receipt of the Revdex.com complaint issued last night, Sunday April 12th, 2015. I have taken each of Ms. [redacted] statements (exactly as she writes them, typos included) and her desired settlement and responded point-by-point below. Ms. [redacted] - "I have purchased several on line insurance courses and insurance exams from this business. Each course is over one hundred and fifty dollars." Our response - Ms. [redacted] has purchased "exam preparation" items from us. The dates and prices are listed below: 5/5/2013 - exam simulator for California Independent Adjuster for $49.95 9/14/2014 - textbook/exam simulator for Arkansas Adjuster for $129.95 9/15/2014 - Virtual Classroom Basic Package for Arizona Adjuster for $159.9510/05/2014 - NY Independent Law Digest and Simulator for NY Adjuster for $81.5010/11/2014 - Hawaii Adjuster exam simulator for $49.95 3/28/2015 - we are back to California Independent Adjuster again for $189.95.
This is a grand total of $661.25 over a period of two years. Ms. [redacted] - "On Sunday, April 12th, 2015 a notice appears on there website that states the web site will be down on April 14th, 2015. This provides the user with ONLY TWO DAYS NOTICE. I have scheduled and paid for an insurance exam on thursday April 16th, 2015 and I only have this week to study." Our response - The notice of the upcoming outage was posted on the website Friday, April 10th. Additionally, Ms. [redacted] sent me an e-mail on Sunday, April 12th demanding that we re-schedule our website maintenance because she had her Hawaii exam scheduled for Thursday the 16th of April. Each student has 26 weeks to use their purchased courses/simulators. She purchased her Hawaii simulator on October 11th, 2014 so her statement that she only has Tuesday, April 14th to study when she has had the entire six months prior to April 14th is ridiculous. Additionally, she would not have had access to her Hawaii Adjuster exam simulator on Tuesday, April 14th anyway because it expired yesterday (two days before the scheduled outage). This point alone makes this complaint null and void. Ms. [redacted] - "This exam and these courses are extremely expensive and I have spent hundreds of dollars on several courses. when I emailed the school to explain that two days notice was not sufficient, I was told by [redacted] to study other days. First of all my exam is Thursday so that is not an option and I have taken off from work on Tuesday to study all day. I am not able to take off any other day. More importantly, two days notice to shut down a website that people have paid alot of money for is irresponsible and a very poor business practice." Our response - Again, the notice was there two days BEFORE Ms. [redacted] logged on to see it. Additionally, she took off work to study the Hawaii exam simulator that would have been expired for two days prior to her planned day off to study. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me. I'm sure Ms. [redacted] can come up with various and sundry reasons why she didn't study from October to April, but to reschedule our desperately needed website upgrade because Ms. [redacted] has waited until the last moment to study seems a bit unreasonable. If this upgrade is not performed soon, the entire website will go down and then several thousand other students will be without their courses. I explained this to Ms. [redacted], but she doesn't seem to care how this might affect anyone else. Ms. [redacted] - "Furthermore, if your state exam is scheduled you need access to the website. These changes to the website should be made overnight or at the very least provide TWO WEEKS NOTICE, NOT TWO DAYS!! THe way this was handled was very unprofessional and I am demanding all of my money be returned for every course I have ordered. I will never use this service again." Our response - First of all, WE asked Ms. [redacted] to please never use our service again. We have been doing business on the internet for 14 years and in that time, we have never scheduled an outage. This is the reason that it is imperative that we schedule it now. Ms. [redacted] definition of our "unprofessional" response to her demands is that we didn't reschedule an entire team of programmers because she waited until the last minute to study. Again, the exam simulator she is disputing that we are keeping her from using, is already expired and she couldn't have used it on Tuesday anyway. The only course that she ordered that has not already expired is the California course she purchased for $189.95 and I REFUNDED that course in its entirely last night at the same time that I asked her to please take her business elsewhere in the future. (Interesting that she didn't include that in her complaint.) Ms. [redacted] has been a very demanding and impossible-to-please customer since from the beginning. This isn't the first or second time we have dealt with her complaints and impossible demands. Therefore, after her unreasonable demands last evening, we decided it would be prudent to refund the only course that has not expired (even though she has already used it several times) and allow her to find another training company that could better meet her needs. Ms. [redacted] Desired Settlement: "I want the website repairs to be scheduled for two weeks from April 12, 2015 and to provide the consumer with at least two weeks notice. Furthermore, I want a full refund for all of my courses in the amount of $249.75 for 5 exams ordered and $569.85 for three courses ordered. Total owed is $819.60" Our Desired Settlement: Ms. [redacted] doesn't decide when our website needs to repaired and her implication that the Revdex.com can somehow force our company to alter the way we do business shows her complete lack of understanding as to the services