Inilex, Incsubmits this response to the Complaint submitted by [redacted] Mr [redacted] purchased two vehicles from a car dealership He also purchased two of Inilex’s stolen vehicle recovery/anti-theft GPS devices (SkyLINK) from the dealership and had one installed in each vehicle SkyLINK assists law enforcement with locating a SkyLINK-equipped stolen vehicle with pinpoint accuracy and allows the vehicle to be quickly located and recoveredAfter purchasing the SkyLINK-equipped vehicles from the dealership, Mr [redacted] contacted Inilex to purchase our SkyLINK PROTECT application for $ SkyLINK PROTECT expands the capabilities of the SkyLINK device and provides customers additional tools and features such as real-time tracking, speed alerts and geofences, which are all conveniently accessible from a mobile phone or personal computer While we provided the SkyLINK PROTECT features and benefits for both of Mr [redacted] ’s vehicles, Inilex only charged him for one ($instead of $238) In his Complaint, Mr [redacted] claims that he purchased SkyLINK PROTECT “solely because we were assured that it provided real-time GPS location of the vehicle.” There appears to have been some confusion regarding what “real-time GPS” consists of Real-Time GPS location involves the Inilex server being updated with a SkyLINK-equipped vehicle’s location every 30-seconds Accordingly, Mr [redacted] ’s SkyLINK PROTECT application allows him to access his vehicle location through the same server updates, so he can determine the exact location of his SkyLINK-equipped vehicles every 30-secondsMr [redacted] understood “Real-Time GPS location” as up to the second, live tracking of a moving vehicle (“breadcrumb tracking”) We explained the differences between “real-time GPS” and “breadcrumb tracking” to Mr [redacted] , but we still sensed his frustration Accordingly, we have refunded the $he paid for the SkyLINK PROTECT application We have also agreed to allow him to keep the GPS devices and to allow him access to the features and benefits of the SkyLINK PROTECT application on both of his SkyLINK-equipped vehicles, free of chargeWe have spoken with Mr [redacted] on multiple occasions (including this morning to confirm the refund was processed), and we appreciate his professional and courteous cooperation in resolving this matter Inilex prides itself on customer service As an industry leader in GPS and telemetry solutions, Inilex has sold its products to thousands of consumers In the rare situation that we have a frustrated customer such as Mr [redacted] , Inilex will pursue a resolution in good faith to make their overall consumer experience a positive one.We have reached such a resolution here, and the parties respectfully request that this matter be closed
Inilex, Inc. submits this response to the Complaint submitted by [redacted] on June 20, 2014. In her Complaint, Mrs. [redacted] claims that she did not receive three months of e-mail alerts under Inilex’s Skyway GPS Tracking Program. By her own admission, she was... supposed to receive these e-mails in October/November and December of 2009. For the following reason, Ms. [redacted] ’s Complaint should be dismissed. Mrs. [redacted] states that she purchased Inilex’s MPP Skyway product when she bought her Nissan Versa in 2009. Customers who purchase the product directly or indirectly from Inilex are necessarily required to set up an online account and check certain boxes designating which alerts they would like e-mailed to them. These alerts include notifications regarding speed, geographical boundaries and zones, battery strength, ignition on and off, etc. Section 3.2 of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement which Ms. [redacted] signed state, in relevant part: “Customer is solely responsible for any use of Inilex Services in Customer’s Vehicle ..and Customer is solely responsible for any Inilex Services requested by or on behalf of Customer.” Despite her contractual obligation, Ms. [redacted] neither designated nor requested that any e-mail alerts be sent to her. Without this information, Inilex could not send her e-mail alerts. After failing to provide Inilex with the required information to send the alerts, Ms. [redacted] waited almost FIVE years to bring her Complaint. She now requests that Inilex “return some amount of the $1,265.00” she paid in 2009. Mrs. [redacted] does not dispute the fact that she failed to request e-mail alert notifications from Inilex. She does not dispute the validity of the contract she signed for the purchase of the SkyWay product. In sum, Mrs. [redacted] purchased the Skyway product; did not notify Inilex of her desire to receive e-mail notifications for the first three months (as required by the