I have been lurking this website for years but decided to join in order to give shoppers a heads up in regards to an issue that I had with the company.

I had two scheduled smartphone shops for international service check over the weekend. I actually had four, but two were submitted. For the sake of full disclosure, I am admitting that my last two reports were late when I tried to submit them. I did attempt to e-mail the scheduler that I was having connectivity issues and would have the report submitted in the morning, but she never got it. I don't know if it was a mistake on my end, but I am not here to rectify that situation. I'm simply stating it to be honest with you guys and because I did tell the scheduler that I'd be sharing my experience on a mystery shopping message board. I wouldn't want to tell you guys part of what happened and then have someone from the company tell you the other half.

When I sent an e-mail this morning about the shops no longer being in my log, I received an e-mail back from the scheduler stating that they'd removed the shops from my log because they saw that I hadn't viewed the guidelines. For those who haven't shopped with them, the smartphone shops are for company A. The guidelines tell you if you are to say that you currently own phone H or phone N. When you go log in to the website to find out your scenario, you click on "start" and it takes you to a page that lists which phone you have to say that you own, the address of the location, which cell phone carrier you are visiting, how to contact your scheduler, what to do if you arrive to a closed location, etc. This information is not available to see if you don't have a current shop assigned, so that just goes to show how I am very meticulous about paying attention to details and remembering them. On the left side of the page are three links, one which links you to a PDF file that is specific to either phone H or N. These guidelines stay the same if you have multiple shops with the same phone. In all honesty, the guidelines are the same minus the third page or so. This page is specific to the phone that you are to say you use. Remove that page and the guidelines are the same for both scenarios.

There are only two possible guidelines for these shops (like I stated), so once you've printed the scenarios out, there is no keep printing them out for future shops in the same round.

When corresponding with the scheduler, I told her that I did have the guidelines and went back into my history tab in order to locate the exact links to those guidelines. I provided them to her and she still said something along the lines of "in your case we noticed that your paperwork was not opened at all." This was AFTER I e-mailed her the links to the paperwork. This left a very bad taste in my mouth and I will no longer be shopping for the company. It's not the $115 plus gas/mileage that I lost out on that is bothering me, it's the fact that a scheduler could still e-mail me with a straight face and say that I did not look at the paperwork after I e-mailed her the links to the paperwork. I could not have made the links up out of thin air, so how would I have gotten them if I didn't look at them?

I was willing to accept that I did not submit the reports on time and that they were reassigned if she'd left it at that. However, she went on to say that I did not look at the guidelines when I know that I did and she continued to tell me that I didn't after I sent her the links to the guidelines.

Due to the ICA, I won't link the guidelines on here, but if I e-mailed her the links to the guidelines, and she can continue to say that I did not look at them, then there is obviously a flaw in their system and it works against shoppers. I work with another company who uses the same guidelines throughout the month and what they do is hide a code somewhere in the guidelines that is changed every few days. This code has to be entered when entering a report. This is their way of ensuring that a shopper looked through the guidelines prior to a shop. I suggest that ISC go that route if plan on using the same guidelines for a few weeks at a time.

I suggest that anyone who shops with them take screen shots when they look at the guidelines in order to capture the date and time in case they are ever in the same predicament that I was in. I hope that no one else goes through this, but I just wanted to warn you guys that the company can accuse you of not having looked at the guidelines even if you did.

Although I haven't worked with them lately, I know exactly what you mean about the guidelines.

Good advice and thanks for the clear, detailed post.

@SoCalMama wrote:

Although I haven't worked with them lately, I know exactly what you mean about the guidelines.

Good advice and thanks for the clear, detailed post.

You're welcome! I was a little hesitant to post such a long post for my first post, but it was the only way to give the full picture. That's why I was upfront about my reports being late to begin with. I did tell her that I'd be posting what happened on a mystery shopping board and didn't want to give them something to use against me. I would have escalated the issue first before coming on here if a payment was what I was after. It's also why I didn't mention her name.