that the Revdex.com provides to consumers. As far as refunding her previous courses that have already expired and that she already used to prepare for other state licensing exams is ridiculous. She paid for those services and we provided them. Our scheduled website outage tomorrow has nothing to do with previous services and shouldn't even be included in this complaint. Again, the only course that Ms. [redacted] still had that was active on our website, was refunded last night before she requested a refund. After she was told that her course was refunded and to go elsewhere for future training, she demanded that I refund all of the courses she has ever purchased, again totally irrelevant to the outage issue and completely unreasonable. As for the total amount Ms. [redacted] came up with for the courses she has previously purchased, I have listed her purchased courses and the amounts that she paid above. These courses total $661.25, not $819.60 as Ms. [redacted] submits, and after deducting the $189.95 that I already refunded last night, the total comes to: $471.30. Not only has Ms. [redacted] submitted a frivolous complaint, she has also submitted statements that are untrue. One other point...the notice regarding our website outage has been up since Friday and Ms. [redacted] is the only customer out of thousands to complain. Most people understand that maintaining a website is extremely important in order to continue serving our clients in the best way possible. We are extremely busy with the upgrade of our website so that we can serve thousands of other students who don't waste our time with unreasonable demands. We are submitting this response to the Revdex.com as our first and our final response. We have refunded any current courses to Ms. [redacted] and respectfully asked her to find another source for her courses in the future. We do not intend to rebut any further arguments from her and respectfully ask that the Revdex.com make their decision regarding this complaint and our rating based on the above response. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Insurance Schools, Inc.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the second response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. The back and forth is getting to be a bit much and the dispute should be fully submitted.Mr. [redacted] has now entered the dispute discussion - writing in the same style as Ms. [redacted] – but adds nothing to the conversation and assuch his response should be disregarded. The name calling by Insurance Schools, Inc. continues as I am called a liar rather than the matter simply being handled in a civil manner withrecognition that not everything is absolute or black and white. Normally, I would disregard an ancillary issue like name calling at this point but I take umbrage to having my integrity impugned. The e-mails submitted to the Revdex.com do reflect Ms. [redacted] called me “bratty”, “entitled”, told me to “wise-up” intimating that I am dumb and provided unsolicited study advice in an extremely condescending manner in part to redirect the conversation without regard to her ignorance of my own background including various advanced degrees, professional licenses and certifications for which I studied hard and obtained each on the first try.Nevertheless, the fact remains that Insurance Schools, Inc. has the power to provide me the ability to print the materials I purchased but continues to refuse by insisting on conditions restricting my access although those conditions were never stated in the program description.It remains perfectly reasonable to believe that no conditions would exist restricting access to my ability to print materials I purchased sinceno conditions, express or implied, were stated.Insurance Schools, Inc. should not be permitted to stand behind conditions that were not stated at time of purchase and offer only refusal to provide what was purchased without condition or hold my receipt of such materials hostage to a demand of an extra $40.Shame on Insurance Schools, Inc. for such unprofessional and abusive conduct but in Ms. [redacted]’s own words she described herself in e-mail bysaying, “I am rude and discourteous”, so I should not be surprised.I trust the Revdex.com will do what is right and I offer my appreciation for all the hard work in serving such an important consumerprotection function.
Regards, [redacted]
face="Times New Roman">Complainant Accusation 1: Business refused to provide product / service purchased. Insurance School’s Reply to Accusation 1: This is a completely false statement The customer purchased a Virtual Classroom BASIC package. This package includes a course presentation with exam simulator, delivered ONLINE and can be accessed from any computer with an internet connection 24/7. It includes the text materials, in .pdf format, along with the course presentation. The complainant, an employee [redacted], a division of [redacted] Insurance Company, made his purchase on December 9, 2014 at 7:55am EST. At 11:30am that same morning (December 9, 2014) I received an e-mail from Mr. [redacted] asking that I send him our lecture files in .mp3 format so he could download them to his iPod and not waste time on his computer. This is not the way the course is advertised or delivered. I don’t even have the capability to send more than 40 hours of .mp3 audio files nor would I send our proprietary information to a customer to download and use/share at will. As you can see from the attached original e-mail from Mr. [redacted] and my reply to him, he did not request a refund or exchange at that time, and I informed him that what he was requesting was not possible. I did not hear from Mr. [redacted] again until February 11, 2015 (more than 2 months later).
