HouseHunt Inc

Our customer entered into a Website Agreement with the
Company. Our primary service was to
provide our customer, a real
estate agent, consumer leads generated by web
sites built and managed by us. At no
time did the problem that the customer experience ever impact our ability to
capture and provide those leads. The
problem as described by the Customer only affected a limited number of the e-mails
sent to consumers from our Total Internet Marketing (TIM) program on behalf of
our customerThe problem was caused by technical changes made in the DMARC
Internet Protocols by some Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) that blocked some
e-mails sent from certain other ISP’s. Again,
these changes only affected a limited number of e-mails sent through the TIM
system. Once we were made aware of the
issue, we worked with the ISP’s involved to correct the issue and in the mean
time we worked with the customer to create alternative “work-around” solutions
until the problem was resolved
In the Technical Service Agreement signed by the customer,
he acknowledged that the TIM system was an “additional free feature” available with his HouseHunt membership, and
in the Terms and Conditions of the Website Agreement signed by the customer, he
acknowledged that HouseHunt shall not be liable for any interruptions or
problems caused by the ISP’s and that HouseHunt shall not be liable for any
loss, claim or other damage resulting from or related to any interruption of
services, where such interruption resulted from any technical, difficulties
The customer requested two full month’s credit for a
technical issue that affected a limited number of e-mails, caused by changes in
the DMARC Protocols made by couple of third party ISP’s that affected only a small
portion of the features provided by the TIM program which we provided to the
customer a no cost. We considered the
customer’s request as excessive in light of the fact the main thrust of our
service; capturing and generating consumer leads, was never compromised
However as a gesture of goodwill towards our customer, we
did waive his final month’s liability under his contract, which in fact saved
him $495. Therefore we feel that we have
reasonably responded to the customers concerns and provided him reasonable compensation
for the issue he encountered. We feel
that his request for an additional $to compensate him for a technical issue,
caused by a third party’s action which we had no control over, for a small
part of a feature that we provided at no additional cost to be excessive and
felt we must decline his request

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The vendor failed miserably to uphold their end of the deal in providing a flow of quality leads After repeated attempts to allow them an opportunity to correct their wrongs, they never lived up to their claims or promises They just kept billing me and providing dead end and fake or falsely manufactured leads, ones that didn't exist After over or miserable months of no results, fake leads fake numbers and fake email addresses, I just asked for my money back and for us to part ways This is when they tried to crucify me The mortgage company that I partnered with also wanted out We attempted a conference call with a guy named *** who identified himself as an accountant The guy kept over talking me I told him I was going to the Revdex.com with this.All I wanted was some leads that that I could even have a shot at working with I wish my clients gave me as many chances if I didn't meet their needs In my world, house hunt, if I don't produce, my clients can find another agents I work 7Days a week to ensure my clients have the best possible service and experience because I make my business all about them, not myself Do you understand that concept?FYI I told my broker about my experiences with you She said you have this reputation in the industryHouse hunt please take a good long look in the mirror and if you can not provide a viable service to real estate agents and professionals such as myself, please don't take advantage of others as you have done me Give me my damn money back you crooks.I hope this complaint serves to protect others from this company and their practices They are the Enron of Internet lead generation
Regards,
*** ***

