Capitol Information Group Inc

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

Dear *** *** Thank you for your letter regarding text alerts offered to subscribers of our Investing Daily’s Options for Income publication. As our mutual customer has requested, we have removed him from receiving any future trade alerts via our text messaging servicePlease know that our
customer’s previous requests did not go unheard. To the contrary, our agents attempted to fulfill the request multiple times, but did not realize that an additional step, requiring a higher authorization level was needed to effectively end text blasts We regret our customer’s unfavorable experience, but trust our recent action meets with his satisfaction.Sincerely, Jo Anne C***Customer Operations, Manager Capitol Information Group

We apologize for the poor communication on our part. While our marketing team clearly states in the promotion and order form that the offer is for our Personal Finance newsletter which costs $79 for a two-year subscription, we could have been clearer about the options trading component.  The options trading feature of Personal Finance only began a few months ago and our overarching options strategies are influenced by the philosophies and lessons our Options for Income master trader has instilled in our team. So, while the newsletters are different, our master options trader will often consult on Personal Finance options trades before we make them.  And at $39.95 for one year or $79 for a two-year subscription, Personal Finance is a tremendous value for anyone interested in just dipping their toes in the water with options. To resolve this dispute, we immediately refunded the $79 paid for a two-year subscription to Personal Finance.  Additionally, we offered a complimentary three-month subscription to our other options trading service, Options for Income, which has a retail value of $3,000 for a one-year subscription.  Our offer was declined. At this point, we feel our initial settlement offer is fair and clearly in the complainant’s favor considering the price differential between Personal Finance and Options for Income.  To avoid potential similar disputes, we’re in the process of updating our promotion, but with our automated marketing processes it takes a while to find every place that the ad is running.

[redacted] Revdex.com 1411 K St. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404                                                 Ref:  [redacted] (Acct...

[redacted])                                           ...⇄  ID Case: # [redacted]Dear [redacted] I am writing in reference to the complaint that you received from [redacted] concerning his “Personal Finance” subscription. Our mutual customer placed an order on 07/25/16 for a 2 year subscription to our Personal Finance newsletter at a rate of $79.00. Since this time, [redacted] has contacted our Customer Operations office on several occasions inquiring about the options newsletter he purchased. Our representatives have tried to explain to this customer to no avail that he purchased Personal Finance which is not an options newsletter. The promotional offer the customer responded to clearly states this was an offer to subscribe to Personal Finance and as a bonus we would introduce options to our subscribers. This bonus options feature allows our customer to sell covered calls on stocks that are in the Personal Finance portfolio. As our mutual customer stated in his complaint, J.F. Options for Income newsletter usually sells for more than $1000.00 per year. As a good will gesture, the representative offered [redacted] an unprecedented discount of ½ off of the already discounted rate of $597.00. Also, I offered him a 3 months free trial to Options for Income but he declined that offer as well. After speaking with [redacted] on several occasions trying to resolve this matter, on August 11, 2016, I decided to cancel [redacted]’s subscription to Personal Finance and issue a full refund in the amount of $79.00. If you should have any questions concerning this account, please contact me at 1-800-832-2330, Monday – Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m., EST. Sincerely, Jo Anne C[redacted] Manager, Customer Operations Capitol Information Group CC: [redacted] Cool. CA [redacted]

[redacted] Revdex.com 1411 K St. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404                                                 Ref:   [redacted]...

(account # [redacted])                                         ...⇄  ID Case: # [redacted] Dear [redacted]: I am writing in reference to the complaint that you received from **. [redacted] concerning his “Option for Income” subscription. Per **. [redacted]’s request, we cancelled his subscription to Options for Income and Personal Finance on 08/04/16 and issued a full refund for both newsletters on 08/05/2016. If you should have any questions concerning this account, please contact me at ###-###-####, Monday – Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m., EST. Sincerely, Jo Anne C[redacted] Manager, Customer Operations

I am rejecting this response because: Ms. AC is still trying to switch one subscription service with another.  I tried to impress on Ms. AC before, that I paid for the service provided by Mr. JF, Senior Analyst of Personal Finance, as it is clearly stated in the advertising document, which I submitted to Ms. AC as evidence in support to my complaint.  I suggest that Mr. **, president of [redacted] seeks legal advice in this matter.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: The Energy Strategist is a Newsletter which is part of Investing Daily -- and which in turn is part of the Capital Information Group.

