Chyten Tutors and Test Preparation

This business continues to find serious faults in the complaint issued by the Complainant, as well as in the response of the Complainant of 8/4/The following still holds trueThe complaint does not meet the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) guidelines; we believe it to be a case of buyer’s remorseThe Complainant was not and is not negotiating in the spirt of the Revdex.com guidelines, The Complainant has knowingly and willingly negotiated with Chyten Franchising to demand money from this business, under threat of complaint to other third parties, among them the Revdex.comThis business requests that Complainant immediately retract the complaintThis business requests that, in the future, the Complainant deal directly with this business and not with Chyten Franchising, since Chyten Franchising does not have the legal authority to represent this business.This business reiterates that it is prepared to assist the Complainant’s student to make further gains on the student’s college admission test scoresThe conditions of such assistance, in the form of a $“Director’s Scholarship”, including practice tests, consultations, and participation in one of six summer SAT Boot Camps, were submitted on 6/9/to the Complainant, who declined themIn spite of the Claimant’s inappropriate behavior in this matter, this business is still prepared to honor that offer to Complainant’s student.This business requests that Complainant immediately retract the complaint.This business reserves the right to pursue all legal means to protect its good name, to the full extent of the law.Reply to Complainant’s counter-arguments of 8/4/15This business will reply to each of the Complainant’s counter-arguments of 8/4/15.Complainant response:“We do not accept Chyten of Beverly's business's response as satisfactoryFurther, this complaint DOES meet the Revdex.com guidelines for a complaint.”Business counter-response:This point will be addressed at the end of this response.Complainant response:“In addition, Chyten's response is misleading, inaccurate, and contains a great deal of hearsay, which in this case are statements the business cannot substantiate.”Business counter-response:The Complainant misuses the term hearsayHearsay means that it was heard from a third partyEach of this business’s points are based predominantly on what was said by the Complainant, and only corroborated by a third party, and that corroboration was in writing.This point will be addressed in further detail at the end of this response.Complainant response:“AAs Chyten of Beverly wrote in its response to this complaint.1, "this business was prohibited from using CHYTEN materials." "This prohibition covers almost all of Chyten test prep materials." "...two independent counsels advised this business against the use of Chyten curricular materials."Chyten is a FRANCHISEThis Chyten business is not using Chyten materials and the consumer is not made aware of this fact when purchasing Chyten services from this Chyten location.Business counter-response:This business is in possession of a letter from Chyten Franchising, which states, “Until further notice, use of any of the following materials in any Chyten Center is prohibited”The prohibition includes a lengthy list of materials that had been previously mandated by Chyten FranchisingPlease note that the prohibition is to “any Chyten Center”, not only this center.In this regard, it would appear that the Complainant has an issue with Chyten Franchising, not with this centerThe Complainant was recommended to ask Chyten Franchising why such a severe prohibition existsIt seems obvious that the Complainant had no interest in that topic, only inventing about this center’s non-use of said material.There is nothing in this center’s marketing material that states that it uses, exclusively, curricular material from Chyten FranchisingIn fact, Complainant did not meet this center only recentlyAs will be demonstrated below, the Complainant had the opportunity to learn about and inquire about the curriculum in use in this center, in communications with this center the past six years.Complainant response:“BBelow please find ONLY some of the inaccurate information found in the businesses response to this complaintThis business claims the student struggled for years with Math, English, and Standardized testingThis statement is categorically falseThe student has been a high honor student almost every semester, every year, in both elementary and high school, except maybe one or two semesters when he was an honor student instead of a high honor studentHe is also an officer of his high schools chapter of the National Honor Society.”Business counter-response:The Complainant seems to have forgotten the numerous conversations we had over the past six years.Complainant has been in communication with this business since Complainant made initial inquiries on 5/14/(six years ago)This business knows quite a bit about Student, and Complainant had many opportunities to discuss or question the instructional methodsa) 5/14/09: Complainant inquires about SSAT prep instruction, for student, then in sixth grade at the a local private schoolb) 8/6/Complainant calls and states, among other comments, that student has been struggling recently with both English and Mathc) 8/17/Complainant informs this business that student is studying English and Math over the weekends at the Russian School of Math, which takes a huge hunk of timeComplainant informs this business that student is receiving supplemental academic mentoring