We had attempted to reach out to this customer on a number
of occasions, however he has failed to respond.
Based on our previous conversations with this customer, we have to
believe that while our customer may be a successful traditional real estate
agent, we do not think that he understands the nature of internet lead
generation nor the internet consumer. Our
customer claims that we failed to uphold our end of the deal in providing a
flow of quality leads. When it comes to
the internet consumer, they are often reluctant to give out personal
information, especially their telephone numbers in order to protect their privacy. That is why we tell our perspective customers
that our leads are not scrubbed, and as a result we do not eliminate leads that
may contain or missing data fields.
We tell our customers that on average 30% of the leads will be very
good, 30% very bad and as for the remaining 40%, contact information can usually
be located
In this customer’s particular case, we researched the
leads that we provided to him. We found
of those lead to be considered good (29%), to be either bad or
questionable (29%) and to be good (42%) with a little research using
publicly available tools such as “White Pages”, “Intelius” and “Facebook”. So the leads received by our customer
certainly fell within our parametersAs we previously mentioned an independent
research company determined that based on a sample of 10,of our most recent
leads that they found over 80% of the e-mail addresses provided by the
consumers to contain valid e-mail addresses
In his prior complaint, our customer indicated that he never
“received one viable lead”. In our
research we have discovered that several of his leads have continued to respond
to his “list matching” e-mails that our system had continued to send to his
potential customers. Based on notes in
our customer’s own in-house marketing system, which we call TIM and based on some
phone calls to some of those leads that we had provided our customer, we have
noted the following:
Customer has shown properties to *** *In our phone call with *** *, she claims that
she never got a phone call from our CustomerWe were able to talk to *** * on the phoneCustomer’s notes indicate that he has been in
contact with *** *In our phone call with *** *, she claims
that she never got a phone call from our Customer, further she is looking to
buy within the next six monthsSpoke with *** * , she has been contacted by
our Customer and is very happy with him, however, she just found out that they
are pregnant again, so will be looking to buy in a year or so
So based on these phone calls and notes in our system
entered into by our customer, we have to ask if he is being truthful in his
claim that he never “received one viable lead”. Unfortunately, we have to conclude that our
customer is being less than honest in his complaint. Our program
works on the basis that over the course of a six months to two year commitment,
our customers should have a reasonable number of opportunities to convert into
closed transactions in order receive a reasonable return on their
investment. We see at least three leads
above, *** *, *** * and *** *, all of whom could be potential closings
alone
Finally we want to address our customers claim that he
attempted a conference call with a guy named *** in accounting. We have no *** in accounting, but we were
able to determine that they (our customer and his mortgage lending partner) spoke
with *** in accounting. The phone
conversation was recorded, so we pulled and listened to the call. In our opinion *** did not keep trying to “over
talk” him as the customer claims, but attempted
to make arrangements for payment for services with the customer, which is something
that you would expect of someone in the accounting department to be doing. On a number of occasions *** suggested that
the best resource the customer had with respect to his issues over the lead
quality would be to talk to his dedicated customer service representativeThis
suggestion was reject by the customer. It was interesting that during the call, it
was our customer’s mortgage lending partner inquired wondering if there was
more that they could be doing to work with these leads, but he kept getting interrupted
by our customer who just kept repeating that if he does not get his money back,
he was going to file a complaint with the Revdex.com.
Based on our analysis of the call, we believe ***’s call with the
customer to be totally professional and appropriate
Because our system did not work the way that he thought it
should work for him, he lashed out and called us “crooks” and “Enron of the
Internet Lead Generation” industry. We
think you just need to look at the successful track records of hundreds of our
clients including *** * ** Northern California who earned over $million
in commissions last year from leads we generated for him, or *** ** in Southern
California who earned commissions on sales of over $million of real estate
transactions in the month of November, from leads we generated for her,
you will find his claims without merit. We
further find his allegations and name calling to be totally unprofessional on
his part
We feel that we have provided our customer what we have
promised and we still do not feel any refund is warranted. However in the interest of attempting to work
with our customer we continue to offer to waive his last monthly invoice for
his website services. While that may not
be the resolution that he desires, we feel that this is a reasonable attempt to
work with this customer on our part and are sorry that he would not respond to
our attempts to work with him