I paid approximately $400 per year for this Newsletter. The letter has come under new leadership recently. I am seeing and can show unequivocally that they are distorting the performance of their stock recommendations and performance -- in particular showing gains on their tracking sheets for recent stock recommendations which are inaccurate and which give potential customers the view that their performance is significantly better than it really is. This is a misrepresentation.

I wrote to them on September 2nd flagging these issues in writing. My e-mail letter to them is provided below. Please note that I have raised the issues previously and when each inaccuracy occurred (as well) and in prior emails, and have received no response from the company.

The email which I sent them on September 2nd (again have sent emails previously) is provided below.

I would be grateful for the Revdex.com's help in getting this Newsletter to provide accurate reporting. That is in the interest of all customers.

I anticipate that the Newsletter may try to "spin" this matter. From my standpoint, am happy to clarify any points. Also, I do not have a specific agenda -- aside from just wanting fair and accurate reporting of stock price recommendations.

Excerpt below:

Hi...I have been a subscriber to the Energy Strategist for over a year now and wanted to write regarding the accounting of several recent stock picks in the Newsletter.

Overall -- an investor needs to feel comfortable that their stock analysts have high integrity and provide objective advice. Otherwise, the willingness to risk significant capital in recommended investments becomes questionable.

As I have reviewed a number of recent stock picks, have noticed the following:

A. Alliance Holdings -- recommended recently within the Energy Strategist. However, the stock is officially recorded on your growth portfolio spreadsheet as added on 12/02/2010 (rather than 2013) with a total return to date of 46.56%! For Energy Strategist subscribers -- that is not accurate.

*. [redacted] ([redacted] and [redacted]) -- recommended recently as buys in your Newsletter for the Growth Portfolio. However, only TSO made it ultimately to the portfolio tracking sheet. Return to date not recorded though (it has lost money since being recommended. That is not a problem in the short-term by the way; why don't you simply track the actual performance?).

[redacted] -- jumped above the recommended price of 75 the morning after recommendation -- so most investors never got in. Currently showing a 25.09% return which is not right anyway.

I think that this might be labelled as "fudging" or cooking the numbers and skewing the actual returns.

At this point -- I have been reading the monthly issues but have scaled back my positions overall and have stopped buying the picks for now like [redacted]. While not all readers will understand the implications of not accounting for recommendations accurately and honestly -- ultimately subscribers will be lost and the credibility of the Newsletter will start to erode -- if not through formal feedback (i.e., some people will never write in and share there views) than through informal discussions.

While you might be taken aback by my flagging these issues, I think that the reality is that you may wish to consider the integrity of the newsletter you are writing and what you are really doing on a day-to-day basis. As noted above, investors do depend on accurate and honest analysis. What is the point of being in this business otherwise? Ultimately, it is hard to make money doing otherwise. You might gain subscribers through games in the short-term; ultimately more will be lost than through accurate reporting.

In contrast by the way, I do buy other more expensive newsletters like the [redacted] Stock Analyst and the [redacted] Stock Analyst. They provide a valuation of each stock (rather than a buy-under) and they list their performance accurately against these holding each year -- and have an independent audit done. That is -- there is no gaming or dishonest tracking.

Right now -- I am deciding whether your analysis overall is worth retaining the newsletter for reading purposes. Regardless, my suggestion is that you should show a higher standard of leadership and integrity in reporting. My sense -- is you would probably gain more subscribers in the end and have a better sense of personal value. As you can appreciate, it is very disappointing to honest Joes who are simply looking for a reputable, well researched energy newsletter - to observe this gaming of the numbers.

And at a certain level -- you are ultimately disappointing yourselves and what you stand for - through engaging in these types of practices.

At this point, there is still an opportunity to clean up this reporting and report the stock picks accurately. My hope is that you will do the right thing -- for you and for the newsletter firstly -- and properly report the numbers.

Note: Sent 9/2/2013 at 9:30 pm….Desired Settlement: The Newsletter needs to accurately report information on the performance of their stock price recommendations. The performance from the date recommended by the Newsletter, the real returns, and the gains or losses.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted],

I am [redacted], Chief Investment Strategist for The [redacted] Strategist. I have recently been made aware of a complaint by a subscriber to my newsletter. The subscriber’s name is [redacted] and the complaint number is [redacted].