Agreement); and waited almost five years to inform Inilex of this issue. If Ms. [redacted] was upset with not receiving e-mail notifications in 2009, she could have simply called Inilex, spoken with a 24/7 Customer Service Representative, and resolved the issue. Notwithstanding the spurious and untimely nature of Ms. [redacted] ’s Complaint, Inilex reached out to her on June 25th to discuss and determine what, if anything, Inilex could do to resolve the ***er. After confirming Ms. [redacted] ’s frustration with not receiving the three months of e-mail alerts in 2009, Inilex not only offered Mrs. [redacted] , FREE OF CHARGE, the three months of alerts she would have received if she had followed the terms of the Agreement and notified Inilex of her alert requests, Inilex went even further and offered an additional 21 months of Inilex’s Protect Program without charge. Instead of receiving three months of e-mail alerts, Ms. [redacted] was offered TWO YEARS of e-mail notifications and 24/7 vehicle tracking services, a value of $119 per year; for a total value of $238. Ms. [redacted] refused this offer, stating she “doesn’t want the product, she wants some of her money back.” When asked how much money she wanted, Mrs. [redacted] could not provide an amount. In regard to her request for a refund, Section 11 of the Agreement states, in relevant part: “If Customer cancels Customer’s Inilex Service, Inilex will not refund any amounts previously paid by Customer unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or agreed to by Inilex in writing in its sole discretion.” With Ms. [redacted] unable to request a specific amount, Inilex offered $100 cash, an amount she called a “slap in the face.” When Inilex asked Ms. [redacted] to reconsider, she stated that “she has documents which show she is owed money from Inilex.” She would not describe the documents, and has not disclosed them. Inilex informed Ms. [redacted] that the offers made in the June 25th phone call were revoked. Inilex prides itself on customer service. As an industry leader in GPS and telemetry solutions, Inilex has sold its products to thousands of consumers. Ms. [redacted] ’s complaint about not receiving e-mail notifications which she never requested five years after the fact is one that Inilex has never encountered. Even under the confusing circumstances surrounding her Complaint, Inilex initiated discussions with Ms. [redacted] , made an extremely generous offer, and attempted to resolve her Complaint with the utmost good faith. Unfortunately, these attempts were not fruitful. In sum, the unequivocal language of the Agreement required Ms. [redacted] to designate and inform Inilex of the e-mail alerts she wanted. Ms. [redacted] , by her own admission, failed to do so. Accordingly, Inilex will not be “returning some amount of the $1,265.00” paid by Mrs. [redacted] almost five years ago. As detailed in the Agreement, Inilex will not be returning any amount to Ms. [redacted] , and respectfully requests that her Complaint be dismissed. Thank you.
All they keep saying is the same thing over and over They are not addressing the fact that they
Fixed nothing becuase there was never a leak to begin with Tried to scare us into a new roof for thier profit when one is not neededImmediately cashed checks when it was brought to their attention that I was not happy and wanted a refund
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
Dear Revdex.com I did speak to the gentlmen on the phone on 6/25/yes he did offer and at the time I was so upset that I wasn't able to give a response of the amount I felt I deserved. I would like to be paid to my finance loan (nissan finance) coThat way I will not feel cheated out of my moneyThank you
Regards,
*** ***
Thank you for e-mail. As detailed in our Response, Inilex made two extremely generous offers to Ms. [redacted] on June 25th. We also explained to Ms. [redacted] that based on her own allegations, Inilex was under no obligation (contractual or otherwise) to make an offer to her and that the offers were simply extended because we don’t want any Inilex customers to have a negative experience with our product. We also clearly explained to her that if she did not accept the offers, they would be revoked immediately. She referred to these offers as “a slap in the face.”
Ms. [redacted] is not unhappy with our product. In fact, she never used the product and has no interest in ever using it. It is clear that the only thing she wants is money to which she is not entitled, and with all due respect, Ms. [redacted]’s demand for $500 is insulting.
Inilex rejects Ms. [redacted]’s demand, will not be making a counter-offer, and respectfully requests that her Complaint be closed.
