Complaint resolution service publishes case studies, recall information and consumer news.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced that an upstate New York furniture chain must stop deceptive pricing schemes and deliver overdue furniture.

Utica-based Affordable Furniture received a cease and desist letter that gives the company two weeks to deliver all overdue furniture.  The company will also change its sales practices so that sales prices are disclosed showing the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP), the store’s “customary” price and any sales price.

Posted under Complaints

Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, someone we’ve often covered, has again come to the front of the consumer pack and accussed a company of wrongdoing.

McKenna says that United Home Savers, a Florida company, violated multiple Washington regulations and is now out of business.  McKenna charged that the company and owners Stephanie and Darin Dietschy promoted a foreclosure assistance service that

can rescue homeowners from foreclosure. The company charged $1,200 or more up front and promised a refund if their services weren’t successful.

Instead, Washington Assistant Attorney General Jack Zurlini reported that the company did not help consumers and routine failed to refund those who complained.  The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is also investigating the company and others accused of preying on homeowners in danger of foreclosure.

As part of Blog Action Day earlier this week, Consumer Help Web documented a series of pages at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development that provide official federal advice on home mortgages and foreclosures.

Posted under Complaints, Finance

Consumer Help Web was contacted by a customer who was suffering from an ongoing problem with furniture giant Levitz.

Our customer tells us she purchased a dining room set from Levitz in 2004. She reports within a week or two of the expiration of her warranty the brace support on the bottom of one of the armchairs separated. This happened to another chair a month later. She states she contacted the company immediately after each incident, only to be told the warranty had expired and no assistance would be provided. Our customer tells us she believes there is a manufacturing defect in the chairs and is concerned for the safety of her family and guests.

Consumer Help Web contacted the company’s senior management multiple times and was stonewalled. To help our customer, we then arranged for free referrals to a local consumer attorney and the contact information for the government agency responsible for ensuring that Levitz addresses consumers when they have these types of complaints.

Posted under Complaints, Customer Service

After another victim of the infamous “British Lottery” scam contacted Consumer Help Web, the advocacy company swung into action and began attempting to make contact via presumed letter drops in Canada.

At the heart of this issue was a customer who was not paid funds reportedly promised to her by this “organization”.

Consumer Help Web is well acquainted with this particular series of activities and has contacted regulatory authorities to provide assistance in their quest for regulatory or potentially criminal action.

Our customer reports that she was the victim of a bait and switch scam in which monies were reportedly paid to her and she took action before the check was returned for non-sufficient funds. Unfortunately, this is one of the most common schemes known to investigators and law enforcement officials throughout North America.

If you receive notice that you’ve won something or just need to send funds to another address once funds are deposited in your account, don’t do it! The scam is that the funds are deposited, but have not cleared. They typically are returned as having insufficient funds, but by then, the victim has already sent the actual money to the criminals.

Posted under Complaints

Consumer Help Web was retained by a customer regarding the failure of the monitoring equipment at his home .

Our customer tells us that he signed a five year agreement February 18, 2005. On July 25 of this year, the family returned from a trip and found that their home was unprotected because the system was not functional. A serviceman dispatched by the company reportedly said the “main box was burned out” and referred to this equipment failure as “an Act of God”. He also demanded payment of $300 to restore the system and refused to guarantee that the problem would not be repeated. Given Slomins’ inability to repair the unit and guarantee their work, our customer requested that they be released from their agreement. This request was sent July 28, 2006 by registered letter. Instead of the $300 repair fee, they were instead told that they would have to pay more than $900 to be released from the agreement.

Full details of this complaint were sent to the company’s senior management in August 2006, yet they still had not answered. As part of Consumer Help Web’s complaint resolution service, our customer was given a referral to the local government consumer regulatory agency and a second referral to a local consumer attorney.

Posted under Complaints

Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna has announced a settlement with CompuVest, a Renton, WA-based corporation that sells computers via the Internet. The company will refund consumers and pay more than $20,000 to resolve allegations that it failed to honor warranties and misrepresented its products and return policies.

“Businesses have an obligation to fully disclose all terms in their return policies and warranties and honor those guarantees,” McKenna said. “The Attorney General’s Office alerted CompuVest to our concerns more than a year ago, but customers continued to complain that they were charged fees for returning wrong orders and failed to receive full refunds or replacements for defective products.”

CompuVest sells new, used and refurbished computers and other electronics online.

McKenna said the agreement filed in King County Superior Court does not include an admission or finding of wrongdoing, but helps assure CompuVest complies with the Consumer Protection Act. The company will pay $50,000 in civil penalties, with $40,000 suspended on condition that it comply with the settlement terms, and approximately $12,300 in legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

“CompuVest agrees to disclose its return policies, honor warranties and accurately describe products. The company will also refund consumers who have filed complaints with our office,” McKenna said.

Today’s agreement concludes an investigation by the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection High-Tech Unit.

According to the state’s complaint, CompuVest’s return policy indicated that customers would be charged a 15 percent restocking fee for returned merchandise that is not defective. But the policy failed to state that the company would test returned items and charge a restocking fee and shipping fees for those it declared to be operable. The suit alleges that numerous customers who returned defective items were charged such fees. Customers were denied replacements for items still under warranty and told they would have to pay to have the item returned.