Although i'll admit, it's still scary that a scheduler can tell me that I didn't look at the guidelines after I e-mailed her a link to the guidelines. If that isn't proof enough of having looked at the guidelines then I don't know what is.

I too know exactly what you are talking about in regards to the guidelines. I had something similar happen when the scheduler assigned to my zip code asked me if I completed a shop. I told her that I did and was going to submit it in a few hours and within their 24 hour time frame. She e-mailed me back asking me how I completed the shop without looking at the guidelines. This was my fourth or fifth shop this round and I'd already completed a scenario for each of the phones. N and H as you described them. I told her that I saw which phone I needed to use and that I'd previously printed them out. There wasn't a need to print them again. She replied with "fair enough" and that was it.

I took a screen shot of the fee invoice page this round because I started a thread in December about how they were taking longer than their max time to pay. They used to pay out two-three weeks after a shop was submitted and stopped doing that a year and a half ago or so. They seem to be taking longer each round of shops so I took the screen shots so that I can have an image to use if I have to start a thread again in March. It'll be my last time shopping for them if they make late payments again.

I appreciate your post for three reasons. First and foremost is it was not a rant. Second was your refreshing transparency. Third, it was descriptive, clear and easy to understand. Announcing your need to vent, instead of some controversial subject line, is what drew me to read a post about a company I don't even work with.

I think this was their last weekend for shops in this round. The scheduler may have been under a tight deadline. I'm just throwing that out there. That still doesn't excuse a scheduler from continuing to accuse a shopper of lying about not looking at the guidelines even after a shopper has presented proof of having the guidelines in their possession. I'm sure that the scheduler didn't directly accuse the OP of lying but there's no other way to put it.

While this may be a very frustrating thing to deal with, keep in mind that most MSCs have a similar set-up (although most probably are not as sensitive and ready to act so soon after the shop deadline). I believe nearly all of the Sassie and I think nearly most other MSCs I have shopped for require you to click and download the guidelines for each individual shop before you can look at the evaluation form that you fill out. A good shopper should look at the evaluation form prior to going on the shop, as the evaluation form may have parts or questions that are not fully or even partially hinted at in the guidelines - and that is not possible without physically clicking on and downloading the guidelines for each individual shop. And some things in the guidelines may not appear on the report form.

When you say that you e-mailed the scheduler the "link to the guidelines", I'm interpreting that to mean that you had the URL in your browser cache that you simply copied and pasted in an e-mail? If this is correct, it means nothing to the scheduler. Any shop could have a link to any set of guidelines which may or may not be the same as 1,000 previous shops you did for the same client. You don't know until you look at that particular assignment. If you were only looking at the URL that was linked from one shop, that means nothing for another shop.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2016 06:20AM by STL_shopper.

ISC has it so that you don't need to click on the guidelines in order to get to the evaluation form. They have their own unique platform that I've never seen another MSC use.

I mentioned that there were only two possible scenarios, each with their set of guidelines. The guidelines were similar minus the fact that one required me to portray the owner of smartphone H and the other one required me to portray the owner of smartphone N. At some point, I viewed both set of guidelines and printed them out because I was going to be on the road. The shop is set up to where one doesn't need to click on the guidelines in order to find out which smartphone owner they need to portray. That scenario is mentioned on the first page. The link to the guidelines are also located on the first page. If I am told that I am to portray smartphone owner H, and I already printed those guidelines for my shop the day before, then I do not need to look at them again on my computer in order to successfully perform the shop. They are already sitting right in front of me.

I e-mailed her the links to both set of PDF files to show her that I had looked at the guidelines. Both links cannot be accessed without being assigned the shop. I looked for them on their website to confirm this and could not find them. Therefore, I must have looked at them at some point in order for the links to be in my recent browser history. At least that's what I tried to tell her, but she continued to say that I never looked at them. Maybe I should play the lottery and pick whatever numbers come to mind after magically making a link to files I supposedly never looked at appear.