Thank you for your time and effort in helping with this [redacted]er. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Inilex, Inc. submits this response to the Complaint submitted by [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] purchased two vehicles from a car dealership. He also purchased two of Inilex’s stolen vehicle recovery/anti-theft GPS devices (SkyLINK) from the dealership and had one installed...
in each vehicle. SkyLINK assists law enforcement with locating a SkyLINK-equipped stolen vehicle with pinpoint accuracy and allows the vehicle to be quickly located and recovered. After purchasing the SkyLINK-equipped vehicles from the dealership, Mr. [redacted] contacted Inilex to purchase our SkyLINK PROTECT application for $119. SkyLINK PROTECT expands the capabilities of the SkyLINK device and provides customers additional tools and features such as real-time tracking, speed alerts and geofences, which are all conveniently accessible from a mobile phone or personal computer. While we provided the SkyLINK PROTECT features and benefits for both of Mr. [redacted]’s vehicles, Inilex only charged him for one ($119 instead of $238). In his Complaint, Mr. [redacted] claims that he purchased SkyLINK PROTECT “solely because we were assured that it provided real-time GPS location of the vehicle.” There appears to have been some confusion regarding what “real-time GPS” consists of. Real-Time GPS location involves the Inilex server being updated with a SkyLINK-equipped vehicle’s location every 30-45 seconds. Accordingly, Mr. [redacted]’s SkyLINK PROTECT application allows him to access his vehicle location through the same server updates, so he can determine the exact location of his SkyLINK-equipped vehicles every 30-45 seconds. Mr. [redacted] understood “Real-Time GPS location” as up to the second, live tracking of a moving vehicle (“breadcrumb tracking”). We explained the differences between “real-time GPS” and “breadcrumb tracking” to Mr. [redacted], but we still sensed his frustration. Accordingly, we have refunded the $119 he paid for the SkyLINK PROTECT application. We have also agreed to allow him to keep the GPS devices and to allow him access to the features and benefits of the SkyLINK PROTECT application on both of his SkyLINK-equipped vehicles, free of charge. We have spoken with Mr. [redacted] on multiple occasions (including this morning to confirm the refund was processed), and we appreciate his professional and courteous cooperation in resolving this matter. Inilex prides itself on customer service. As an industry leader in GPS and telemetry solutions, Inilex has sold its products to thousands of consumers. In the rare situation that we have a frustrated customer such as Mr. [redacted], Inilex will pursue a resolution in good faith to make their overall consumer experience a positive one.We have reached such a resolution here, and the parties respectfully request that this matter be closed.
Inilex, Inc. submits this response to the Complaint submitted by [redacted] on June 20, 2014. In her Complaint, Mrs. [redacted] claims that she did not receive three months of e-mail alerts under Inilex’s Skyway GPS Tracking Program. By her own admission, she was...
supposed to receive these e-mails in October/November and December of 2009. For the following reason, Ms. [redacted]’s Complaint should be dismissed.
Mrs. [redacted] states that she purchased Inilex’s MPP Skyway product when she bought her Nissan Versa in 2009. Customers who purchase the product directly or indirectly from Inilex are necessarily required to set up an online account and check certain boxes designating which alerts they would like e-mailed to them. These alerts include notifications regarding speed, geographical boundaries and zones, battery strength, ignition on and off, etc. Section 3.2 of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement which Ms. [redacted] signed state, in relevant part:
“Customer is solely responsible for any use of Inilex Services in Customer’s Vehicle……..and Customer is solely responsible for any Inilex Services requested by or on behalf of Customer.”
Despite her contractual obligation, Ms. [redacted] neither designated nor requested that any e-mail alerts be sent to her. Without this information, Inilex could not send her e-mail alerts.
After failing to provide Inilex with the required information to send the alerts, Ms. [redacted] waited almost FIVE years to bring her Complaint. She now requests that Inilex “return some amount of the $1,265.00” she paid in 2009. Mrs. [redacted] does not dispute the fact that she failed to request e-mail alert notifications from Inilex. She does not dispute the validity of the contract she signed for the purchase of the SkyWay product. In sum, Mrs. [redacted] purchased the Skyway product; did not notify Inilex of her desire to receive e-mail notifications for the first three months (as required by the Agreement); and waited almost five years to inform Inilex of this issue. If Ms. [redacted] was upset with not receiving e-mail notifications in 2009, she could have simply called Inilex, spoken with a 24/7 Customer Service Representative, and resolved the issue.