Complainant’s Accusation 2: Return / Refund policy cited is further inapplicable. Request for exchange was refused. Insurance Schools Reply to Complaint 2: I’m confused…our return / refund policy is inapplicable because Mr. [redacted] says so? Our return policy is clearly listed under the Customer Service tab at the top right side of our homepage. Additionally, this same policy is listed, and the customer must click a checkbox to agree to it, before being permitted to complete the ordering process. The very first bullet point in our return policy states that ALL RETURNS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF PURCHASE. As you can see, in the attached email from Mr. [redacted] dated December 9, 2014, Mr. [redacted] did not ask for a refund at the time. Had he asked for a refund in that e-mail or any other e-mail sent to me from December 9th through December 24, 2014 (our 15 day return policy period for his order), he would have been granted one --- no questions asked.However, we did not hear from Mr. [redacted] again until February 11, 2015, well beyond the 15-days required by the policy. At 5:36 PM eastern time on February 11, 2015, I received another e-mail from Mr. [redacted] requesting that I send him his textbook in one downloadable .pdf file so that he doesn't have to actually go through the Virtual Classroom he purchased and download the files as he goes through the course. Mr. [redacted] bought the BASIC VIRTUAL CLASSROOM package, which includes the textbook in .pdf as you move through the course. Nowhere in the product description do we say it is delivered in a single downloadable file outside the Virtual Classroom course. It is delivered as part of the Virtual Classroom course. As with the .mp3 files, we do not deliver our proprietary material in a format that would allow students to share that material freely with others in their offices who are also taking the course. At this point, I informed Mr. [redacted] that his options were to move through the Virtual Classroom course and print his textbook as he goes through the course, OR for an additional $40.00 fee, he could upgrade and we would ship him a printed and bound textbook.. Complainant’s Accusation 3: Customer service was admittedly rude, discourteous and made veiled threats of making complaints to various state insurance department connections. My e-mails to customer service were professional, courteous and did not warrant such poor treatment. Insurance School’s Reply to Complaint 3: As you can see from the attached e-mail string, Mr. [redacted] is not only lying about the tone of my email replies to this point, but he also misrepresents his own tone. He also completely ignores my suggestions on how to use the course package he purchased, or to upgrade if he needs the textbook in one file. Additionally, he says our Virtual Classroom course is “terrible” and he doesn’t intend to use it. He then demands that I refund his purchase of more than two months ago (well beyond the time limit for a refund as set and agreed to during the purchasing process by Mr. [redacted]), send him a different course package, and refund the difference. When I informed him that he was well beyond the time limit for a refund/exchange, he threatens to defame my company throughout his corporate network. I find it very interesting that Mr. [redacted] is the one making threats, yet he describes himself as being nothing but professional and courteous, while accuses me of making threats! I do not feel that threatening the defamation of my company is professional or courteous. Mr. [redacted] also makes the accusation that our refund policy is not posted on our website, which is completely untrue. It is posted on the Customer Service tab and has been for the last 14 years. Additionally, our policy is included in the Terms of Use that each customer must agree to before checking out of our shopping cart. We put our return policies on our website, we even force customers to check a box that they have read those policies before being permitted to make a purchase, but we can't make our customer read it. We did everything possible to make sure Mr. [redacted] understood this refund policy BEFORE he placed his order. The consumer must take some responsibility for reading those policies. Please refer to the attached email string where you can clearly see that Mr. [redacted] is the making threats. [redacted], Mr. [redacted]’s company, has been doing business with Insurance Schools, Inc. for more than 14 years. We not only provide online courses to their employees (more than 79 online course purchases by [redacted] since January 1, 2015 alone), we also travel all over the country to their many satellite offices and provide on-site classroom training. We have never had a complaint from the thousands of [redacted] students for whom we have provided training, until today. I assume Mr. [redacted] felt that this threat to our longstanding relationship with [redacted] would bully us into meeting his unreasonable demands. Complainant’s Accusation 4: Customer service rep., [redacted], identified herself as owner. Insurance Schools Reply to Complaint 4: It is quite interesting that one of Mr. [redacted]’s complaints is that “customer service rep” [redacted], identified herself as owner, as if being a “customer service rep.” is somehow reprehensible. Additionally, when Mr. [redacted] wrote the threatening e-mail, he found the names and e-mail addresses of two men listed on our website and began including them in our email exchanges. Apparently, he thought this was a way to report me to my superiors and they would force me to give him what he didn’t purchase. The two e-mail addresses he included were my husband and the instructor of the course. Unfortunately, as a woman, occasionally I still encounter those men who feel that if they “report” us to a male supervisor, they can avoid dealing with women whose position is [redacted]eath their higher station. My husband and I own and run this company, practically 24/7, and we provide training for all of the Top 10 insurance carriers in the United States. We provide the exact same training that Mr. [redacted] finds so intolerable, to State Farm, Allstate, Geico, Travelers, Nationwide, AIG, and far too many other companies to list. I’m sorry to inform Mr. [redacted], but I am not a lowly customer service rep that he can run roughshod over simply because he feels entitled to do so. No one from any of these other insurance companies has ever reported us to the Revdex.com because there has never been a need to do so. Complainant’s Accusation 5: The description of the program I purchased reads: PROGRAM INCLUDES: Immediate 24/7 online access to the audio presentation of the instructor teaching the course, the [redacted] All-Lines EXCEPT Workers Compensation Adjuster textbook and state adjuster law manual in .PDF file format (you print the manuals) and online access to our 800 online practice exam simulator pre questions. Excerpt of my e-mail correspondences: All I want is the ability to print the manuals I purchased and then to take the practice exams. I described the audio presentation as terrible for various reasons: the narrator sounds worse than [redacted] and add no life or additional value to the printed material; requires constant repetitive mouse clicks to proceed with the lecture rather than allowing one to listen as the lecture plays through; and the materials I purchased to print are embedded in the lecture so therefore inaccessible unless I waste the time clicking through the