also in study skillsd) 9/20/10; Complainant attends a free Private School Admissions Info Night at this businessWe Speak with Complainant about our programs and about our curriculumComplainant’s student is interested in the top tier private schools in the regione) 10/22/Complainant calls and holds a lengthy phone conversation about student’s recent academic struggles in both English and Mathf) 7/7/11: Complainant calls to inquire about SSAT prep instruction, because student needs help to score well on such testsg) 7/25/11: Complainant registers student for an SSAT Boot Camp on 8/22/h) 7/30/11: Student takes an SSATUpper Level SSAT practice test at this business,using publicly released standardized testThat test clearly identifies that there is still a significant gap in Reading Comprehension, placing student at slightly above average relative to the grade cohorti) 8/15/15: Complainant cancels student’s registration for the SSAT Boot Camp and receives a full refundj) (Three and a half years later) k) 2/13/Complainant calls, requesting SAT test prep, citing success of a family friendFamiliar with student’s academic struggles, reinforced by comments by Complainant on this call, including only an average SAT Essay score, this business recommends a comprehensive test preparation program, either tutoring or an SAT Class, including the opportunity to audit additional classes and bootcamps at no additional chargeThis business makes it clear that the family friend studied many hours to achieve the gainsComplainant insists that an abbreviated tutoring program conducted over days during February recess will sufficeThis business warns Complainant that this business cannot recommend that program because, historically, such an abbreviated program has frequently proven insufficientComplainant insists that this is the program Complainant wantsl) At this time and subsequently, Complainant and student decline to provide requested past test reportsNOTE: Complainant claims to have provided “scores”This business requested reports, which were not providedThe “scores” were verbally reported, and not even all scores were thus reportedm) At this time and subsequently, Complainant and student decline to participate in a free and highly recommended “Intake Consultation” n) 2/16/- 2/21/15: Student participates in SAT tutoringDuring this time, Complainant challenges the instructional methodsThis business reiterates the methodology and informs Complainant that if Complainant wants to discuss this topic, Complainant is welcome to do so with the Director, Complainant declines that invitationo) 2/19/(Thursday)Complainant corresponds via e-mail to this business, is enjoying sessionsI wanted to give you enough notice that can't take the SAT test on Sunday needs to do community service in the afternoonWe will reschedule the SAT test- will be there on Saturday for sessionsThank youp) 2/22/15: Student had been scheduled to take an SAT practice test at the end of instruction, a critical component of understanding the student’s grasp of content, timing, and reasoningComplainant and student decline the practice test, as well as declining all subsequent offers of an SAT practice test, always at no additional chargeq) Since then, Complainant has declined repeated offers of Summer SAT Boot Camp, fall SAT Review Sessions, practice tests and progress consultations, all at no additional charger) 6/10/15; Complainant reports that student was assisted in preparing for the SSAT test (back in 2011) by tutor from a national chain.Over a six year period, Complainant openly and repeatedly acknowledged that student had struggled with English (especially reading comprehension), math, and standardized testingComplainant has acknowledged that student has received tutoring from a number of sources, but such instruction over the years had not yet yielded the desired resultsComplainant is now disappointed that this business was unable, in tutoring sessions, to rectify substantial gaps in English, math and standardized testing and to make dramatic improvements in student’s test scoresComplainant response: “In its response, the business claims no test scores were provided to it except the PSATThis statement is also falseThe students SAT scores were given to the business and appear on a Chyten Report that was prepared by Chyten.”Business counter-response:As stated in item (l), above, this business consistently and repeatedly requested “score reports”Complainant repeatedly declined to share previous and subsequent “score reports” and only verbally provided some of the “scores”Except for the single set of PSAT scores, all scores reported by our business were verbally provided by Complainant.Per the Complainant’s own words, and as well known practice, the student took numerous other informative tests, especially ERBs (CPT-4s)Although repeatedly requested, Complainant repeatedly declined to provide also these reports.Thus, the Complainant’s response is inaccurate and, in fact, misleading.Complainant response:“There were no secret negotiations and settlements between the complainant and Chyten FranchisingThis statement is hearsay“Business counter-response:The Complainant stated, numerous times, that Complainant and Chyten Franchising had had “numerous communications”.The Complainant unequivocally stated that Complainant contacted Chyten Franchising ‘right after the results were out.” That would make it weeks prior to any contact with this businessThis business is confident that phone records would prove that such contact between Complainant and Chyten Franchising was indeed