I understand what you mean by the link being for any shop, but that is not the case here. the link URL's are something like www.isc.com/Hphonescenario and /Nphonescenario.....and not /assignmentnumber123455

Of course those aren't the real links, but the links to the guidelines don't have some unique set of numbers tied to each of their different shops.

This is her response to my first e-mail:

"This morning as we checked the status of your shops we noticed the paperwork had not been opened. This means you did not had access to the Role Description document which is vital to read to complete the shop yesterday. Therefore we had to reassigned immediately."

I then e-mailed her the links to the guidelines (aka the documents she is referring to) to show her that I did in fact have them. I actually only e-mailed her the link to H scenario, thinking that would suffice to negate her statement that I did not have the guidelines. I should have known better. This was her response"

" ​I am glad you bring that up. Each shop has a different scenario to be followed. In example the (omitted city) location had a N Scenario instead of an H Scenario. This means if you would have had followed the H scenario at this location the shop would have been void, therefore we would not be able to use it so payment wouldn't proceed. It is very important to review each scenario separately. Please keep this in mind for future shops. Thank you for your support and anything you need I am in the same time zone schedule as you. Please feel free to contact me anytime."

Remember, I already stated, as did another shopper after I posted, that you can see your scenario on the first page. I already had guidelines for the scenarios printed out at this point. Another important thing is the time zone reference. I'd sent an e-mail to a supervisor concerned about not having heard back from my scheduler after e-mailing her the night before. I mentioned that I was reaching out to her because I was aware that some schedulers don't live in the country. That is something I've seen discussed on this message board. That means that the scheduler and the operations supervisor were in communication while this was going on.

But moving along..I proceeded to send her the link to to the guidelines for the second scenario. This was her last response to me:

"We are not expecting you to print all of our Role Descriptions but unfortunately in your case we did noticed the paper work not to be opened at all, and as we have been in contact yesterday and did not receive any notification you where unable to complete the reports we had to cancel the shop. We hope next time we can have better communication and avoid you all the trouble. We are deeply sorry for this misunderstanding but we look forward in keep working with you!"

At first she accused me of not having access to the role descriptions. I show her proof that I had them and then she says that the paperwork was not opened at all. It didn't need to be open, the company has made it so that I know the scenario I am to use on the main page. Why would I open a file that is already printed right in front of me and that I already completed a scenario for?

I know this is long but like the title says, I just needed to vent about a bad mystery shopping experience with other shoppers.

Loyola, I understand your frustration with report issues. I had an awful time with saving my work on the last smartphone shop I did for them, which was last month. I would save my work, the page would show the "saved" message, but when I would stop and re-start the report, half the saved information would be gone! I e-mailed my scheduler that I was having technical difficulties with the form and that the report might be late. Fortunately, she either was up as late as I was, or is in Europe somewhere, as she responded immediately.

So, for one thing, it is difficult to communicate with them sometimes due to the difference in time zones and, possibly, due to language barriers. I hope they take this into account when dealing with issues; if not, they should! It almost sounds as if your scheduler wasn't quite understanding what you were explaining to her; is that correct?

The other thing is, if others were having trouble last month with ISC's reporting system, maybe that's where the problem is. Maybe a glitch on their end prevented them from seeing that you had viewed and/or printed the guidelines?

I had to click the link in order to view and save the full scenario and guidelines (around 7 pages). But, Loyola, you seem to be saying that "everything" you needed for the shop appeared on that first page, so you didn't have to click the link to the guidelines at all? Or that you opened and viewed the specific scenario that's on the first page, but used the guidelines you'd previously printed out? I'm sorry; I don't think I'm fully understanding what you are saying. But I may have had a different shop altogether. I think they had two different shops last month (I remember seeing two different fees for phone shops). Mine was the $14 shop; was yours the same one?