valueless lectures, etc. Insurance Schools Response to Accusation 5: Mr. [redacted] says that all he wants is the ability to print the manuals he purchased and take the practice exams. He HAS the ability to print those manuals if he simply uses the course. From the moment of purchase he had (AND STILL HAS), the ability to take the practice exams. Additionally, he claims he should get a refund / exchange because he has hardly accessed the course beyond the first couple of course screens, but then proceeds to critique an entire 40-hour course. He claims our instructor “adds no life or additional value to the printed material”, how would he know if he only accessed the first few screens of a course that consists of several thousand screens? As a company whose products are digital and delivered online, we open ourselves up to those unscrupulous customers who would purchase our online courses, go through them quickly and then request a refund or exchange. This is one of the reasons we require that requests for refunds and exchanges be made within 15 days of the purchase. We process these types of requests, without question, if the customer complies with our policy and we would have been more than happy to refund Mr. [redacted]’s purchase price, had he requested it, within the terms of our return/exchange policy. The most frequent requests for exchanges/upgrades are from students who originally purchase the BASIC package because it is less expensive. However, they find out they would prefer to have the printed textbook, so we upgrade the package for them, the same offer I made to Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] says that our Virtual Classroom lectures are valueless and he doesn’t want to waste his time going through them. This statement makes it apparent that he purchased this course believing that it would be a quick and easy process and when he found that he would actually have to study the material, he decided it wasn’t worth his time. If this was his opinion, and he asked for a refund within the 15 day return policy, it would have been granted fully, no questions asked. At this point, Mr. [redacted] refused to use the course he purchased as it was intended, he refused to take the upgrade offer, and he continued to make unreasonable demands. In my e-mail response I recapped his unreasonable demands, made it clear that the options laid out to him were the only options open to him, told him that further bullying on his part would not make a difference and to please stop contacting me about this. He immediately sent yet another email requesting I forward the return policy to him so he can use it to report us to the Revdex.com (his second threat). I informed him that our policy is listed under the Customer Service tab on our website and that further, he had to agree to that policy before he was even permitted to complete the purchase of his course on our website. Additionally, I told him that I looked forward to being able to defend my company’s policies with the Revdex.com, an organization that had already given us an A+ rating. Mr. [redacted] responded yet again, to provide me with part of the complaint he was going to file with the Revdex.com if we didn’t succumb to his demands (his third threat). Then, he proceeded to further malign the instructor who teaches our Virtual Classroom course, saying his voice sounds worse than [redacted]’s and that he adds no additional life or value to the printed materials. This email upset me greatly because he included the instructor on the e-mail and at this point, my patience with Mr. [redacted] had run out. Our instructor has been in the insurance business for more than 40 years and we have numerous companies request that he, personally teach classes to their employees. Further, within the Virtual Classroom, he provides numerous anecdotes from his unparalleled experience in the insurance industry and provides many examples that will assist the student in passing their state insurance licensing exam. We are a small, family-owned company and we consider everyone who works with us as members of our family. The instructor that Mr. [redacted] so maligns is a major reason our company has been so successful and we will simply not tolerate any student who is abusive to someone so important to us. If you review the attached emails, you will see how upset I became and I told Mr. [redacted] that if he did not stop harassing us, I would report him to the ** and ** insurance departments. This was not a “veiled threat” as Mr. [redacted] states in his report to the Revdex.com, I was very forthcoming in what I intended and WILL do. Our company has garnered so much respect in our 28 years of providing insurance education, that the [redacted] Department of Financial Services (the Insurance Department is under their jurisdiction) actually refers questions regarding licensing to us. Many other State Departments of Insurance have reviewed the very Virtual Classroom that Mr. [redacted] feels is terrible, and after doing so, recommend our course products on their websites. There is no other company in the country that has the knowledge regarding state reciprocity of licenses, how to best handle getting multiple licenses, state exam outline topics, and any other possible question that an adjuster or agent would have, than Insurance Schools, Inc. Additionally, the reason we have that knowledge is due to the instructor of the course that Mr. [redacted] so insulted. After I informed Mr. [redacted] that he cc’d the very instructor he insulted, he proceeded to apologize in an email to the instructor (see attached). However, he cc’d my husband and me on this “apology” so that I could see his apology to the instructor while in the very same email he continued to malign me. I find this email very enlightening, because at this point, Mr. [redacted]’s complaint became less about finding an equitable resolution and more about making sure that a woman, a mere “customer service rep.” was put in her place. Complainant’s Accusation 6: The policy of refusing to provide me the ability to print the manuals unless I click through a lecture I’ve decided not to waste my time with is like telling me I must wait in the lobby of the hotel unless I swim in the pool before I am permitted to get to the room I paid for already. These are separate items I purchased and the program description does not indicate otherwise. Insurance Schools Response to Accusation 6: If Mr. [redacted] is going to use such a ridiculous analogy in his complaint, then we will respond. You reserve a room in a hotel and arrive to find that your room, for which you paid a very reasonable rate, is located through the pool area in an inconvenient location. You might ask the front desk clerk what your options might be to receive a room near the front door of the hotel in a more convenient location, saving you the “trouble” of walking all the way to your original room. The desk clerk informs you that you can indeed have the more conveniently located room, but because it is an upgrade, you will need to pay a small additional fee. At this point, you might demand that you be given the better room for the same rate because it wasn’t spelled out to you in words that you understood, that you had to walk so far through the pool area when you booked the room. When the desk clerk refuses to give you the upgraded room at the same price, you may ask for a refund for your original room. However, the desk clerk informs you that to receive a refund, you must cancel 24 hours in advance and