Notwithstanding the spurious and untimely nature of Ms. [redacted]’s Complaint, Inilex reached out to her on June 25th to discuss and determine what, if anything, Inilex could do to resolve the [redacted]er. After confirming Ms. [redacted]’s frustration with not receiving the three months of e-mail alerts in 2009, Inilex not only offered Mrs. [redacted], FREE OF CHARGE, the three months of alerts she would have received if she had followed the terms of the Agreement and notified Inilex of her alert requests, Inilex went even further and offered an additional 21 months of Inilex’s Protect Program without charge. Instead of receiving three months of e-mail alerts, Ms. [redacted] was offered TWO YEARS of e-mail notifications and 24/7 vehicle tracking services, a value of $119 per year; for a total value of $238.
Ms. [redacted] refused this offer, stating she “doesn’t want the product, she wants some of her money back.” When asked how much money she wanted, Mrs. [redacted] could not provide an amount. In regard to her request for a refund, Section 11 of the Agreement states, in relevant part:
“If Customer cancels Customer’s Inilex Service, Inilex will not refund any amounts previously paid by Customer unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or agreed to by Inilex in writing in its sole discretion.”
With Ms. [redacted] unable to request a specific amount, Inilex offered $100 cash, an amount she called a “slap in the face.” When Inilex asked Ms. [redacted] to reconsider, she stated that “she has documents which show she is owed money from Inilex.” She
would not describe the documents, and has not disclosed them. Inilex informed Ms. [redacted] that the offers made in the June 25th phone call were revoked.
Inilex prides itself on customer service. As an industry leader in GPS and telemetry solutions, Inilex has sold its products to thousands of consumers. Ms. [redacted]’s complaint about not receiving e-mail notifications which she never requested five years after the fact is one that Inilex has never encountered. Even under the confusing circumstances surrounding her Complaint, Inilex initiated discussions with Ms. [redacted], made an extremely generous offer, and attempted to resolve her Complaint with the utmost good faith.
Unfortunately, these attempts were not fruitful. In sum, the unequivocal language of the Agreement required Ms. [redacted] to designate and inform Inilex of the e-mail alerts she wanted. Ms. [redacted], by her own admission, failed to do so. Accordingly, Inilex will not be “returning some amount of the $1,265.00” paid by Mrs. [redacted] almost five years ago. As detailed in the Agreement, Inilex will not be returning any amount to Ms. [redacted], and respectfully requests that her Complaint be dismissed.
Thank you.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
Inilex, Incsubmits this response to the Complaint submitted by [redacted] Mr [redacted] purchased two vehicles from a car dealership He also purchased two of Inilex’s stolen vehicle recovery/anti-theft GPS devices (SkyLINK) from the dealership and had one installed in each vehicle SkyLINK assists law enforcement with locating a SkyLINK-equipped stolen vehicle with pinpoint accuracy and allows the vehicle to be quickly located and recoveredAfter purchasing the SkyLINK-equipped vehicles from the dealership, Mr [redacted] contacted Inilex to purchase our SkyLINK PROTECT application for $ SkyLINK PROTECT expands the capabilities of the SkyLINK device and provides customers additional tools and features such as real-time tracking, speed alerts and geofences, which are all conveniently accessible from a mobile phone or personal computer While we provided the SkyLINK PROTECT features and benefits for both of Mr [redacted] ’s vehicles, Inilex only charged him for one ($instead of $238) In his Complaint, Mr [redacted] claims that he purchased SkyLINK PROTECT “solely because we were assured that it provided real-time GPS location of the vehicle.” There appears to have been some confusion regarding what “real-time GPS” consists of Real-Time GPS location involves the Inilex server being updated with a SkyLINK-equipped vehicle’s location every 30-seconds Accordingly, Mr [redacted] ’s SkyLINK PROTECT application allows him to access his vehicle location through the same server updates, so he can determine the exact location of his SkyLINK-equipped vehicles every 30-secondsMr [redacted] understood “Real-Time GPS location” as up to the second, live tracking of a moving vehicle (“breadcrumb tracking”) We explained the differences between “real-time GPS” and “breadcrumb tracking” to Mr [redacted] , but we still sensed his frustration Accordingly, we have refunded the $he paid for the SkyLINK PROTECT application We have also agreed to allow him to keep the GPS devices and to allow him access to the features and benefits of the SkyLINK PROTECT application on both of his SkyLINK-equipped vehicles, free of chargeWe have spoken with Mr [redacted] on multiple occasions (including this morning to confirm the refund was processed), and we appreciate his professional and courteous cooperation in resolving this matter Inilex prides itself on customer service As an industry leader in GPS and telemetry solutions, Inilex has sold its products to thousands of consumers In the rare situation that we have a frustrated customer such as Mr [redacted] , Inilex will pursue a resolution in good faith to make their overall consumer experience a positive one.We have reached such a resolution here, and the parties respectfully request that this matter be closed