But in any event, I think they may have some technical issues, and the difficulty you had in completing your report may not have been simply a connection problem on your end. I'd done these reports for them before and never had trouble like I did last month!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2016 02:18PM by BirdyC.

@STL_shopper wrote:

While this may be a very frustrating thing to deal with, keep in mind that most MSCs have a similar set-up (although most probably are not as sensitive and ready to act so soon after the shop deadline). I believe nearly all of the Sassie and I think nearly most other MSCs I have shopped for require you to click and download the guidelines for each individual shop before you can look at the evaluation form that you fill out. A good shopper should look at the evaluation form prior to going on the shop, as the evaluation form may have parts or questions that are not fully or even partially hinted at in the guidelines - and that is not possible without physically clicking on and downloading the guidelines for each individual shop. And some things in the guidelines may not appear on the report form.

When you say that you e-mailed the scheduler the "link to the guidelines", I'm interpreting that to mean that you had the URL in your browser cache that you simply copied and pasted in an e-mail? If this is correct, it means nothing to the scheduler. Any shop could have a link to any set of guidelines which may or may not be the same as 1,000 previous shops you did for the same client. You don't know until you look at that particular assignment. If you were only looking at the URL that was linked from one shop, that means nothing for another shop.

Well, I must suck as a shopper because when I get assigned 25 shops in a round with 4 scenarios on a SASSIE board, I don't click through 25 guidelines until I enter the reports. I click on one for each scenario, or maybe just one if the guidelines cover all scenarios, and then print out one (or 4) sets of guidelines. I click through before I enter the report, only because I can't enter it any other way. I have NEVER in almost 20 years had a job cancelled because I didn't read the guidelines on a website. Even Maritz will give you an overdue prompt, but they don't drop your shops.

Unless I am forced to, I don't download guidelines for each shop if they are the same. I only look at one copy of the guidelines and one copy of the evaluation form. Some might say that I am a good shopper despite this.

@SoCalMama wrote:

I click through before I enter the report, only because I can't enter it any other way. I have NEVER in almost 20 years had a job cancelled because I didn't read the guidelines on a website.

I don't think any MSC can tell whether or not a shopper reads the guidelines! (Or are you being facetious? ) The point, apparently, is the click-through. They can tell if you do that. Someone could click through and not read them, or click and download them, and either read or not read them. If you're doing multiple shops, but only 4 scenarios, it makes sense that you would only "read" those 4 scenarios. I don't know, of course, but I doubt that STL_shopper meant that anybody would need to read the same 4 scenarios over multiple times in the course of one shopping round.... I could be wrong about that, though.

But I'm still slightly confused over the OP's situation, as well written and detailed as it was. I can't tell if she or he actually clicked on the proper links for each of the four shops or not.... As you say, you have to do the clicky thing for every Sassie shop, whether you need to read or download the guidelines or not.

In my experience, ISC is extremely clear about shoppers "reading" the guidelines. So if you have 4 shops, even if they're the same shop, they want you to physically do the "click-through" to the guidelines for each one.

If I have several of the same shop on Sassie it is a pain to click download guidelines over and over again. I don't actually download and read all three or five or seven. Sometimes I've done the shop before it's in my log and I'm really not going to go back and read the guidelines then, LOL!

I don't download the Sassie shop guidelines if I've already done that and the shop is the same, within a close timeframe. I just review what I already have. I'd do the same for ISC, but you have to click on that link for each shop, no matter if it's one you've done 10 times in the same week.... Doesn't mean you have to read them, but you've got to do the click-through. That's the point, really, with them. Not whether you actually read them (well, I assume they want you to read them, but you don't need to if you already have them downloaded, of course).

But on Sassie, at least you have to do the physical click, the proceed to the survey.

@BirdyC wrote:

@SoCalMama wrote:

I click through before I enter the report, only because I can't enter it any other way. I have NEVER in almost 20 years had a job cancelled because I didn't read the guidelines on a website.