Before getting into the specifics of the complaint, I want to explain how the newsletter works. The [redacted] Strategist is written by [redacted] and myself. We give investing advice to subscribers, including specific Buy and Sell recommendations on companies. The [redacted] Strategist is one of many newsletters put out under the Investing Daily umbrella. These newsletters are supported by a large staff.

I do not personally manage the spreadsheet that tracks the performance of the portfolios. When a pick is made, that information is relayed to a support person who updates the tracking spreadsheets. Generally the updates are done quickly, but it is possible that there could be a short delay depending on the workload of the person entering the data.

Human errors are possible. I have caught this on occasion when a new stock pick is entered. Errors can go in both directions; we have had very good performers in the portfolio show poor performance because a wrong date was entered. The entry of [redacted], for example, had a glitch that caused it to show 0 percent return even though it was up by ~20 percent since being added to the portfolio in August. I try to check the portfolios as often as possible, and we try to catch and correct any errors shortly after they appear.

As of today’s date, there are three portfolios for The [redacted] Strategist. There are 21 stocks in our Growth Portfolio, 9 in our Conservative Portfolio, and 11 in our Aggressive Portfolio. Of the 41 stocks in the portfolio, all but 8 have positive gains since being added to the portfolios. The complaint that **. [redacted] makes could happen if a new stock is added to the portfolio and an error is made in entering the date. Given the number of stocks that we have in the portfolios – and the outstanding performance of the respective portfolios – I find it shocking that someone would ascribe to us a motive of purposely attempting to fudge our numbers. Our portfolio performance has been so strong that there is certainly no need to exaggerate it.

On to the specifics of the complaint. On the [redacted] item, I have inquired and was told that [redacted] was in the portfolio at one time in the past, was sold, and then was added back. It is possible that when it was added back that the person who entered the data initially entered the original date it was in the portfolio. I don’t know this to be a fact, because this complaint never reached me and it is correct in the portfolio now. Did **. [redacted] perhaps supply screenshots for support of his claims? In any case, it is possible that [redacted], when added to a portfolio of 40 stocks, had a wrong date entered which was subsequently corrected. Certainly no intent to mislead, but possibly a case of human error. If **. [redacted] captured a screenshot, then I could confirm that an error had been made, but if an error was made it didn’t persist for long before being corrected.

On the 2nd item, the question of the refiners [redacted] and [redacted], both of these companies are listed in the Growth Portfolio. [redacted] had initially been on our Watch List, so it was listed already even before the new Buy recommendation was issued. [redacted] wouldn’t have been in the portfolio until our data entry person had a chance to add it. Since we have 3 portfolios, it is also possible that **. [redacted] looked for [redacted] in the wrong portfolio. Again, a screenshot in this case would be helpful to establish when he claims [redacted] was not in the tracking spreadsheet. As in the previous instance, certainly no intent to mislead, but once we make the recommendation we rely on our data entry person to get the portfolio updated in a timely fashion.

On the 3rd item – the question of [redacted]. We recommend a Buy price, and if a stock exceeds the Buy price then we advise to wait and try to buy the stock on a dip. We may also subsequently raise the Buy price. In fact we recommended [redacted] on April 24th, 2013 and it did quickly jump above our $75 Buy target. However, had **. [redacted] placed a limit order at our $75 target, [redacted] dipped below that level on May 13th, 2013 and **. [redacted]’s order would have been placed. As of today, [redacted] is up nearly 29 percent since being added to our Growth Portfolio on April 24th. Between April 24th and September 2nd – the date of **. [redacted]’s complaint – [redacted] had in fact returned 26.45 percent, and he did in fact have an opportunity to buy at our recommended price 3 weeks after we initially made the recommendation. So it would appear that **. [redacted] is simply mistaken on this count.

Regarding **. [redacted]'s comment that he has stopped following our recommendations – specifically mentioning [redacted] – I would add that since being added to our Aggressive Portfolio on August 28, 2013 that [redacted] is up 45 percent in less than 2 months. While you can never be right on every pick, our portfolios are full of picks that have double-digit gains in a short period of time. We have no need or desire to exaggerate the portfolio performance. Had **. [redacted]’s complaint made its way to me I would have addressed his concerns directly, and maybe he would have developed a different working hypothesis than thinking we are dishonest.

I am sorry that **. [redacted] feels that it was our intent to mislead, and I regret any data entry glitches that may have taken place. I am also sorry that **. [redacted] missed out on [redacted] and [redacted], because he would have made double-digit gains in a short period of time in both cases.