made prior to initial contact with this business-This business has an e-mail from Chyten Franchising that similarly states that Complainant and Chyten Franchising had had “numerous communications”.Complainant stated, numerous times, that Chyten Franchising had told the Complainant that Complainant should expect a refund, either in full or for most of the instruction, and that Complainant should expect to receive additional hours of free tutoring from Chyten Franchising.The Complainant further stated, numerous times, that Chyten Franchising placed a condition on the free tutoring, that Complainant must turn over all instructional material from this center to Chyten FranchisingPer Complainant’s words, Chyten Franchising volunteered to drive (approximately minutes) to Complainant’s home to collect said material.This is based not on hearsay, but on Complainant’s own commentsComplainant may now deny this, but that is what was said.Both Complainant and Chyten Franchising have declined requests to share detailed dates, times, and content of communications between the two partiesThis business is confident that phone and e-mail records would verify “numerous communications” between Complainant and Chyten Franchising.SummaryUnfortunately, the Complainant has distorted the facts and has neglected to address the points raised by this business’ response.The Complainant does not base the complaint on solid reasonsRather, this complaint is based upon buyer’s remorse and a desire to harm a legitimate business that has helped a substantial percent of student’s from the student’s school to achieve extremely high point gains in Standardized testsThose gains are almost always the result of long, hard work, not from “abbreviated” programs, finger-pointing, and excuses

I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # ***Please add your rejection comments below.
My complaint and previous response to the business still stand. In addition:The word hearsay was not misusedThe business makes several accusations he cannot support or verify and that he has no direct knowledge ofThe business is intentionally misleading in several waysFor example, the business attempts to make the student appear as though he has struggled academically for yearsReport cards and performance appraisals can prove the student has never struggled academically and has always been an honor student Additionally, the student is currently a member and officer of the National Honor Society As Chyten of Beverly wrote; ..."this business was prohibited from using Chyten materials." "This prohibition covers all of Chyten test prep materials." .."two independent counsels advised this business against the use of Chyten curricular materials."CHYTEN is a franchiseThis Chyten business is not using Chyten materials and the consumer is not made aware of this fact when purchasing services from this Chyten location. The business uses "Red Herring" and "Straw Man" techniques to divert attention away from the original issues of this complaint

This business continues to find serious faults in the complaint issued by the Complainant, as well as in the response of the Complainant of 8/4/15. The following still holds true.1. The complaint does not meet the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) guidelines; we believe it to be a case of buyer’s remorse. 2. The Complainant was not and is not negotiating in the spirt of the Revdex.com guidelines, 3. The Complainant has knowingly and willingly negotiated with Chyten Franchising to demand money from this business, under threat of complaint to other third parties, among them the Revdex.com. This business requests that Complainant immediately retract the complaint. This business requests that, in the future, the Complainant deal directly with this business and not with Chyten Franchising, since Chyten Franchising does not have the legal authority to represent this business.This business reiterates that it is prepared to assist the Complainant’s student to make further gains on the student’s college admission test scores. The conditions of such assistance, in the form of a $465 “Director’s Scholarship”, including practice tests, consultations, and participation in one of six summer SAT Boot Camps, were submitted on 6/9/15 to the Complainant, who declined them. In spite of the Claimant’s . inappropriate behavior in this matter, this business is still prepared to honor that offer to Complainant’s student.This business requests that Complainant immediately retract the complaint.This business reserves the right to pursue all legal means to protect its good name, to the full extent of the law.Reply to Complainant’s counter-arguments of 8/4/15This business will reply to each of the Complainant’s counter-arguments of 8/4/15.Complainant response:“We do not accept Chyten of Beverly's business's response as satisfactory. Further, this complaint DOES meet the Revdex.com guidelines for a complaint.”Business counter-response:This point will be addressed at the end of this response.Complainant response:“In addition, Chyten's response is misleading, inaccurate, and contains a great deal of hearsay, which in this case are statements the business cannot substantiate.”Business counter-response:The Complainant misuses the term hearsay. Hearsay means that it was heard from a third party. Each of this business’s points are based predominantly on what was said by the Complainant, and only corroborated by a third party, and that corroboration was in writing.This point will be addressed in further detail at the end of this response.Complainant response:“A. As Chyten of Beverly wrote in its response to this complaint.1, "this business was prohibited from using CHYTEN materials." 