I don't think any MSC can tell whether or not a shopper reads the guidelines! (Or are you being facetious? ) The point, apparently, is the click-through. They can tell if you do that. Someone could click through and not read them, or click and download them, and either read or not read them. If you're doing multiple shops, but only 4 scenarios, it makes sense that you would only "read" those 4 scenarios. I don't know, of course, but I doubt that STL_shopper meant that anybody would need to read the same 4 scenarios over multiple times in the course of one shopping round.... I could be wrong about that, though.

But I'm still slightly confused over the OP's situation, as well written and detailed as it was. I can't tell if she or he actually clicked on the proper links for each of the four shops or not.... As you say, you have to do the clicky thing for every Sassie shop, whether you need to read or download the guidelines or not.

In my experience, ISC is extremely clear about shoppers "reading" the guidelines. So if you have 4 shops, even if they're the same shop, they want you to physically do the "click-through" to the guidelines for each one.

Oh my Lord. I meant that I didn't click through.....

I don't understand why you don't get the OP's problem. Oh wait, yes I do. You didn't know what I meant either.

@SoCalMama wrote:

I click through before I enter the report, only because I can't enter it any other way.

As I noted in my earlier post. You click through in order to enter your report. Or are you saying that you didn't really mean what you wrote?

You don't click through and download the guidelines for each individual shop before you do them. There's no need to, because there are only 4 scenarios, and you already have read and/or downloaded them. I totally understood what you said. I was clear about that.

I have read the OP's post twice, and I still don't see where she specifically states that she clicked through to the guidelines for each individual shop she was assigned. I may have missed it, however. She states that she read the scenario for each individual shop. The full guidelines are in a PDF separate from the scenario statement on the shop page. That is, if this is the same phone shop I did last month.

OP:

@ wrote:

These guidelines stay the same if you have multiple shops with the same phone. In all honesty, the guidelines are the same minus the third page or so. This page is specific to the phone that you are to say you use. Remove that page and the guidelines are the same for both scenarios.

There are only two possible guidelines for these shops (like I stated), so once you've printed the scenarios out, there is no keep printing them out for future shops in the same round.

Obviously the issue is not the printing out of the guidelines; it is whether or not the shopper physically clicked through to (and presumably read) the PDF file for each individual shop, not read each individual scenario. I think I'm stating that clearly. If I'm not, I apologize. If the OP did that and I don't see it in her posts, I apologize. She is upset because two shops got kicked out. I'm trying to help figure out what happened.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2016 07:17PM by BirdyC.

I think that I understand the OP's problem and will try to explain it as best that I can. I took screen shots of my assignments this time around due to their delay in pay last time so have pictures of the first page that you click on when you are assigned a shop. Here's a safe link to one of my screen shots. [oi68.tinypic.com]

I'll describe what is hiding behind the colors

black: assignment number
pink: location address and the name of the carrier
green: the first green link is my name, the second is the scheduler name and contact information
blue: the phone that you have to ask about aka the client I think we are shopping for

The more important parts
Red line: This is where it tells you which phone you have to portray to own.
Red circle: Where you click to get the guidelines

OP said that they could see which scenario they had on the first page without needing to go into the guidelines. this is that page. If they previously did a shop this round with the same scenario then they didn't need to click on the guidelines to successfully complete the shop.

You don't have to click on those guidelines to get into the questionnaire. If ISC expect shoppers to click on the guidelines for every single shop then they need to make it to where they have to be clicked in order to access the shop form in the first place.

I don't think that's the basis of this vent. It seems like OP is more upset that the scheduler indirectly called them a liar and did so again after showing proof that they did have the guidelines.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2016 08:07PM by AnonymousGirl.

I didn't need to click on the link since your description made it easy to visualize. It was my understanding of the actual circumstances. Like you, I also agree the problem and vent is over the scheduler's dismissal of the shopper without considering she might not have made an error at all.

I'm kind of surprised ISC has not weighed in on this thread considering how much time they spend on this forum.