Sincerely, [redacted]

Chief Investment Strategist for The [redacted] Strategist

October 25, 2013

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Dear **. [redacted], I would like to respond the comments provided by [redacted]. Many of his comments are, unfortunately, incorrect. For context: 1. I wrote to the Energy Strategist over a week before contacting the Revdex.com citing the same issues discussed in my letter to you. My email was sent to the Newsletter on 9/2/2013 at 9:30 pm. (I have retained a copy of that letter) To date no one from the Energy Strategist has ever responded directly.2. Regarding the problems in reporting regarding [redacted] and [redacted], I looked at the Growth portfolio for weeks after those two stocks were reported as "Buys." During this period, I called their Customer Service department directly and raised my concern. Secondarily, I also wrote to [redacted] (**. [redacted]'s Partner) through the Stock Talk "Blog" on their website indicating that those two stocks were unreported – a blog where he responds frequently. While **. [redacted] responds to questions raised on the Blog -- he did not respond to my comment or concern about [redacted] and [redacted] reporting.3. Regarding screen shots, yes -- I have multiple ones. For example, regarding [redacted] Holdings -- the stock was reported incorrectly for multiple weeks after recommendation -- as having been held by the company since 2010 and showing an over 35% return. [redacted] Holdings was initially recommended in the July 24, 2013 issue (newsletter attached). As of the August 21st issue (about a month later, also attached) – the reporting was still in error. This is the Newsletter that **. [redacted] and **. [redacted] are purportedly reviewing and publishing biweekly. If you have any trouble reading or opening these attachments, please revert. [I am also happy to furnish the substantiation in regards to [redacted] and [redacted] as well].

Potential conclusions: 1. The performance of **. [redacted]'s stocks is irrelevant (whether winners or losers). What is relevant here and the concern is whether the performance of his stocks are reported accurately to his consumer base - -- for reasons discussed in detail in my original email to your office.2. **. [redacted] cites 41 stock picks in his portfolio. Our suggestion is that he needs to make sure that the original recommended price, performance-to-date, etc are reported accurately. It only takes me a few minutes (as an individual consumer) to review the stocks in the Energy Strategist portfolio versus his Newsletter recommendations and see if the reporting is accurate. He and **. [redacted], we suggest, can and should check their recommendations both when initially reported and periodically thereafter. Otherwise, it begs the question - who is minding the shop (i.e., who is carefully and prudently managing the business)?Additionally, **. [redacted] is indicating in his email that he finds it "shocking" that someone is suggesting that he may be fudging the numbers. And then, Robert, goes on to suggest that I (i.e., the consumer) is making errors. As discussed above, I have not made an error. Further, many of these errors in reporting have existed for weeks. Only recently have they been addressed (perhaps finally due to my letters or others to his Customer Service department). What is technically of concern -- is that **. [redacted] and **. [redacted] have been advised about these errors previously by call and email to their customer service department, and have not taken action or written back -- prior to my contacting you (and that they feel the need to use the adjectives in their response, i.e., "shocking" and [consumer] "errors"). If **. [redacted] is apologetic for these errors, we can certainly appreciate and respect that. In tandem, there is also no need to write back discussing consumer errors or related adjectives. That is unnecessary, **. [redacted].

In short, we believe that the suggested approach is that the Energy Strategist needs to more carefully and rigorously track their recommendations moving forward, make sure that the holdings are recorded accurately, and mitigate these problems from happening again. That will help the consumer. Thank you.

Sincerely, [redacted]

Business

Response:

November 14, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

On Monday, November 4th our Director of Consumer Satisfaction, [redacted], spoke with **. [redacted] by phone to address his areas of concern wfth our services. Following is a recap of that conversation and **. [redacted]'s reply to the specific points enumerated in **. [redacted]'s last response:

1) For reasons presently unknown, we did not receive the email of September 2nd referenced in his response (or any subsequent emails sent through the same forum). Because of this, **. [redacted] did not receive a response from **. [redacted] or **. [redacted].

The most recent email Investing Daily received from **. [redacted] regarding The Energy Strategist, occurred in February of this year.