2. "This prohibition covers almost all of Chyten test prep materials." 3. "...two independent counsels advised this business against the use of Chyten curricular materials."Chyten is a FRANCHISE. This Chyten business is not using Chyten materials and the consumer is not made aware of this fact when purchasing Chyten services from this Chyten location.Business counter-response:This business is in possession of a letter from Chyten Franchising, which states, “Until further notice, use of any of the following materials in any Chyten Center is prohibited”. The prohibition includes a lengthy list of materials that had been previously mandated by Chyten Franchising. Please note that the prohibition is to “any Chyten Center”, not only this center.In this regard, it would appear that the Complainant has an issue with Chyten Franchising, not with this center. The Complainant was recommended to ask Chyten Franchising why such a severe prohibition exists. It seems obvious that the Complainant had no interest in that topic, only inventing about this center’s non-use of said material.There is nothing in this center’s marketing material that states that it uses, exclusively, curricular material from Chyten Franchising. In fact, Complainant did not meet this center only recently. As will be demonstrated below, the Complainant had the opportunity to learn about and inquire about the curriculum in use in this center, in communications with this center the past six years.Complainant response:“B. Below please find ONLY some of the inaccurate information found in the businesses response to this complaint.1. This business claims the student struggled for years with Math, English, and Standardized testing. This statement is categorically false. The student has been a high honor student almost every semester, every year, in both elementary and high school, except maybe one or two semesters when he was an honor student instead of a high honor student. He is also an officer of his high schools chapter of the National Honor Society.”Business counter-response:The Complainant seems to have forgotten the numerous conversations we had over the past six years.Complainant has been in communication with this business since Complainant made initial inquiries on 5/14/09 (six years ago). This business knows quite a bit about Student, and Complainant had many opportunities to discuss or question the instructional methods. a) 5/14/09: Complainant inquires about SSAT prep instruction, for student, then in sixth grade at the a local private school. b) 8/6/10. Complainant calls and states, among other comments, that student has been struggling recently with both English and Math. c) 8/17/10. Complainant informs this business that student is studying English and Math over the weekends at the Russian School of Math, which takes a huge hunk of time. Complainant informs this business that student is receiving supplemental academic mentoring also in study skills. d) 9/20/10; Complainant attends a free Private School Admissions Info Night at this business. We Speak with Complainant about our programs and about our curriculum. Complainant’s student is interested in the top tier private schools in the region. e) 10/22/10. Complainant calls and holds a lengthy phone conversation about student’s recent academic struggles in both English and Math. f) 7/7/11: Complainant calls to inquire about SSAT prep instruction, because student needs help to score well on such tests. g) 7/25/11: Complainant registers student for an SSAT Boot Camp on 8/22/11. h) 7/30/11: Student takes an SSATUpper Level SSAT practice test at this business,using publicly released standardized test. That test clearly identifies that there is still a significant gap in Reading Comprehension, placing student at slightly above average relative to the grade cohort. i) 8/15/15: Complainant cancels student’s registration for the SSAT Boot Camp and receives a full  refund. j) (Three and a half years later) k) 2/13/15. Complainant calls, requesting SAT test prep, citing success of a family friend. Familiar with student’s academic struggles, reinforced by comments by Complainant on this call, including only an average SAT Essay score, this business recommends a comprehensive test preparation program, either tutoring or an SAT Class, including the opportunity to audit additional classes and bootcamps at no additional charge. This business makes it clear that the family friend studied many hours to achieve the gains. Complainant insists that an abbreviated tutoring program conducted over 6 days during February recess will suffice. This business warns Complainant that this business cannot recommend that program because, historically, such an abbreviated program has frequently proven insufficient. Complainant insists that this is the program Complainant wants. l) At this time and subsequently, Complainant and student decline to provide requested past test reports. NOTE: Complainant claims to have provided “scores”. This business requested reports, which were not provided. The “scores” were verbally reported, and not even all scores were thus reported. m) At this time and subsequently, Complainant and student decline to participate in a free and highly recommended “Intake Consultation” n) 2/16/15 - 2/21/15: Student participates in SAT tutoring. During this time, Complainant challenges the instructional methods. This business reiterates the methodology and informs