because you did not request that refund within the allotted time frame, you are not eligible to receive it. You then proceed to insult the desk clerk, the hotel manager, and even go so far as to send nasty emails to the hotel owner himself if you don’t get what you desire. Then, you might report the hotel to the Revdex.com bureau, claiming that they threatened YOU when they inform you that they will have to call the authorities if you continue to harass them. Complainant’s Desired Settlement: Reduce Revdex.com rating. Reprimand for poor customer service and refusal to provide product/service paid for. Process an exchange of the product I purchased so I may obtain the $99.95 package without the virtual classroom and with the hard-copy textbooks sent to my address below. The refunded balance may be charged back to the credit card I used for the original purchase. Insurance Schools Response to Complainant’s Desired Settlement: Again, very telling that he lists as his top priority in his desired settlement is that my company be given a reduced Revdex.com rating, even though out of thousands of students we have served, he is the only one making allegations against us. Additionally, before he lists anything regarding a resolution, he would like for me, a lowly female “customer service rep.” to be “reprimanded for poor customer service”. This actually shows a complete lack of understanding as to what the role of the Revdex.com entails. The charge that we refused to provide the product/service that he paid for is completely false and I consider it a defamatory statement. Our website DOES NOT say, “If you don’t like the way we provide the product or service, we will change our products in any way that you request simply to keep you from defaming our company.” What we DO provide, is a total refund, “no questions asked” within 15-days of purchase as long as the student has not already used the course. Regarding his request for an exchange and partial refund, at 2 months beyond the purchase of a 6 month course subscription, his only options are to use the course he purchased as it was described and intended OR to purchase the upgrade for $40.00. The upgrade option was made possible to him even though our policy is that we do not allow an upgrade more than 30 days beyond the purchase. (We have not adequately spelled-out the upgrade time limit in our policy and therefore, I made the offer to Mr. [redacted] more than 60 days afterward because it would not be fair to hold him to a policy that we had not adequately explained.)
We are in receipt of Mr. [redacted]’s response to our original rebuttal and find that he is simply, once again, seeking resolution by restating the same complaint and the same resolution that we have already proven were not promised to him. We offered him the upgrade to the textbook, which he has declined numerous times and now he has wasted almost three of the six months of the course that remains open to him. The remaining components of his course are going to expire on June 9th; therefore resolution in one way or another should be reached as soon as possible. We would like to respectfully request that the Revdex.com recognize this as our final response and use the information already provided (see out February 15, 2015 email below) to make a decision regarding Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. In our original rebuttal, we attached all of the original e-mails showing that Mr. [redacted]’s assertion that we have unilaterally threatened and called him names is a lie. We have stated our policies regarding returns, exchanges, and upgrades and shown that Mr. [redacted] agreed to those policies when he made the purchase. We have shown that Mr. [redacted]’s charge that we did not deliver the product / service promised is also completely false. Mr. [redacted] made several “assumptions” regarding how our course was delivered. He “assumed” he could download the .mp3 audio files, he also “assumed” he could download the textbook in one single .pdf file. Those “assumed” delivery methods were not promised in our product description. However, if Mr. [redacted] would have accessed the course, discovered that his assumptions were incorrect, and made a request for a full refund, an exchange, or an upgrade within 15-days, he would have been granted one...no questions asked. However, he waited for (more than) 2 months into his 6 month course, and then began making demands as to how we were going to deliver the course to him. Due to constant changes in state licensing exams, state laws, federal laws, and insurance coverages, our course materials are updated frequently so any one course purchased by a student is good for six months only. Therefore, making refunds, exchanges, upgrades within 15-days is imperative to keep all course components on the same expiration date and to be sure the content is current. This is the reason we have a 15-day exchange policy. Mr. [redacted]’s assertion that he shouldn’t be bound to a 15-day return policy because he had nothing “physical” to return is just silly. Almost every product we sell is delivered online, therefore why would he assume our return policy would only apply to a “physical” product? Mr. [redacted] has made several “assumptions” and is now trying to force our company to change our policies and deliver our products in ways that were not advertised or promised to him. These are the same policies that thousands of other students find perfectly acceptable. We are a small and extremely busy company, dealing with thousands of students at any given time. Our company has grown every year since its inception and has almost doubled in sales within the last year alone. We have very few complaints, and this is the first one filed with the Revdex.com in 27 years of business. We have sold the very same course that Mr. [redacted] purchased to hundreds of other students, who read the very same product description, did not make the same assumptions as Mr. [redacted] made regarding course delivery, and finished the course without issue. We would also be very happy to provide those student numbers if the Revdex.com would like to see them. Again, please accept this as our final statement regarding this issue as we need to focus our attentions on the students who are actively using their courses. The only resolution we find acceptable is the upgrade that we offered to Mr. [redacted] and that he has repeated declined. We respectfully defer to the decision made by the Revdex.com regarding this issue and will await a final decision.
[redacted], President & CEO
Hello Canton Revdex.com,
We are in...
receipt of the Revdex.com complaint issued last night, Sunday April 12th, 2015. I have taken each of Ms. [redacted] statements (exactly as she writes them, typos included) and her desired settlement and responded point-by-point below. Ms. [redacted] - "I have purchased several on line insurance courses and insurance exams from this business. Each course is over one hundred and fifty dollars." Our response - Ms. [redacted] has purchased "exam preparation" items from us. The dates and prices are listed below: 5/5/2013 - exam simulator for California Independent Adjuster for $49.95 9/14/2014 - textbook/exam simulator for Arkansas Adjuster for $129.95 9/15/2014 - Virtual Classroom Basic Package for Arizona Adjuster for $159.9510/05/2014 - NY Independent Law Digest and Simulator for NY Adjuster for $81.5010/11/2014 - Hawaii Adjuster exam simulator for $49.95 3/28/2015 - we are back to California Independent Adjuster again for $189.95.