To be dear, we are not implying that **. [redacted] did not send it; however, there is no record of it being received on our end, either,

2) On July 3rd **. [redacted] did post a comment on the "Stack Talk" forum of The Energy Strategist regarding reporting concerns on [redacted] and [redacted]. However, contrary to **. [redacted]'s claim that **. [redacted] "did not respond to my comment or concern about [redacted] and [redacted] reporting", **. [redacted] did in fact respond the following day, July 4* in the same forum, in his response, he included the statement that [redacted] and [redacted] "are likely to be downgraded from Buy to Hold next week as we're growing concerned about the trading action in refiners as the [redacted] spread continues to evaporate."

3) **. [redacted] acknowledged that **. [redacted] is correct in that the reporting for those two stocks was in error in both August editions of The Energy Strategist.

We recognize that a reporting error occurred in The Energy Strategist as **. [redacted] has described. However, we adamantly deny that the error was intentional, or was done with the intent of trying to embellish the value of our investment service. As **. [redacted] pointed out in his initial response, a similar error was made with another security during the same time period. In that instance, the effect of the error was an understatement of the stock's performance by 20% (which we believe is relevant to the question of intent).

At no time was any employee of Investing Daily ignoring **. [redacted] or his concerns. It may sound cliched, but we value all of our subscribers and attempt to satisfy all of them. Investing Daily has been publishing investment advice since 1974 and enjoys an excellent record for customer satisfaction as evidenced by one of the highest renewal rates in our industry -- the litmus test for delivering on our promises. In fact, **. [redacted] himself has subscribed sixteen different times to our various publications over the past six years.

in this case, an unintentional editorial error did occur and we are taking steps to ensure that it does not happen again. Although the process for inputting changes to our investment portfolios is manual and carries with it the potential for human error, we have instructed all of our analysts to add a "verification check" step to their review process, to ensure that all portfolios are reviewed twice before publication. In addition, all subscriber inquiries regarding portfolio reporting or editorial integrity will now be forwarded to **. [redacted] so he can personally oversee our response and act as a pivotal point of contact with the subscriber.

We appreciate **. [redacted]'s concern for reporting accuracy and agree with his assertion that the primary outcome from this exercise going forward is "the holdings are recorded accurately, and mitigate these problems from happening again", in that respect, we are in full agreement.

We appreciate **. [redacted] giving us his time, effort, and the opportunity to bring this matter to our attention. We eagerly await his response and look forward to his acceptance of our explanations. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

Review: Capitol Information Group has discontinued my paid subscription without prior notice and refuses to refund my money. I have a paid subscription to Personal Finance and Utility Forecaster. After several months I was no longer able to enter Investing Daily's website or log in. I have recently found out that my my subscription was terminated by Capitol Information Group because I live in the Philippines (a former US territory) . I have been in contact with them many times and have have requested a refund many times. They have stopped replying to my emails and I am not able to access their website.

Business

Response:

September 11, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to your inquiry dated 09/10/14 concerning the complaint that you received from [redacted],According to our records, on 08/19/14 [redacted] was contacted by our specialist Darrin Bates to assist him with accessing our Personal Finance and Utility Forecaster websites to no avail. Also, on 09/04/14 our Tech Specialist Chris C[redacted] contacted [redacted] and was not able to help him access the websites. We informed [redacted] that our IT department is actively blocking connections to our website from areas of China and the Philippines due to a large number of attacks on our site from those locations.Per [redacted]’s request stated in his complaint dated 09/10/14. We canceled Personal Finance ($79.00 refund) and Utility Forecaster ($99.00 refund) on 09/10/14 and issued refunds to his [redacted] last 4-digits [redacted]We sincerely apologize for the website access issue and hope that [redacted] will reinstate his subscriptions to Personal Finance and Utility Forecaster in the future.As a goodwill gesture, when [redacted] returns to the US we will give him a complimentary subscription to Personal Finance for one-year.If you have any further questions concerning this matter, I may be contacted at our Subscriber Services toll free number, ###-###-####, Monday–Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST. .Sincerely,Barbara G[redacted]Customer Service Manager

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: I cancelled two subscriptions on 9/12/2013 covering accounts Numbered:[redacted] & [redacted] and withdrew my credit card from use. They continue to charge my account for $99.00 for oneaccount and 99.00 for the second. I has asked for reimbursement and they ignore me.Before getting legal help am hopeful you can get this company to meet its obligation.They acknowledge the cancellation notice received on 9/12/2013 verbally in telephone conversationbut nothing in writing.Desired Settlement: Refund check for 99.00 times 2 and promise they will no longer bill my credit card for thesetwo subscriptions. I do however want them to continue providing me Personal Finance Subscription which has been paid in advance through 4/8/2015. If this matter is settled promptly I willconsider continuing the Personal Finance subscription at a later date but will no longer authorize use of my credit card.