The state also alleged that CompuVest failed to deliver items when promised or make timely refunds for items that weren’t received. Product descriptions and compatibility information included misrepresentations; in some cases, products described as new were actually used or refurbished.

The Attorney General’s Office has received approximately 25 consumer complaints about CompuVest since the end of 2001. The Better Business Bureau also received complaints.

The agreement requires CompuVest to refund or otherwise adjust consumer complaints filed with the Attorney General’s Office since January 2005 and those received during the next 180 days.

Consumers who believe they are entitled to a refund should file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office online at www.atg.wa.gov or call 1-800-551-4636 to request a complaint form. (Toll-free number only available in Washington state.)

Posted under Complaints

The web is full of stories of unsatisfied Nuperk customers, and for a while, it appeared that Consumer Help Web had a fast track with the company. After winning a much-deserved refund for a customer earlier this year, we were approached by another disgruntled Nuperk customer.

Shed reported that she used the Nuperk product without result, and returned the unused portion in accordance with the money back guarantee. She has outstanding documentation showing each contact to the organization, as well as her authorization to return the product for a refund. Although the product was received May 5, 2006 and an electronic copy of the signature exists, she has yet to receive her refund.

Nearly two months later, an employee who identified herself as “Bridgette” reportedly told her that she would notify the appropriate party to arrange the refund. Two days later, another employee named “Poonam” said approximately the same thing.

Our customer has sent three additional emails, which have also not received a response.

We sent the complaint details to Nuperk just like last time, but were stonewalled after two demand letters. We have since provided our customer with contact information for a good local consumer attorney as well as the direct contact information for her local consumer regulatory agency.

Posted under Complaints

Consumer Help Web acted quickly once Ruby contacted the consumer advocacy company in February 2005. A letter was immediately sent to senior management demanding a full refund of the down payment based on the salesperson’s promise. That letter, written by Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos, demanded the full and immediate return of the $5,500. Consumer Help Web also posted details about the complaint on its popular web site and invited the company to have the complaint removed from the site upon a successful resolution of the case.

The company responded several weeks later, and Ruby’s mother received a check for the full amount on March 7, 2005.

What The Participants Had To Say

Ruby initially praised Consumer Help Web in a note she sent shortly after her mother received the check. She later told the company, “There are so many victims out there who feel they have no one to turn to when they are taken advantage of by consumers. It is a blessing to know there are people out there like you and your organization that can help them.”

“Ruby’s mother was very lucky,” admits Joan Bounacos. “The company recognized the value of standing behind their salesperson’s promise, but without having that promise in writing, this matter could easily have gone to court and dragged on for a long time. The bottom line for consumer is that any contract they sign is typically binding unless their state provides a ‘cooling-off” period.”

Consumer Help Web, the web’s leading complaint resolution service, strongly recommends that consumers compel salespeople to add an addendum to any contract they sign when special provisions or promises are made. “If the salesperson is unwilling to commit to their promise in writing, walk away from the transaction,” advises Bounacos.

Posted under Complaints

Celina W. is a consumer who lives in Miami and visited Honduras in December 2003 using a small, regional airline.

As happens sometimes, the airline lost her luggage. Statistics regarding lost baggage claims are difficult to come by at either the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) or the Federal Aviation Administration. BTS data is available on a voluntary reporting basis through 2003 for large carriers on direct flights. Between 1990 and 2003, the number of reports about mishandled baggage per 1,000 passengers ranges between 3.84 and 6.73. The number is trending downward, but still remains a significant problem for airlines and an annoyance that can ruin a trip for consumers.

Celina’s luggage was lost on an international flight, which typically has higher liability limits, but comes with restrictions. For example, passengers are typically required to report lost or damaged luggage within 24 hours, but airlines are not required to make restitution within any time limit. Each airline’s “Contract of Carriage”, the fine print accompanying the ticket or displayed on the web site, spells out the airline’s commitments and responsibilities.

After reporting her luggage lost in December 2003, Celina was told that she would be reimbursed and “not to worry”. A smart consumer, Celina logged her calls to the airline’s customer service department and even noted the name of the customer service representative she spoke with.

That information proved invaluable when Celina still had no resolution after 10 months. She contacted Consumer Help Web and placed an order for the company’s Complaint Resolution Service for only $14.99. A consumer advocate wrote the airline on October 25, the day Celina’s complaint was received and was forced to write again several weeks later. Finally, after Consumer Help Web and Celina were ready to give up, the company contacted her to resolve the problem.

“It took nearly a year for the company to resolve this issue,” notes Consumer Help Web president Joan Bounacos. “This woman persistently contacted them and even hired our consumer advocacy company to get results. We believe that airlines should be held to similar standards as consumers and be required to resolve any lost baggage claims within a set time period.”

As for Celina, she reports that the airline has made good so that score is settled. With resolution in hand, her family retained Consumer Help Web again in January to attempt to obtain a refund from a vocational school that refused to cancel a contract after making sales claims that appear to be inaccurate.

“We get lots of repeat business,” says Bounacos. “Once people learn that we can help them for only $14.99, they quicly sign up. With busy lives and time consuming efforts needed to solve some cases, it often pays to hire a professional if the company is unresponsive.”

Posted under Complaints, Travel