ISC's requirements may be overbearing or tyrannical, but one of them is that the shopper is to "read and understand" all documents for each shop. This is in their general shopper requirements, in some or all of the assignment e-mails, and in each shop. There's no ambiguity about it. Maybe it's weird that they don't have their system set up the way other MSCs do, but that's how theirs is.

From reading the OP's later post, it appears that she, indeed, didn't click through to the cellphone manual for each shop. She viewed the specific scenario (owning phone H or N) on the main shop page, and used her already-printed out materials from the previous shops. Of course she wouldn't need to re-read or reprint them.

But, she states: "At first she accused me of not having access to the role descriptions. I show her proof that I had them and then she says that the paperwork was not opened at all. It didn't need to be open, the company has made it so that I know the scenario I am to use on the main page. Why would I open a file that is already printed right in front of me and that I already completed a scenario for?

In answer to that last question, because ISC apparently wants it opened, regardless of what you do with it once you open it.

It seems she opened the paperwork and printed it out for the first two shops but not for the second two (since she already had it). She decided that she didn't need to open the files. ISC must have checked her activity for those second two shops and saw that she didn't open the manual for them. They needed to be opened. It can't be made much clearer. Even though the scenarios and manuals were the same, they obviously want to see that you've accessed all the documents for each shop.

Maybe ISC needs to make it so that you have to click through to the guidelines before being able to access the report form. But it sounds as if the OP didn't follow the instructions the way ISC wants them followed. Sounds one of those "foolish, but them's the rules" type of things. But it is the rule. If she did click through to all the PDF files on all four shops, then I'm mistaken, and ISC was unable to see her click-throughs. Then they're mistaken.

@kimmiemae wrote:

I'm kind of surprised ISC has not weighed in on this thread considering how much time they spend on this forum.

I don't see why they would. I'm not a shopper who came on here to complain about the payment or am stating that I need to get paid. I admitted that I made an attempt to submit my report after the agreed upon time. I didn't attempt to escalate the issue with them because it wasn't necessary. My post was more to vent and to let other shoppers know that this is something that can happen to them if they shop with them. Just click on everything even if you don't plan on reading it.

@LoyolaShopper wrote:

Just click on everything even if you don't plan on reading it.

Definitely the best idea and apparently what they want and expect. Hopefully this will be helpful to other shoppers. I'm sorry this happened to you, but I think their rules are very clear, if not seemingly logical or fair.

I don't do a lot of work for them, but their shop guidelines and report forms are some of the most well-written and unambiguous I've seen. A breath of fresh air compared to those of so many other MSCs.

It doesn't matter what your motive is. They read the boards. There has been more than one instance where a shopper came on here to present a situation that happened to them and then the MSC provided their side. You have given enough detailed info that they will definitely know who you are.

@LoyolaShopper wrote:

@kimmiemae wrote:

I'm kind of surprised ISC has not weighed in on this thread considering how much time they spend on this forum.

I don't see why they would. I'm not a shopper who came on here to complain about the payment or am stating that I need to get paid. I admitted that I made an attempt to submit my report after the agreed upon time. I didn't attempt to escalate the issue with them because it wasn't necessary. My post was more to vent and to let other shoppers know that this is something that can happen to them if they shop with them. Just click on everything even if you don't plan on reading it.

And PS - I'm not saying that you shouldn't have vented...

Hello,

I am the Operations Supervisor for INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK, and I would like to clarify the process that we have in regards to cancelling checks/reading the guidelines. As the OP mentioned, she was late in submitting the reports. These checks were extremely urgent and had high bonuses on them. When they were not submitted on time and we were unable to reach the shopper we looked at the history of each of the two unsubmitted reports and as stated, saw that the guidelines had not been opened. Given the fact that we had very little time to get the checks completed in order to meet our client deadline, we cancelled the checks.