Complainant that if Complainant wants to discuss this topic, Complainant is welcome to do so with the Director, Complainant declines that invitation. o) 2/19/15 (Thursday). Complainant corresponds via e-mail to this business, <Student> is enjoying <student’s> sessions. I wanted to give you enough notice that <student> can't take the SAT test on Sunday. <Student> needs to do community service in the afternoon. We will reschedule the SAT test. - <Student> will be there on Saturday for <student’s> sessions. Thank you. <Complainant>p) 2/22/15: Student had been scheduled to take an SAT practice test at the end of instruction, a critical component of understanding the student’s grasp of content, timing, and reasoning. Complainant and student decline the practice test, as well as declining all subsequent offers of an SAT practice test, always at no additional charge. q) Since then, Complainant has declined repeated offers of Summer SAT Boot Camp, fall SAT Review Sessions, practice tests and progress consultations, all at no additional charge. r) 6/10/15; Complainant reports that student was assisted in preparing for the SSAT test (back in 2011) by tutor from a national chain.Over a six year period, Complainant openly and repeatedly acknowledged that student had struggled with English (especially reading comprehension), math, and standardized testing. Complainant has acknowledged that student has received tutoring from a number of sources, but such instruction over the years had not yet yielded the desired results. Complainant is now disappointed that this business was unable, in 8 tutoring sessions, to rectify substantial gaps in English, math and standardized testing and to make dramatic improvements in student’s test scores. Complainant response:           “2. In its response, the business claims no test scores were provided to it except the PSAT. This statement is also false. The students SAT scores were given to the business and appear on a Chyten Report that was prepared by Chyten.”Business counter-response:As stated in item (l), above, this business consistently and repeatedly requested “score reports”. Complainant repeatedly declined to share previous and subsequent “score reports” and only verbally provided some of the “scores”. Except for the single set of PSAT scores, all scores reported by our business were verbally provided by Complainant.Per the Complainant’s own words, and as well known practice, the student took numerous other informative tests, especially ERBs (CPT-4s). Although repeatedly requested, Complainant repeatedly declined to provide also these reports.Thus, the Complainant’s response is inaccurate and, in fact, misleading.Complainant response:“3. There were no secret negotiations and settlements between the complainant and Chyten Franchising. This statement is hearsay. “Business counter-response:The Complainant stated, numerous times, that Complainant and Chyten Franchising had had “numerous communications”.The Complainant unequivocally stated that Complainant contacted Chyten Franchising ‘right after the results were out.” That would make it weeks prior to any contact with this business. This business is confident that phone records would prove that such contact between Complainant and Chyten Franchising was indeed made prior to initial contact with this business. -This business has an e-mail from Chyten Franchising that similarly states that Complainant and Chyten Franchising had had “numerous communications”.Complainant stated, numerous times, that Chyten Franchising had told the Complainant that Complainant should expect a refund, either in full or for most of the instruction, and that Complainant should expect to receive 12 additional hours of free tutoring from Chyten Franchising.The Complainant further stated, numerous times, that Chyten Franchising placed a condition on the free tutoring, that Complainant must turn over all instructional material from this center to Chyten Franchising. Per Complainant’s words, Chyten Franchising volunteered to drive (approximately 45 minutes) to Complainant’s home to collect said material.This is based not on hearsay, but on Complainant’s own comments. Complainant may now deny this, but that is what was said.Both Complainant and Chyten Franchising have declined requests to share detailed dates, times, and content of communications between the two parties. This business is confident that phone and e-mail records would verify “numerous communications” between Complainant and Chyten Franchising.SummaryUnfortunately, the Complainant has distorted the facts and has neglected to address the points raised by this business’ response.The Complainant does not base the complaint on solid reasons. Rather, this complaint is based upon buyer’s remorse and a desire to harm a legitimate business that has helped a substantial percent of student’s from the student’s school to achieve extremely high point gains in Standardized tests. Those gains are almost always the result of long, hard work, not from “abbreviated” programs, finger-pointing, and excuses.

. 
We do not accept Chyten of Beverly's response as satisfactory.  Further, this
complaint DOES meet the Revdex.com guidelines for a complaint.
In addition,  Chyten's response is misleading,
inaccurate, and contains a great deal of hearsay, which in this case are
statements the business cannot substantiate.
A.  As Chyten of Beverly wrote in its response to this complaint: 1. ... "this
business was prohibited from using CHYTEN materials." 2.
"This prohibition covers almost all of Chyten test prep materials." 3.