This is a grand total of $661.25 over a period of two years. Ms. [redacted] - "On Sunday, April 12th, 2015 a notice appears on there website that states the web site will be down on April 14th, 2015. This provides the user with ONLY TWO DAYS NOTICE. I have scheduled and paid for an insurance exam on thursday April 16th, 2015 and I only have this week to study." Our response - The notice of the upcoming outage was posted on the website Friday, April 10th. Additionally, Ms. [redacted] sent me an e-mail on Sunday, April 12th demanding that we re-schedule our website maintenance because she had her Hawaii exam scheduled for Thursday the 16th of April. Each student has 26 weeks to use their purchased courses/simulators. She purchased her Hawaii simulator on October 11th, 2014 so her statement that she only has Tuesday, April 14th to study when she has had the entire six months prior to April 14th is ridiculous. Additionally, she would not have had access to her Hawaii Adjuster exam simulator on Tuesday, April 14th anyway because it expired yesterday (two days before the scheduled outage). This point alone makes this complaint null and void. Ms. [redacted] - "This exam and these courses are extremely expensive and I have spent hundreds of dollars on several courses. when I emailed the school to explain that two days notice was not sufficient, I was told by [redacted] to study other days. First of all my exam is Thursday so that is not an option and I have taken off from work on Tuesday to study all day. I am not able to take off any other day. More importantly, two days notice to shut down a website that people have paid alot of money for is irresponsible and a very poor business practice." Our response - Again, the notice was there two days BEFORE Ms. [redacted] logged on to see it. Additionally, she took off work to study the Hawaii exam simulator that would have been expired for two days prior to her planned day off to study. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me. I'm sure Ms. [redacted] can come up with various and sundry reasons why she didn't study from October to April, but to reschedule our desperately needed website upgrade because Ms. [redacted] has waited until the last moment to study seems a bit unreasonable. If this upgrade is not performed soon, the entire website will go down and then several thousand other students will be without their courses. I explained this to Ms. [redacted], but she doesn't seem to care how this might affect anyone else. Ms. [redacted] - "Furthermore, if your state exam is scheduled you need access to the website. These changes to the website should be made overnight or at the very least provide TWO WEEKS NOTICE, NOT TWO DAYS!! THe way this was handled was very unprofessional and I am demanding all of my money be returned for every course I have ordered. I will never use this service again." Our response - First of all, WE asked Ms. [redacted] to please never use our service again. We have been doing business on the internet for 14 years and in that time, we have never scheduled an outage. This is the reason that it is imperative that we schedule it now. Ms. [redacted] definition of our "unprofessional" response to her demands is that we didn't reschedule an entire team of programmers because she waited until the last minute to study. Again, the exam simulator she is disputing that we are keeping her from using, is already expired and she couldn't have used it on Tuesday anyway. The only course that she ordered that has not already expired is the California course she purchased for $189.95 and I REFUNDED that course in its entirely last night at the same time that I asked her to please take her business elsewhere in the future. (Interesting that she didn't include that in her complaint.) Ms. [redacted] has been a very demanding and impossible-to-please customer since from the beginning. This isn't the first or second time we have dealt with her complaints and impossible demands. Therefore, after her unreasonable demands last evening, we decided it would be prudent to refund the only course that has not expired (even though she has already used it several times) and allow her to find another training company that could better meet her needs. Ms. [redacted] Desired Settlement: "I want the website repairs to be scheduled for two weeks from April 12, 2015 and to provide the consumer with at least two weeks notice. Furthermore, I want a full refund for all of my courses in the amount of $249.75 for 5 exams ordered and $569.85 for three courses ordered. Total owed is $819.60" Our Desired Settlement: Ms. [redacted] doesn't decide when our website needs to repaired and her implication that the Revdex.com can somehow force our company to alter the way we do business shows her complete lack of understanding as to the services that the Revdex.com provides to consumers. As far as refunding her previous courses that have already expired and that she already used to prepare for other state licensing exams is ridiculous. She paid for those services and we provided them. Our scheduled website outage tomorrow has nothing to do with previous services and shouldn't even be included in this complaint. Again, the only course that Ms. [redacted] still had that was active on our website, was refunded last night before she requested a refund. After she was told that her course was refunded and to go elsewhere for future training, she demanded that I refund all of the courses she has ever purchased, again totally irrelevant to the outage issue and completely unreasonable. As for the total amount Ms. [redacted] came up with for the courses she has previously purchased, I have listed her purchased courses and the amounts that she paid above. These courses total $661.25, not $819.60 as Ms. [redacted] submits, and after deducting the $189.95 that I already refunded last night, the total comes to: $471.30. Not only has Ms. [redacted] submitted a frivolous complaint, she has also submitted statements that are untrue. One other point...the notice regarding our website outage has been up since Friday and Ms. [redacted] is the only customer out of thousands to complain. Most people understand that maintaining a website is extremely important in order to continue serving our clients in the best way possible. We are extremely busy with the upgrade of our website so that we can serve thousands of other students who don't waste our time with unreasonable demands. We are submitting this response to the Revdex.com as our first and our final response. We have refunded any current courses to Ms. [redacted] and respectfully asked her to find another source for her courses in the future. We do not intend to rebut any further arguments from her and respectfully ask that the Revdex.com make their decision regarding this complaint and our rating based on the above response. