be aware of your vendetta and take whatever action or inaction they feel appropriate.

now you're becoming vindictive at best. it is apparent that you view me as an enemy, although your next post will attempt to contradict my assertion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@AustinMom wrote:

I find it extremely offensive when a forum member posts "Troll Alert" or calls another poster a "troll" because that postter has posted something that disagrees with him.

yet you don't find it offensive if i am attacked. that's probably why it's best if you don't attempt to moderate. the moderator is appropriately impartial. you are not.

it has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. i'm not sure where you're getting that beyond your own assumptions. anyone on this forum has the freedom to disagree, whether myself or others. i've referenced trolling in relation to the personal attacks made against me, as per the definition posted above. this thread was entirely peaceful until this individual stepped in. i merely responded in like. nothing more.

@ wrote:

IMHO, that's a name-calling post and should be moderated. Unfortunately, the moderator appears not to agree and has not edited any of Vince's troll alerts directed at Brian (and there have been several which I, and others, have reported), but I continue to believe that name-calling is troll-like behavior.

does this work both ways? you seem to think that i am guilty and that brian is exempt. double standard at best.

thanks both for your comments. have a good day.

@parkcitybrian wrote:

AustinMom...thanks to you and all the others for the support but...I really don't find being called a troll to be offensive especially when one considers the source. This topic seems to be all-consuming for the OP and letting it go seems to be a course of action that is elusive for him...kinda/sorta a pity, eh?

i'm merely responding to posts. nothing more. there are a half-dozen people perpetuating this thread, including yourself.

I vote tthat this entire thread be closed to additional posts. Every possible point has been made, several times over.
No one is compelling anyone to respond. I am at the point of thinking (for the first time) of toggling several people. I wish I could toggle this entire conversation.

@vince wrote:

@parkcitybrian wrote:

AustinMom...thanks to you and all the others for the support but...I really don't find being called a troll to be offensive especially when one considers the source. This topic seems to be all-consuming for the OP and letting it go seems to be a course of action that is elusive for him...kinda/sorta a pity, eh?

i'm merely responding to posts. nothing more. there are a half-dozen people perpetuating this thread, including yourself.

@vince wrote:

@SteveSoCal wrote:

think everyone would agree that you have a right to be informed about a problem with your car and given the option of who will do the work in advance of it being done, but what was the specific problem that was repaired?..

it was a brake inspection. the brakes were worn.

But the question is, just how worn were the brakes? It doesn't sound like you really know for sure what their condition was before you took the vehicle in for the inspection. The car may have driven fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was safe to drive.

I get how frustrating it is to have had them do work you didn't authorize. I don't necessarily agree with how you've chosen to respond. I think if I were in your shoes I would have refused to pay. Sure, they could try to send it to collections, but the burden of proof that you owe a debt is on the collector. If you disputed it, they would have to drop it and remove the accounts from your credit report since they wouldn't be able to validate the debt. If I'd been forced to pay, I would have, and filed a chargeback immediately with the card company.

In either case I would have demanded that they return all parts removed from my vehicle to me. That would prove whether or not the work was actually necessary. This is one of those cases where it really pays to know what you're looking at. I've done my own brakes for years, so I'd have no issues standing there arguing with a mechanic over the work being performed.

I don't think this situation is going to be resolved completely to your satisfaction, but I hope that you're at least made whole by the resolution.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2015 05:07PM by frugalmommy.