"...two independent counsels advised this business against the use of
Chyten curricular materials."
Chyten is a FRANCHISE. This Chyten business is not using
Chyten materials and the consumer is not made aware of this fact when purchasing Chyten services from this
Chyten location.  
B. Below please find ONLY some of the inaccurate information found
in the businesses response to this complaint:  1. This
business claims the student struggled for years with Math, English, and
standardized testing. This
statement is categorically false. The student has been a high honor student
almost every semester, every year,
in both elementary and high school, except maybe one or two semesters when he was an honor student
instead of a high honor student. He is also an officer of his high schools chapter of the National Honor Society. 2.  In its response, the business claims no test
scores were provided to it except the PSAT. This statement is also false. The students SAT scores were
given to the business and appear on a Chyten
Report that was prepared
by Chyten. 3.
There were no secret negotiations and settlements between the complainant and
Chyten Franchising. This
statement is hearsay.

This business finds serious faults in the complaint issued by the Complainant.1. The complaint does not meet the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) guidelines; we believe it to be based solely on cost and be a case of buyer’s remorse. 2. The Complainant was not and is not negotiating in the spirit of the...

Revdex.com guidelines. 3. The Complainant has knowingly and willingly negotiated with Chyten Franchising todemand money from this business, under threat of complaint to other third parties, among them the Revdex.com.This business requests that Complainant immediately retract the complaint. This business requests that, in the future, the Complainant deal directly with this business and not with Chyten Franchising, since Chyten Franchising does not have the legal authority to represent this business.This business reiterates that it is prepared to assist the Complainant’s student to make further gains on the student’s college admission test scores. The conditions of such assistance, in the form of a $465 “Director’s Scholarship”, including practice tests, consultations, and participation in one of six summer SAT Boot Camps, were submitted on 6/9/15 to the Complainant, who declined them. In spite of the Claimant’s inappropriate behavior in this matter, this business is still prepared to honor that offer to Complainant’s student.This business requests that Complainant immediately retract the complaint.This business reserves the right to pursue all legal means to protect its good name, to the full extent of the law.BackgroundThe Complainant has had numerous communications with this center over a six year period, that is, since 5/14/09. During those communications the Complainant repeatedly shared that the Complainant’s student was struggling with English, math, and standardized testing.This center provides test preparation tutoring and classes for students who want to improve their scores on standardized tests, who, for whatever reason, have fallen behind in subjects (such as English and math), and/or who want assistance in acquiring better study skills. We clearly and consistently articulate our philosophy and our methods, which, in the case of test prep include:a) providing the center with ALL previous test reports, b) diagnostic pre-testing, c) intake consultation, d) instruction, e) diagnostic formative-testing (during the period of instruction), f) diagnostic post-testing, g) progress consultations, and h) providing the center with ALL subsequent test reports.The testing and consultations are provided at no additional cost.This robust and successful educational system at this center has been in use for over seven years, and this center is proud of the exceptionally high standardized test point gains achieved by our students. This center’s philosophy, methodology, and curriculum were clearly articulated to the Complainant, who agreed to instruction using the program just described.Over the past six years, the Complainant has repeatedly received written and verbal explanations of this center’s educational philosophy and methodology.On 7/25/11, the Complainant paid $1,195 to register the student for an SSAT Boot Camp that was scheduled to start on 8/22/11. On 8/15/11, exactly 7 days prior to the boot camp, the Complainant called to cancel the student’s registration. Pursuant to this center’s written policies and guarantees, which include full refund for classes and boot camps up to 7 days prior to the start of instruction, the Complainant received a refund for the full amount paid. This event demonstrates that this center adheres to its guarantees, even when such adherence is costly to the center.Prior to, during, and after the course of instruction, this center repeatedly reminded the Complainant of the availability and value in the declined, no-cost services, especially the consultations and practice tests. Again, during the more recent discussions, this center reminded the Complainant that all of these services are and would still be available to the Complainant’s student. The Complainant repeatedly declined all such overtures.Again, this center made very specific recommendations to the Complainant, including adherence to this center’s methods, in particular, previous/post-test reports, as well as the diagnostic tests and consultations mentioned above. The Complainant repeatedly refused to provide almost all previous/post-test reports (providing only one out of numerous such reports). The Complainant