We had attempted to reach out to this customer on a number
of occasions, however he has failed to respond. 
Based on our previous conversations with this customer, we have to
believe that while our customer may be a successful traditional real estate
agent, we do not think that he understands the nature of internet lead
generation nor the internet consumer.  Our
customer claims that we failed to uphold our end of the deal in providing a
flow of quality leads.  When it comes to
the internet consumer, they are often reluctant to give out personal
information, especially their telephone numbers in order to protect their privacy.  That is why we tell our perspective customers
that our leads are not scrubbed, and as a result we do not eliminate leads that
may contain false or missing data fields. 
We tell our customers that on average 30% of the leads will be very
good, 30% very bad and as for the remaining 40%, contact information can usually
be located.
In this customer’s particular case, we researched the 35
leads that we provided to him.   We found
10 of those lead to be considered good (29%), 10 to be either bad or
questionable (29%) and 15 to be good (42%) with a little research using
publicly available tools such as “White Pages”, “Intelius” and “Facebook”.  So the leads received by our customer
certainly fell within our parameters. As we previously mentioned an independent
research company determined that based on a sample of 10,000 of our most recent
leads that they found over 80% of the e-mail addresses provided by the
consumers to contain valid e-mail addresses.
In his prior complaint, our customer indicated that he never
“received one viable lead”.  In our
research we have discovered that several of his leads have continued to respond
to his “list matching” e-mails that our system had continued to send to his
potential customers.  Based on notes in
our customer’s own in-house marketing system, which we call TIM and based on some
phone calls to some of those leads that we had provided our customer, we have
noted the following:
Customer has shown properties to [redacted].In our phone call with [redacted], she claims that
she never got a phone call from our Customer.We were able to talk to [redacted] on the phone.Customer’s notes indicate that he has been in
contact with [redacted].In our phone call with [redacted], she claims
that she never got a phone call from our Customer, further she is looking to
buy within the next six months.Spoke with [redacted] , she has been contacted by
our Customer and is very happy with him, however, she just found out that they
are pregnant again, so will be looking to buy in a year or so.
So based on these phone calls and notes in our system
entered into by our customer, we have to ask if he is being truthful in his
claim that he never “received one viable lead”.   Unfortunately, we have to conclude that our
customer is being less than honest in his complaint.  Our program 
works on the basis that over the course of a six months to two year commitment,
our customers should have a reasonable number of opportunities to convert into
closed transactions in order receive a reasonable return on their
investment.  We see at least three leads
above, [redacted] and [redacted], all of whom could be potential closings
alone.
Finally we want to address our customers claim that he
attempted a conference call with a guy named [redacted] in accounting.  We have no [redacted] in accounting, but we were
able to determine that they (our customer and his mortgage lending partner) spoke
with [redacted] in accounting.  The phone
conversation was recorded, so we pulled and listened to the call.  In our opinion [redacted] did not keep trying to “over
talk”  him as the customer claims, but attempted
to make arrangements for payment for services with the customer, which is something
that you would expect of someone in the accounting department to be doing.  On a number of occasions [redacted] suggested that
the best resource the customer had with respect to his issues over the lead
quality would be to talk to his dedicated customer service representative. This
suggestion was reject by the customer.   It was interesting that during the call, it
was our customer’s mortgage lending partner inquired wondering if there was
more that they could be doing to work with these leads, but he kept getting interrupted
by our customer who just kept repeating that if he does not get his money back,
he was going to file a complaint with the Revdex.com. 
Based on our analysis of the call, we believe [redacted]’s call with the
customer to be totally professional and appropriate.
Because our system did not work the way that he thought it
should work for him, he lashed out and called us “crooks” and “Enron of the
Internet Lead Generation” industry.  We
think you just need to look at the successful track records of hundreds of our
clients including [redacted] ** Northern California who earned over $2.4 million
in commissions last year from leads we generated for him, or [redacted] in Southern
California who earned commissions on sales of over $33 million of real estate
transactions in the month of November, 2014 from leads we generated for her,
you will find his claims without merit.  We
further find his allegations and name calling to be totally unprofessional on
his part.
We feel that we have provided our customer what we have
promised and we still do not feel any refund is warranted.  However in the interest of attempting to work
with our customer we continue to offer to waive his last monthly invoice for
his website services.  While that may not
be the resolution that he desires, we feel that this is a reasonable attempt to
work with this customer on our part and are sorry that he would not respond to
our attempts to work with  him.

HouseHunt,
Inc. has been in the business of generating consumer leads for Real Estate
Agents for nearly 20 years.   During this
time our agents have closed thousands of transactions and generated millions of
dollars of commissions, so we are more than a little taken aback from some...