We do not take cancelling checks lightly. Doing so actually causes more work for us, but we have to meet our client deadlines. When there is no indication that a check is being completed and the reports are late, we have to make a decision to do what is best for the client.

If we had heard from the OP, we certainly would not have cancelled the checks. It is unfortunate that internet problems were encountered, unfortunately that is one of hazards of our digital world.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our cancellation policy.

Donna Yarbrough
Operations Supervisor
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK

The point of her post does not seem to be that she is upset about the check being cancelled, but that your scheduler accused her of not having read the guidelines when she did. She presented her proof and it sounds like your scheduler went on to do it again based on the e-mail exchange. It sounds a little unprofessional to come on here to "clarify" your cancellation policy when that wasn't even the point of this post. This would have been the perfect opportunity to apologize on behalf of your scheduler, especially since the OP is not here asking for a payment.

@donnayarb wrote:

Hello,

I am the Operations Supervisor for INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK, and I would like to clarify the process that we have in regards to cancelling checks/reading the guidelines. As the OP mentioned, she was late in submitting the reports. These checks were extremely urgent and had high bonuses on them. When they were not submitted on time and we were unable to reach the shopper we looked at the history of each of the two unsubmitted reports and as stated, saw that the guidelines had not been opened. Given the fact that we had very little time to get the checks completed in order to meet our client deadline, we cancelled the checks.

We do not take cancelling checks lightly. Doing so actually causes more work for us, but we have to meet our client deadlines. When there is no indication that a check is being completed and the reports are late, we have to make a decision to do what is best for the client.

If we had heard from the OP, we certainly would not have cancelled the checks. It is unfortunate that internet problems were encountered, unfortunately that is one of hazards of our digital world.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our cancellation policy.

Donna Yarbrough
Operations Supervisor
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2016 05:08PM by AnonymousGirl.

Hello,

I fear that this situation is one of interpretation. I have seen the email that the OP is referring to. I normally do not like to get into a he said/she said situation, but in my opinion, no where did the scheduler accuse the OP of lying. All the scheduler stated was that all we could see was that the documents were not opened and there was no communication and the importance of the different scenarios. I certainly am sorry that the OP took the meaning from the email that she did, but that certainly was never the intention.

Quote from OP:

"I provided them to her and she still said something along the lines of "in your case we noticed that your paperwork was not opened at all." This was AFTER I e-mailed her the links to the paperwork. This left a very bad taste in my mouth and I will no longer be shopping for the company."

That line was quoted from an email that I have read sent by the scheduler to the OP. The email was only once again trying to explain to the OP why the original decision to cancel was made, not accusing the OP of never having read the guidelines after the explanation from the OP.

In a world of digital communication, it is hard to read tone, but I can assure you that this scheduler never intended to imply that the OP was lying. The scheduler had to make a decision to cancel the checks based on the information on hand at the time and was trying to explain again, the reasoning behind the decision.

Donna Yarbrough
Operations Supervisor
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK

I'm just going off of the order the OP posted the e-mails but she says that she sent an e-mail to the scheduler saying that she had the guidelines and your scheduler replied with

"" ​I am glad you bring that up. Each shop has a different scenario to be followed. In example the (omitted city) location had a N Scenario instead of an H Scenario. This means if you would have had followed the H scenario at this location the shop would have been void, therefore we would not be able to use it so payment wouldn't proceed. It is very important to review each scenario separately. Please keep this in mind for future shops. Thank you for your support and anything you need I am in the same time zone schedule as you. Please feel free to contact me anytime." "

The OP goes on to tell us that she then sent the other guidelines and at that point, your scheduler could have said "sorry, it seems like you did have the guidelines.However, your report was still late."

The only reason I'm invested in this thread is because you guys were late on payments for the november cell phone jobs and whenever I'd reached out, I was told that your payment time frame was completely different than what I remember reading. That's why I printed everything out this time because it clearly says "1-5 weeks" and not "3-8 weeks" like I was told when I started e-mailing you guys at 5 weeks.