declined ALL of the consultations and the diagnostic post-testing.1. The Complaint does not meet the Revdex.com guidelines; we believe it to based solely on cost and be a case of buyer’s remorse.Per the guidelines issued by the Revdex.com:3. The complaint must meet Revdex.com National Complaint Acceptance Guidelines. Revdex.com does not handle complaints that involve:• Issues based solely on dissatisfaction with a business's price• Buyer's remorseThe Complainant, per the “Desired Settlement” deems the services to be worth $360, but not worth $2,055. Therefore, the Complainant feels that the services are worth much less than the Complainant paid. Nowhere does the Complainant ask to receive more or different instruction. That is because, during the complaint discussions, the Complainant was not interested in different instruction - just a reduction in cost. The Complainant’s lack of interest in anything but a refund will be discussed further in this response.The Complainant and the Complainant’s student were explicitly informed of the nature of the intended instruction. The Complainant was offered multiple opportunities to stop the instruction, and since it was pay-as-you-go, incur no further expense. The Complainant continued the instruction.It is unreasonable to expect 8 tutoring sessions at our center to compensate for six years of reported “struggling with English, math, and standardized tests.”The Complainant knew what services were being offered, discussed the nature of the services numerous times over the preceding six years, as well as during the time of instruction, was offered and declined the option of stopping the tutoring, and only had a serious problem when the student’s score went down. That is the same student about whom the Complainant had repeatedly reported, “struggling with English, math, and standardized testing”.The Complainant’s complaint is based primarily upon the Claimant’s disappointment with the student’s scores. This center cannot, has never, and has no plans to ever guarantee specific outcomes.This is clearly an instance of buyer’s remorse.2. The Complainant was not and is not negotiating in the spirt of the Revdex.com guidelines. A. The Complainant secretly negotiated with a third party prior to contacting this business. B. The Complainant did not and has not shared many details of the secret negotiations held with that third party. C. The Complainant only revealed limited details about the secret negotiations with the third party and revealed that information only under repeated questioning in much later conversations.D. The Complainant, prior to acknowledging even the existence of the negotiations with the third party, made explicit demands based upon those secret negotiations. E. The Complainant has repeatedly refused to provide any written proof of the claims about the student’s scores, before or after instruction.The Complainant first contacted this center about this complaint on 5/14/15. By the Complainant’s own words to this business on 6/22/15, the Complainant admitted that, unbeknownst to this business, and for several weeks preceding that contact on 5/14/15, the Complainant negotiated a settlement with Chyten Franchising about this matter. The Complainant further admitted that, in the context of those secret negotiations, the Complainant was led to believe that the Complainant would receive a full or almost full refund of tutoring tuition, as well as 12 additional hours of free instruction. Neither the Complainant nor Chyten Franchising informed this business of the secret negotiations until the fact was revealed during the call with the Complainant on 6/22/15 - over two months after the initial communications between the Complainant and Chyten Franchising. Thus, the Complainant’s call on 5/14/15 and subsequent conversations prior to 6/22/15 were not negotiated with clean hands.Additionally, the Complainant has repeatedly declined to provide this business with proof of the scores, before or after the instruction. This business repeatedly requested numerous informative score reports. The Complainant has a variety of reports: ERB (CPT-4), SSAT, PSAT, and SAT. For some of those tests, the student has multiple reports. The Complainant provided only one of the numerous reports, a single PSAT report from 10/18/14. In particular, in spite of repeated requests, the Complainant declined to provide copies of SAT test reports before and after the instruction.From the first complaint conversation, on 5/14/15, the Complainant repeatedly demanded a refund. The Complainant declined to consider or discuss any overtures that addressed a resolution on how to help the Complainant’s student succeed on the test.This business has repeatedly attempted to engage the Complainant in a conversation about how to help the Complainant’s student improve the scores. The Complainant has repeatedly stated that the Complainant is not interested in that conversation. The Complainant repeatedly emphasized that the Complainant only wanted the money back, because the Complainant, in the Complainant’s own words, was “dissatisfied with the service, and the Complainant “needed the money”. (See also “Buyer’s remorse” above.)3. The Complainant knowingly and willingly negotiated with Chyten Franchising to demand money from this business, under threat of complaint to third parties, among them the Revdex.com (Revdex.com)The Complainant acknowledged, via hints on the conversation of 6/6/15, but explicitly during the conversation of 6/22/15 - in both cases subsequent to probing questions by this business - that the Complainant had, unbeknownst to this business, engaged in numerous communications