of
the criticism and allegations being made by this customer. 
Our customer
(a real estate agent) claims that in the three months (actually two) that he
had been a client of HouseHunt’s he had not received one viable lead and that
most of the leads were made up names, wrong numbers and fictitious email
addresses which makes him surmise that we are just making up the names and
numbers. 
We take such
attacks on our business practices very seriously.  Customers are told up front that we do not scrub
our leads.  Our experience finds that on
average over 70% of the leads are found to contain at least one valid point of
contact (i.e., a phone number, an address or an e-mail).  Additionally we discuss how NAR (National
Association of Realtors) statistics show that the average internet consumer searching
for property is usually six to nine months out before purchasing.  We certainly have had agents close escrows
within the first three months, but that is not the norm.   We believe that our customer’s expectation
that he would have closed a real estate transaction within his first two months
with HouseHunt to be unrealistic.
We follow up
on this point in our contract where we state in writing the following: “Agent
understands that building a long-term business is a long-term commitment to
providing consumers with valuable information, promoting successes and
maintaining repetitive contact on a consistent basis  ..… Agent understands that immediate results
may occur, however in most cases successes occur after a sufficient sized database
is accumulated and the agent has maintained repetitive contact from six months
to two years.”  Unfortunately in this
case our customer did not allow sufficient time for our system to work.
In response
to our customer’s complaint, in addition to attempting to reach out to him on a
number of occasions to discuss his issues, we took two additional steps.  First, we recently submitted a random sample
of 10,000 of our most recent leads to an independent third party e-mail
verification company, who determined that over 80% of the e-mails supplied by
the consumers visiting our websites to be valid.  Secondly we attempted to contact all of the
leads that our system had provided to our customer.  We were able to ascertain that the contact
information was valid on over 75% of his leads. 
Interestingly our customer claims that he had not received one viable
lead, when in fact several of the consumers  confirmed that they had in fact talked with
our customer and a few indicated that they were interested working with our
customer to help them find a new home. 
Also just as interestingly, several of the consumers that we were able
to contact, indicted that they never been contacted by our customer.  Our system helps identify potential clients
for our customers, but they have to do their part in order to find success.
Our customer
indicted that he tried to resolve the issue that some of the information
supplied by the consumers did not appear to be valid with his sales
representative, however he took our answer out of context.  We acknowledged that that is a known problem,
not just with us, but with the industry as a whole, for which we have no fix.   Unfortunately there is no way that we or
anyone for that matter can prevent  consumers from submitting false contact
information.  We tell our customers that
our program is based on the law of numbers; we generate a reasonable number of
leads; a portion of those leads will prove to be valid; a portion of those will
prove to be consumers who are willing to work with the real estate agent and
that a portion of that number result in consumers who close real estate
transactions, hopefully resulting in a reasonable return on the real estate
agents investment in our program.
Our customer
claims that he has tried resolving the issue with our company, however our Sales
Floor Manager attempted to reach out and contact him on a number of
occasions.  His written response was that
“my dealings with your company are done … I don’t know what else you want to
tell me”.  To be honest, that does not
sound like the response of an individual who is attempting  to resolve matters.  We feel that we have provided what we have
promised and do not feel any refund is warranted, however in the interest of
attempting to work with our customer we have agreed to waive his last monthly
invoice for his website services.  While
that may not be the resolution that he desires, we feel that this is a
reasonable offer on our part and are sorry that he had not respond to our Sales
Floor Manager’s attempt to work with him.

Our customer entered into a Website Agreement with the
Company.  Our primary service was to
provide our customer, a real estate agent, consumer leads generated by web
sites built and managed by us.  At no
time did the problem that the customer experience ever impact our ability...

to
capture and provide those leads.  The
problem as described by the Customer only affected a limited number of the e-mails
sent to consumers from our Total Internet Marketing (TIM) program on behalf of
our customer. The problem was caused by technical changes made in the DMARC
Internet Protocols by some Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) that blocked some
e-mails sent from certain other ISP’s.  Again,
these changes only affected a limited number of e-mails sent through the TIM
system.  Once we were made aware of the
issue, we worked with the ISP’s involved to correct the issue and in the mean
time we worked with the customer to create alternative “work-around” solutions
until the problem was resolved.
In the Technical Service Agreement signed by the customer,
he acknowledged that the TIM system was an “additional free feature” available with his HouseHunt membership, and
in the Terms and Conditions of the Website Agreement signed by the customer, he
acknowledged that HouseHunt shall not be liable for any interruptions or
problems caused by the ISP’s and that HouseHunt shall not be liable for any
loss, claim or other damage resulting from or related to any interruption of
services, where such interruption resulted from any technical, difficulties.
The customer requested two full month’s credit for a
technical issue that affected a limited number of e-mails, caused by changes in
the DMARC Protocols made by couple of third party ISP’s that affected only a small
portion of the features provided by the TIM program which we provided to the
customer a no cost.  We considered the
customer’s request as excessive in light of the fact the main thrust of our
service; capturing and generating consumer leads, was never compromised.
However as a gesture of goodwill towards our customer, we
did waive his final month’s liability under his contract, which in fact saved
him $495.  Therefore we feel that we have
reasonably responded to the customers concerns and provided him reasonable compensation
for the issue he encountered.  We feel
that his request for an additional $990 to compensate him for a technical issue,
caused by a third party’s action which we had no control over, for a small
part of a feature that we provided at no additional cost to be excessive and
felt we must decline his request.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The vendor failed miserably to uphold their end of the deal in providing a flow of quality leads.  After repeated attempts to allow them an opportunity to correct their wrongs, they never lived up to their claims or promises.  They just kept billing me and providing dead end and fake or falsely manufactured leads, ones that didn't exist.  After over 2 or 3 miserable months of no results, fake leads fake numbers and fake email addresses, I just asked for my money back and for us to part ways.  This is when they tried to crucify me.  The mortgage company that I partnered with also wanted out.  We attempted a conference call with a guy named [redacted] who identified himself as an accountant.  The guy kept over talking me.  I told him I was going to the Revdex.com with this.
All I wanted was some leads that that I could even have a shot at working with.  I wish my clients gave me as many chances if I didn't meet their needs.  In my world, house hunt, if I don't produce, my clients can find another agents.  I work 7Days a week to ensure my clients have the best possible service and experience because I make my business all about them, not myself.  Do you understand that concept?
FYI I told my broker about my experiences with you.  She said you have this reputation in the industry. House hunt please take a good long look in the mirror and if you can not provide a viable service to real estate agents and professionals such as myself, please don't take advantage of others as you have done me.  Give me my damn money back you crooks.
I hope this complaint serves to protect others from this company and their practices.  They are the Enron of Internet lead generation.
Regards,
[redacted]