Inilex, Inc. submits this response to the Complaint submitted by [redacted] on June 20, 2014. In her Complaint, Mrs. [redacted] claims that she did not receive three months of e-mail alerts under Inilex’s Skyway GPS Tracking Program. By her own admission, she was... supposed to receive these e-mails in October/November and December of 2009. For the following reason, Ms. [redacted] ’s Complaint should be dismissed. Mrs. [redacted] states that she purchased Inilex’s MPP Skyway product when she bought her Nissan Versa in 2009. Customers who purchase the product directly or indirectly from Inilex are necessarily required to set up an online account and check certain boxes designating which alerts they would like e-mailed to them. These alerts include notifications regarding speed, geographical boundaries and zones, battery strength, ignition on and off, etc. Section 3.2 of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement which Ms. [redacted] signed state, in relevant part: “Customer is solely responsible for any use of Inilex Services in Customer’s Vehicle ..and Customer is solely responsible for any Inilex Services requested by or on behalf of Customer.” Despite her contractual obligation, Ms. [redacted] neither designated nor requested that any e-mail alerts be sent to her. Without this information, Inilex could not send her e-mail alerts. After failing to provide Inilex with the required information to send the alerts, Ms. [redacted] waited almost FIVE years to bring her Complaint. She now requests that Inilex “return some amount of the $1,265.00” she paid in 2009. Mrs. [redacted] does not dispute the fact that she failed to request e-mail alert notifications from Inilex. She does not dispute the validity of the contract she signed for the purchase of the SkyWay product. In sum, Mrs. [redacted] purchased the Skyway product; did not notify Inilex of her desire to receive e-mail notifications for the first three months (as required by the Agreement); and waited almost five years to inform Inilex of this issue. If Ms. [redacted] was upset with not receiving e-mail notifications in 2009, she could have simply called Inilex, spoken with a 24/7 Customer Service Representative, and resolved the issue. Notwithstanding the spurious and untimely nature of Ms. [redacted] ’s Complaint, Inilex reached out to her on June 25th to discuss and determine what, if anything, Inilex could do to resolve the ***er. After confirming Ms. [redacted] ’s frustration with not receiving the three months of e-mail alerts in 2009, Inilex not only offered Mrs. [redacted] , FREE OF CHARGE, the three months of alerts she would have received if she had followed the terms of the Agreement and notified Inilex of her alert requests, Inilex went even further and offered an additional 21 months of Inilex’s Protect Program without charge. Instead of receiving three months of e-mail alerts, Ms. [redacted] was offered TWO YEARS of e-mail notifications and 24/7 vehicle tracking services, a value of $119 per year; for a total value of $238. Ms. [redacted] refused this offer, stating she “doesn’t want the product, she wants some of her money back.” When asked how much money she wanted, Mrs. [redacted] could not provide an amount. In regard to her request for a refund, Section 11 of the Agreement states, in relevant part: “If Customer cancels Customer’s Inilex Service, Inilex will not refund any amounts previously paid by Customer unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or agreed to by Inilex in writing in its sole discretion.” With Ms. [redacted] unable to request a specific amount, Inilex offered $100 cash, an amount she called a “slap in the face.” When Inilex asked Ms. [redacted] to reconsider, she stated that “she has documents which show she is owed money from Inilex.” She would not describe the documents, and has not disclosed them. Inilex informed Ms. [redacted] that the offers made in the June 25th phone call were revoked. Inilex prides itself on customer service. As an industry leader in GPS and telemetry solutions, Inilex has sold its products to thousands of consumers. Ms. [redacted] ’s complaint about not receiving e-mail notifications which she never requested five years after the fact is one that Inilex has never encountered. Even under the confusing circumstances surrounding her Complaint, Inilex initiated discussions with Ms. [redacted] , made an extremely generous offer, and attempted to resolve her Complaint with the utmost good faith. Unfortunately, these attempts were not fruitful. In sum, the unequivocal language of the Agreement required Ms. [redacted] to designate and inform Inilex of the e-mail alerts she wanted. Ms. [redacted] , by her own admission, failed to do so. Accordingly, Inilex will not be “returning some amount of the $1,265.00” paid by Mrs. [redacted] almost five years ago. As detailed in the Agreement, Inilex will not be returning any amount to Ms. [redacted] , and respectfully requests that her Complaint be dismissed. Thank you.
