deleted

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2011 03:38PM by gale253.

You may want to remove the client info from your posting on the MSC thread. Linking those is a major violation of your ICA.

This shopper has been warned to remove this post, or at least the client name. Today was the first day I learned of this, after almost a year, and we responded to this shopper immediately, She was paid ON TIME for all three shops via PayPal.
This post will be forwarded to our legal department if not removed.

Doug Rector
NWLPC

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2011 01:25AM by dcrector.

Beware of doing any kind of work with NWLPC. Doug is rude and condescending. I signed up to do an airport shop at SFO, and followed his instructions as to where to park. Turns out the lot I parked in was completely automated and I could not carry out the shop as instructed. Doug later accused me of lying and terminated my contract accusing me of leaving them in a tough spot when it was his poor instructions that caused the problem. As a result of attempting to do this shop for him, I darn near missed my flight and was very stressed all the way through security and into the flight. I will never work with someone as unethical as Doug, and I have never in over 10 years of mystery shopping, encountered such a rude person. Stay away from NWLPC at all costs; there are plenty of other reputable and kind companies out there to work with. At least if there's problems, other companies understand - not this jerk.

Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think a lot of us routinely look at the number
> of posts of a poster who is really angry or really
> adores a particular company. If the anger or
> praise are 'over the top', it is also time to look
> at their other posts to form our own opinion of
> credibility. This shopper seemed to have issues
> with more than one company in the first few posts
> and no posts aside from 'issue' posts. It is an
> important function of this forum to give alerts to
> other shoppers of what companies and jobs are
> worthwhile and what ones are likely to be trouble
> for shoppers to form their own opinions. But as
> AustinMom points out, we look at the track record
> of the poster.


What she said!

Yeah, maybe I'm crazy ..... but when I see a first post from a new forum member I want to see some sort of introduction or a question or some pleasant experience the poster has had so we can relate to him as a new forum buddy ..... not an angry slam at a company most of us like a lot.........to me it's sad when the first thing out of a poster's mouth (or computer keyboard!) is a negative............

Has anyone completed their valet parking assignments? They have one for $12 at the hospital that's just minutes away from my home, but I have not shopped for them before and I am not able to view the report unless I sign up for the specific shop first. $12 seems fair, but we have to leave our car in the lot for 30 minutes and (fortunately) there is no one at the hospital for me to visit. . .any thoughts appreciated!

The poster linked to a volition thread in which I commented on my experience with the company. I see also that the poster quotes Doug as saying that it should not be the shopper's problem if the client doesn't pay....but Doug told me, in contradiction to the quote, that my problem could not be fixed because the invoice had already been sent to the client. Bills and invoices do not change contract terms. Mistakes on bills and invoices should be corrected. If I am billed incorrectly for electric service, the company rebills me the correct amount and I am expected to pay. Same with telephone or practically anything else. Sometimes companies don't rebill out of courtesy but not because they don't have the right to do so. I made a mistake on an invoice but Doug did not let me reinvoice the correct amount. He already knew the amount he was supposed to pay because it is based on a contract and he knows the terms of the contract. There is a problem in the mystery shopping industry in that they often do not seem to care about contract law. Or care only if someone might win a substantial lawsuit on the issue. Invoicing is actually not required for a debt to be valid and due. Just because the mortgage statement or cable TV bill don't arrive in the mail doesn't mean you don't owe the money. No bill does not equal no debt and an incorrect bill doesn't change what is really owed...its just a mistake that can be corrected. If someone has to sue to get a company to follow the law, then I can't say that is a positive thing.