with Chyten Franchising.During the conversation of 6/22/15, the Complainant repeatedly emphasized that the Complainant contacted Chyten Franchising “right away”, because the Complainant wanted to address the issue as quickly as possible. The March SAT scores were available on approximately 4/9/15 and the full SAT Online Score Report was available on approximately 4/14/15. If the Complainant contacted Chyten Franchising immediately upon receiving the latter report, it means that the Complainant communicated for a full month prior to first contacting this business. Even if “right away” was a week later, it means that the Complainant secretly communicated with Chyten Franchising for at least several weeks prior to first contacting this business.In those conversations, per the Complainant’s own admission, the Complainant understood that the Complainant should expect a full or at least sizable refund from this business - all prior to the first conversation with this business.The Complainant entered into negotiations with this business on 5/14/15, a full month after the SAT test report was made available. At that time and until 6/22/15, neither the Complainant nor Chyten Franchising stated, hinted or otherwise implied that the Complainant had engaged in secret negotiations with Chyten Franchising.The Complainant and Chyten Franchising had numerous opportunities to inform this business, but knowingly and willingly did not do so.The Complainant mentioned the following individuals by name: Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted]From the very first conversation, on 5/14/15, the Complainant threatened this business with the following and similar phrases, ”Do you really want to see bad comments about your center on the internet, on places like [redacted], Small Claims Court, and Revdex.com, all for the sake of a couple of thousand dollars?”Upon questioning on 6/6/15 and 6/22/15, the Complainant stated that Chyten Franchising offered the Complainant 12 hours of free tutoring. Upon further questioning, the Complainant admitted that it was contingent upon sharing the curricular materials that were provided to the Complainant’s student by this business.On a related but separate topic, the Complainant threatened to complain to the [redacted]. When asked, “Why would the [redacted] be interested in your complaint?” the Complainant stated that the Complainant was told by Chyten Franchising and others (unstated who were the “others”) that this business was misrepresenting itself as a Chyten center.When asked in what way was this business misrepresenting itself as a Chyten center, the Complainant stated that this business was not using Chyten curricular materials. The Complainant’s comment, “This location does not provide the service it claims it will provide.” seems to be alluding to this issue.I informed the Complainant that this business, as well as ALL Chyten Franchising centers across the country, was informed by Chyten Franchising that this business was “prohibited from using Chyten materials.” The prohibition covers almost all Chyten test preparation materials. In addition, two, independent legal counsels advised this business against the use of Chyten curricular materials.The Complainant asked why, and was informed that this business was not and is not at liberty to share the answer to that question. The Complainant was referred to Chyten Franchising for the answer to that question. It is unknown whether or not the Complainant asked Chyten Franchising about this topic.The curricular materials used with the Complainant’s student have been used successfully by this center for years. Likewise, Chyten Franchising has been afforded, for years, the opportunity to see this curricular material on many occasions, and Chyten Franchising has permitted the use of this curricular material, throughout the entire time this center has been in business. This business has a proven track record of high academic improvements, based to no small extent upon the quality of its curricular materials. These same materials were used with the Complainant’s student, in the same way that they are used with other students.In summary, the Complainant, in the words of both the Complainant and Chyten Franchising, had engaged in secret “numerous communications”, via phone and e-mail, prior to any contact by the Complainant with this business. Neither the Complainant nor Chyten Franchising has, in spite of repeated requests, shared the information that was secretly shared. In fact, it was only after probing questions that the Complainant repeatedly admitted to said secret communications and revealed some portion of the shared communications.Regarding the content of those secret communications, the Complainant repeatedly stated that the Complainant was encouraged to demand a full or almost full refund of moneys.The Complainant made repeated threats to harm the good name of this business if the Complainant demands were not met. The Complainant repeatedly mentioned [redacted], Small Claims Court, and Revdex.com. The Complainant’s most frequent refrain was, “Do you really want to have bad press about your center, all over a couple of thousand dollars?”This business contends that the Complainant negotiated with Chyten Franchising, a third party, to demand money under threat of bad press, then demanded money under the threat of bad press, and upon not receiving the money, is now implementing the Complainant’s threat of creating “bad press”.This business requests that Complainant immediately retract the complaint.This business reserves the right to pursue all legal means to protect its good name, to the full extent of the law.