All they keep saying is the same thing over and over They are not addressing the fact that they
Fixed nothing becuase there was never a leak to begin with Tried to scare us into a new roof for thier profit when one is not neededImmediately cashed checks when it was brought to their attention that I was not happy and wanted a refund
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
Dear Revdex.com I did speak to the gentlmen on the phone on 6/25/yes he did offer and at the time I was so upset that I wasn't able to give a response of the amount I felt I deserved. I would like to be paid to my finance loan (nissan finance) coThat way I will not feel cheated out of my moneyThank you
Regards,
*** ***
[redacted]:
Thank you for e-mail. As detailed in our Response, Inilex made two extremely generous offers to Ms. [redacted] on June 25th. We also explained to Ms. [redacted] that based on her own allegations, Inilex was under no obligation (contractual or otherwise) to make an offer to her and that the offers were simply extended because we don’t want any Inilex customers to have a negative experience with our product. We also clearly explained to her that if she did not accept the offers, they would be revoked immediately. She referred to these offers as “a slap in the face.”
Ms. [redacted] is not unhappy with our product. In fact, she never used the product and has no interest in ever using it. It is clear that the only thing she wants is money to which she is not entitled, and with all due respect, Ms. [redacted]’s demand for $500 is insulting.
Inilex rejects Ms. [redacted]’s demand, will not be making a counter-offer, and respectfully requests that her Complaint be closed.
Thank you for your time and effort in helping with this [redacted]er. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Inilex, Inc. submits this response to the Complaint submitted by [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] purchased two vehicles from a car dealership. He also purchased two of Inilex’s stolen vehicle recovery/anti-theft GPS devices (SkyLINK) from the dealership and had one installed...
in each vehicle. SkyLINK assists law enforcement with locating a SkyLINK-equipped stolen vehicle with pinpoint accuracy and allows the vehicle to be quickly located and recovered. After purchasing the SkyLINK-equipped vehicles from the dealership, Mr. [redacted] contacted Inilex to purchase our SkyLINK PROTECT application for $119. SkyLINK PROTECT expands the capabilities of the SkyLINK device and provides customers additional tools and features such as real-time tracking, speed alerts and geofences, which are all conveniently accessible from a mobile phone or personal computer. While we provided the SkyLINK PROTECT features and benefits for both of Mr. [redacted]’s vehicles, Inilex only charged him for one ($119 instead of $238). In his Complaint, Mr. [redacted] claims that he purchased SkyLINK PROTECT “solely because we were assured that it provided real-time GPS location of the vehicle.” There appears to have been some confusion regarding what “real-time GPS” consists of. Real-Time GPS location involves the Inilex server being updated with a SkyLINK-equipped vehicle’s location every 30-45 seconds. Accordingly, Mr. [redacted]’s SkyLINK PROTECT application allows him to access his vehicle location through the same server updates, so he can determine the exact location of his SkyLINK-equipped vehicles every 30-45 seconds. Mr. [redacted] understood “Real-Time GPS location” as up to the second, live tracking of a moving vehicle (“breadcrumb tracking”). We explained the differences between “real-time GPS” and “breadcrumb tracking” to Mr. [redacted], but we still sensed his frustration. Accordingly, we have refunded the $119 he paid for the SkyLINK PROTECT application. We have also agreed to allow him to keep the GPS devices and to allow him access to the features and benefits of the SkyLINK PROTECT application on both of his SkyLINK-equipped vehicles, free of charge. We have spoken with Mr. [redacted] on multiple occasions (including this morning to confirm the refund was processed), and we appreciate his professional and courteous cooperation in resolving this matter. Inilex prides itself on customer service. As an industry leader in GPS and telemetry solutions, Inilex has sold its products to thousands of consumers. In the rare situation that we have a frustrated customer such as Mr. [redacted], Inilex will pursue a resolution in good faith to make their overall consumer experience a positive one.We have reached such a resolution here, and the parties respectfully request that this matter be closed.