HouseHunt,
Inc. has been in the business of generating consumer leads for Real Estate
Agents for nearly 20 years.
yes;">   During this
time our agents have closed thousands of transactions and generated millions of
dollars of commissions, so we are more than a little taken aback from some of
the criticism and allegations being made by this customer. 
Our customer
(a real estate agent) claims that in the three months (actually two) that he
had been a client of HouseHunt’s he had not received one viable lead and that
most of the leads were made up names, wrong numbers and fictitious email
addresses which makes him surmise that we are just making up the names and
numbers. 
We take such
attacks on our business practices very seriously.  Customers are told up front that we do not scrub
our leads.  Our experience finds that on
average over 70% of the leads are found to contain at least one valid point of
contact (i.e., a phone number, an address or an e-mail).  Additionally we discuss how NAR (National
Association of Realtors) statistics show that the average internet consumer searching
for property is usually six to nine months out before purchasing.  We certainly have had agents close escrows
within the first three months, but that is not the norm.   We believe that our customer’s expectation
that he would have closed a real estate transaction within his first two months
with HouseHunt to be unrealistic.
We follow up
on this point in our contract where we state in writing the following: “Agent
understands that building a long-term business is a long-term commitment to
providing consumers with valuable information, promoting successes and
maintaining repetitive contact on a consistent basis  ..… Agent understands that immediate results
may occur, however in most cases successes occur after a sufficient sized database
is accumulated and the agent has maintained repetitive contact from six months
to two years.”  Unfortunately in this
case our customer did not allow sufficient time for our system to work.
In response
to our customer’s complaint, in addition to attempting to reach out to him on a
number of occasions to discuss his issues, we took two additional steps.  First, we recently submitted a random sample
of 10,000 of our most recent leads to an independent third party e-mail
verification company, who determined that over 80% of the e-mails supplied by
the consumers visiting our websites to be valid.  Secondly we attempted to contact all of the
leads that our system had provided to our customer.  We were able to ascertain that the contact
information was valid on over 75% of his leads. 
Interestingly our customer claims that he had not received one viable
lead, when in fact several of the consumers  confirmed that they had in fact talked with
our customer and a few indicated that they were interested working with our
customer to help them find a new home. 
Also just as interestingly, several of the consumers that we were able
to contact, indicted that they never been contacted by our customer.  Our system helps identify potential clients
for our customers, but they have to do their part in order to find success.
Our customer
indicted that he tried to resolve the issue that some of the information
supplied by the consumers did not appear to be valid with his sales
representative, however he took our answer out of context.  We acknowledged that that is a known problem,
not just with us, but with the industry as a whole, for which we have no fix.   Unfortunately there is no way that we or
anyone for that matter can prevent  consumers from submitting false contact
information.  We tell our customers that
our program is based on the law of numbers; we generate a reasonable number of
leads; a portion of those leads will prove to be valid; a portion of those will
prove to be consumers who are willing to work with the real estate agent and
that a portion of that number result in consumers who close real estate
transactions, hopefully resulting in a reasonable return on the real estate
agents investment in our program.
Our customer
claims that he has tried resolving the issue with our company, however our Sales
Floor Manager attempted to reach out and contact him on a number of
occasions.  His written response was that
“my dealings with your company are done … I don’t know what else you want to
tell me”.  To be honest, that does not
sound like the response of an individual who is attempting  to resolve matters.  We feel that we have provided what we have
promised and do not feel any refund is warranted, however in the interest of
attempting to work with our customer we have agreed to waive his last monthly
invoice for his website services.  While
that may not be the resolution that he desires, we feel that this is a
reasonable offer on our part and are sorry that he had not respond to our Sales
Floor Manager’s attempt to work with him.