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Insurance Schools, Inc.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the second response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. The back and forth is getting to be a bit much and the dispute should be fully submitted.Mr. [redacted] has now entered the dispute discussion - writing in the same style as Ms. [redacted] – but adds nothing to the conversation and assuch his response should be disregarded. The name calling by Insurance Schools, Inc. continues as I am called a liar rather than the matter simply being handled in a civil manner withrecognition that not everything is absolute or black and white. Normally, I would disregard an ancillary issue like name calling at this point but I take umbrage to having my integrity impugned. The e-mails submitted to the Revdex.com do reflect Ms. [redacted] called me “bratty”, “entitled”, told me to “wise-up” intimating that I am dumb and provided unsolicited study advice in an extremely condescending manner in part to redirect the conversation without regard to her ignorance of my own background including various advanced degrees, professional licenses and certifications for which I studied hard and obtained each on the first try.Nevertheless, the fact remains that Insurance Schools, Inc. has the power to provide me the ability to print the materials I purchased but continues to refuse by insisting on conditions restricting my access although those conditions were never stated in the program description.It remains perfectly reasonable to believe that no conditions would exist restricting access to my ability to print materials I purchased sinceno conditions, express or implied, were stated.Insurance Schools, Inc. should not be permitted to stand behind conditions that were not stated at time of purchase and offer only refusal to provide what was purchased without condition or hold my receipt of such materials hostage to a demand of an extra $40.Shame on Insurance Schools, Inc. for such unprofessional and abusive conduct but in Ms. [redacted]’s own words she described herself in e-mail bysaying, “I am rude and discourteous”, so I should not be surprised.I trust the Revdex.com will do what is right and I offer my appreciation for all the hard work in serving such an important consumerprotection function.
Regards, [redacted]
Complaint ID: [redacted] ([redacted])
face="Times New Roman">Complainant Accusation 1: Business refused to provide product / service purchased. Insurance School’s Reply to Accusation 1: This is a completely false statement The customer purchased a Virtual Classroom BASIC package. This package includes a course presentation with exam simulator, delivered ONLINE and can be accessed from any computer with an internet connection 24/7. It includes the text materials, in .pdf format, along with the course presentation. The complainant, an employee [redacted], a division of [redacted] Insurance Company, made his purchase on December 9, 2014 at 7:55am EST. At 11:30am that same morning (December 9, 2014) I received an e-mail from Mr. [redacted] asking that I send him our lecture files in .mp3 format so he could download them to his iPod and not waste time on his computer. This is not the way the course is advertised or delivered. I don’t even have the capability to send more than 40 hours of .mp3 audio files nor would I send our proprietary information to a customer to download and use/share at will. As you can see from the attached original e-mail from Mr. [redacted] and my reply to him, he did not request a refund or exchange at that time, and I informed him that what he was requesting was not possible. I did not hear from Mr. [redacted] again until February 11, 2015 (more than 2 months later).
Complainant’s Accusation 2: Return / Refund policy cited is further inapplicable. Request for exchange was refused. Insurance Schools Reply to Complaint 2: I’m confused…our return / refund policy is inapplicable because Mr. [redacted] says so? Our return policy is clearly listed under the Customer Service tab at the top right side of our homepage. Additionally, this same policy is listed, and the customer must click a checkbox to agree to it, before being permitted to complete the ordering process. The very first bullet point in our return policy states that ALL RETURNS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF PURCHASE. As you can see, in the attached email from Mr. [redacted] dated December 9, 2014, Mr. [redacted] did not ask for a refund at the time. Had he asked for a refund in that e-mail or any other e-mail sent to me from December 9th through December 24, 2014 (our 15 day return policy period for his order), he would have been granted one --- no questions asked.However, we did not hear from Mr. [redacted] again until February 11, 2015, well beyond the 15-days required by the policy. At 5:36 PM eastern time on February 11, 2015, I received another e-mail from Mr. [redacted] requesting that I send him his textbook in one downloadable .pdf file so that he doesn't have to actually go through the Virtual Classroom he purchased and download the files as he goes through the course. Mr. [redacted] bought the BASIC VIRTUAL CLASSROOM package, which includes the textbook in .pdf as you move through the course. Nowhere in the product description do we say it is delivered in a single downloadable file outside the Virtual Classroom course. It is delivered as part of the Virtual Classroom course. As with the .mp3 files, we do not deliver our proprietary material in a format that would allow students to share that material freely with others in their offices who are also taking the course. At this point, I informed Mr. [redacted] that his options were to move through the Virtual Classroom course and print his textbook as he goes through the course, OR for an additional $40.00 fee, he could upgrade and we would ship him a printed and bound textbook.. Complainant’s Accusation 3: Customer service was admittedly rude, discourteous and made veiled threats of making complaints to various state insurance department connections. My