Inilex, Inc. submits this response to the Complaint submitted by [redacted] on June 20, 2014. In her Complaint, Mrs. [redacted] claims that she did not receive three months of e-mail alerts under Inilex’s Skyway GPS Tracking Program. By her own admission, she was...
supposed to receive these e-mails in October/November and December of 2009. For the following reason, Ms. [redacted]’s Complaint should be dismissed.
Mrs. [redacted] states that she purchased Inilex’s MPP Skyway product when she bought her Nissan Versa in 2009. Customers who purchase the product directly or indirectly from Inilex are necessarily required to set up an online account and check certain boxes designating which alerts they would like e-mailed to them. These alerts include notifications regarding speed, geographical boundaries and zones, battery strength, ignition on and off, etc. Section 3.2 of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement which Ms. [redacted] signed state, in relevant part:
“Customer is solely responsible for any use of Inilex Services in Customer’s Vehicle……..and Customer is solely responsible for any Inilex Services requested by or on behalf of Customer.”
Despite her contractual obligation, Ms. [redacted] neither designated nor requested that any e-mail alerts be sent to her. Without this information, Inilex could not send her e-mail alerts.
After failing to provide Inilex with the required information to send the alerts, Ms. [redacted] waited almost FIVE years to bring her Complaint. She now requests that Inilex “return some amount of the $1,265.00” she paid in 2009. Mrs. [redacted] does not dispute the fact that she failed to request e-mail alert notifications from Inilex. She does not dispute the validity of the contract she signed for the purchase of the SkyWay product. In sum, Mrs. [redacted] purchased the Skyway product; did not notify Inilex of her desire to receive e-mail notifications for the first three months (as required by the Agreement); and waited almost five years to inform Inilex of this issue. If Ms. [redacted] was upset with not receiving e-mail notifications in 2009, she could have simply called Inilex, spoken with a 24/7 Customer Service Representative, and resolved the issue.
Notwithstanding the spurious and untimely nature of Ms. [redacted]’s Complaint, Inilex reached out to her on June 25th to discuss and determine what, if anything, Inilex could do to resolve the [redacted]er. After confirming Ms. [redacted]’s frustration with not receiving the three months of e-mail alerts in 2009, Inilex not only offered Mrs. [redacted], FREE OF CHARGE, the three months of alerts she would have received if she had followed the terms of the Agreement and notified Inilex of her alert requests, Inilex went even further and offered an additional 21 months of Inilex’s Protect Program without charge. Instead of receiving three months of e-mail alerts, Ms. [redacted] was offered TWO YEARS of e-mail notifications and 24/7 vehicle tracking services, a value of $119 per year; for a total value of $238.
Ms. [redacted] refused this offer, stating she “doesn’t want the product, she wants some of her money back.” When asked how much money she wanted, Mrs. [redacted] could not provide an amount. In regard to her request for a refund, Section 11 of the Agreement states, in relevant part:
“If Customer cancels Customer’s Inilex Service, Inilex will not refund any amounts previously paid by Customer unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or agreed to by Inilex in writing in its sole discretion.”
With Ms. [redacted] unable to request a specific amount, Inilex offered $100 cash, an amount she called a “slap in the face.” When Inilex asked Ms. [redacted] to reconsider, she stated that “she has documents which show she is owed money from Inilex.” She
would not describe the documents, and has not disclosed them. Inilex informed Ms. [redacted] that the offers made in the June 25th phone call were revoked.
Inilex prides itself on customer service. As an industry leader in GPS and telemetry solutions, Inilex has sold its products to thousands of consumers. Ms. [redacted]’s complaint about not receiving e-mail notifications which she never requested five years after the fact is one that Inilex has never encountered. Even under the confusing circumstances surrounding her Complaint, Inilex initiated discussions with Ms. [redacted], made an extremely generous offer, and attempted to resolve her Complaint with the utmost good faith.
Unfortunately, these attempts were not fruitful. In sum, the unequivocal language of the Agreement required Ms. [redacted] to designate and inform Inilex of the e-mail alerts she wanted. Ms. [redacted], by her own admission, failed to do so. Accordingly, Inilex will not be “returning some amount of the $1,265.00” paid by Mrs. [redacted] almost five years ago. As detailed in the Agreement, Inilex will not be returning any amount to Ms. [redacted], and respectfully requests that her Complaint be dismissed.
Thank you.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]