Business

Response:

December 23, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

This letter is in response to your inquiry dated 12/20/13, concerning the complaint that you received from **. [redacted]. [redacted].

According to our records, on 11/15/13 we canceled **. [redacted]'s subscription to “The Energy Strategist” (acct [redacted]) and issued a pro-rated refund which he was entitled to m the amount of $49.50 back to his [redacted] ending in [redacted]. As a good will gesture, on 12/23/13 we issued an additional refund in the amount of 549.50 for a total refund of $99.00 for “The Energy Strategist” (acct [redacted]) subscription.

Also, our records reflect the second charge to **. [redacted]’s [redacted] for his subscription to “Master Limited Partnerships”, acct #: [redacted] was canceled and a full refund in the amount of $99.00 was issued on 11 /26/13 back to his [redacted] ending in [redacted].

Refunds Were Issued

Acct # [redacted] - refunds issued: $49.50 - 11/15/13 and $49/50 - 12/23/13 for a total of $99.00 Acct # [redacted] - refund issued: $99.00 - 11/26/13

If you have any further questions concerning this matter, I may be contacted at our Subscriber Services toll free number, ###-###-####, Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. -5-00 p.m., EST.

Sincerely.

Review: I have subscribed to 2 publications from Investing Daily 'Utility Forecaster and Personal Finance" for several months. I was happy with the information provided and purchased several of their recommendations. About 1 month ago or more I was not able to access any of their websites. I receive a blank page with the following error message-

HTTP ERROR: 504

Gateway Timeout

Request[redacted]

I receive this error message from any and all websites associated with this company. This is a common error message I have seen similar messages when a website is down for maintenance but normally you try again within the hour and its back up. I subscribe to several newsletters such as [redacted], [redacted] etc. and I have no problem with any other websites. I have tried different computers and different internet providers and get the same error from this companies websites for more than a month. Information on the web says this problem can only be addressed by the websites personnel. Most likely a problem with slow servers.

I have contacted the company about 12 times and keep getting responses that do not address my problem- such as, we tested your login and it works and other non answers. I have asked for a refund several time and have not received a reply. Although the news letters are ok customer service is incompetent and I am requesting a full refund of my subscription cost.Desired Settlement: Refund of money and a change of personnel.

My temporary phone number is [redacted]

or email me at [redacted]

I am not able to receive or respond to ordinary mail at this time.

Business

Response:

August 11, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to your inquiry dated 08/10/14, concerning the complaint that you received from [redacted]. After our investigation regarding [redacted]'s complaint regarding the website error rnessage (HTTP ERROR. 504 gateway Timeout), we have come to the following conclusion below:We have tested his email address and password information on the following browsers such as, [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] ([redacted]). After testing his information on our[redacted]forecasters, we were able to gain access without any error message or technical problems.The error message (http error: 504 gateway timeout) has been brought to our attention previously by some of our subscribers. Since we have recently updated our website, we found if the subscriber is operating an older version of [redacted], i.e., [redacted] 7 or lower, this error message occurs. Therefore, the browser needs to be updated in order to gain access to the website,We do not know which browser [redacted] is using at this time. If he is using [redacted], we would like to know what version it is in order to better assist him with this problem. [redacted] 7, 8 and 9 have a feature called "Compatibility View Settings". This feature will act as the previous version of the browser before updates. We have presented this issue (updating the browser) to our subscribers and have either walked thern through the process or emailed the instructions to them. As a result, the subscribers were able to view the website with no further problems.We would be more than willing to assist [redacted] with this issue; however, we need to know what browser he is operating. He can download the other browsers ([redacted], [redacted] or [redacted] ([redacted]) as well and he will not have to deal with the technical issues. We do understand most people like to stay with their current browser and make it work.In the meantime, we are looking forward to continuing serving [redacted] and hope the abovementioned information we provided will help him in accessing our websites.If [redacted] wishes to cancel his subscriptions to Personal Finance and Utility Forecaster, he may contact our customer service at ###-###-####, Monday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.rm., EST.We thank you and apologize for the inconvenience,Sincerely,Barbara G[redacted] Customer Services Manager Capitol Information Group