e-mails to customer service were professional, courteous and did not warrant such poor treatment. Insurance School’s Reply to Complaint 3: As you can see from the attached e-mail string, Mr. [redacted] is not only lying about the tone of my email replies to this point, but he also misrepresents his own tone. He also completely ignores my suggestions on how to use the course package he purchased, or to upgrade if he needs the textbook in one file. Additionally, he says our Virtual Classroom course is “terrible” and he doesn’t intend to use it. He then demands that I refund his purchase of more than two months ago (well beyond the time limit for a refund as set and agreed to during the purchasing process by Mr. [redacted]), send him a different course package, and refund the difference. When I informed him that he was well beyond the time limit for a refund/exchange, he threatens to defame my company throughout his corporate network. I find it very interesting that Mr. [redacted] is the one making threats, yet he describes himself as being nothing but professional and courteous, while accuses me of making threats! I do not feel that threatening the defamation of my company is professional or courteous. Mr. [redacted] also makes the accusation that our refund policy is not posted on our website, which is completely untrue. It is posted on the Customer Service tab and has been for the last 14 years. Additionally, our policy is included in the Terms of Use that each customer must agree to before checking out of our shopping cart. We put our return policies on our website, we even force customers to check a box that they have read those policies before being permitted to make a purchase, but we can't make our customer read it. We did everything possible to make sure Mr. [redacted] understood this refund policy BEFORE he placed his order. The consumer must take some responsibility for reading those policies. Please refer to the attached email string where you can clearly see that Mr. [redacted] is the making threats. [redacted], Mr. [redacted]’s company, has been doing business with Insurance Schools, Inc. for more than 14 years. We not only provide online courses to their employees (more than 79 online course purchases by [redacted] since January 1, 2015 alone), we also travel all over the country to their many satellite offices and provide on-site classroom training. We have never had a complaint from the thousands of [redacted] students for whom we have provided training, until today. I assume Mr. [redacted] felt that this threat to our longstanding relationship with [redacted] would bully us into meeting his unreasonable demands. Complainant’s Accusation 4: Customer service rep., [redacted], identified herself as owner. Insurance Schools Reply to Complaint 4: It is quite interesting that one of Mr. [redacted]’s complaints is that “customer service rep” [redacted], identified herself as owner, as if being a “customer service rep.” is somehow reprehensible. Additionally, when Mr. [redacted] wrote the threatening e-mail, he found the names and e-mail addresses of two men listed on our website and began including them in our email exchanges. Apparently, he thought this was a way to report me to my superiors and they would force me to give him what he didn’t purchase. The two e-mail addresses he included were my husband and the instructor of the course. Unfortunately, as a woman, occasionally I still encounter those men who feel that if they “report” us to a male supervisor, they can avoid dealing with women whose position is [redacted]eath their higher station. My husband and I own and run this company, practically 24/7, and we provide training for all of the Top 10 insurance carriers in the United States. We provide the exact same training that Mr. [redacted] finds so intolerable, to State Farm, Allstate, Geico, Travelers, Nationwide, AIG, and far too many other companies to list. I’m sorry to inform Mr. [redacted], but I am not a lowly customer service rep that he can run roughshod over simply because he feels entitled to do so. No one from any of these other insurance companies has ever reported us to the Revdex.com because there has never been a need to do so. Complainant’s Accusation 5: The description of the program I purchased reads: PROGRAM INCLUDES: Immediate 24/7 online access to the audio presentation of the instructor teaching the course, the [redacted] All-Lines EXCEPT Workers Compensation Adjuster textbook and state adjuster law manual in .PDF file format (you print the manuals) and online access to our 800 online practice exam simulator pre questions. Excerpt of my e-mail correspondences: All I want is the ability to print the manuals I purchased and then to take the practice exams. I described the audio presentation as terrible for various reasons: the narrator sounds worse than [redacted] and add no life or additional value to the printed material; requires constant repetitive mouse clicks to proceed with the lecture rather than allowing one to listen as the lecture plays through; and the materials I purchased to print are embedded in the lecture so therefore inaccessible unless I waste the time clicking through the valueless lectures, etc. Insurance Schools Response to Accusation 5: Mr. [redacted] says that all he wants is the ability to print the manuals he purchased and take the practice exams. He HAS the ability to print those manuals if he simply uses the course. From the moment of purchase he had (AND STILL HAS), the ability to take the practice exams. Additionally, he claims he should get a refund / exchange because he has hardly accessed the course beyond the first couple of course screens, but then proceeds to critique an entire 40-hour course. He claims our instructor “adds no life or additional value to the printed material”, how would he know if he only accessed the first few screens of a course that consists of several thousand screens? As a company whose products are digital and delivered online, we open ourselves up to those unscrupulous customers who would purchase our online courses, go through them quickly and then request a refund or exchange. This is one of the reasons we require that requests for refunds and exchanges be made within 15 days of the purchase. We process these types of requests, without question, if the customer complies with our policy and we would have been more than happy to refund Mr. [redacted]’s purchase price, had he requested it, within the terms of our return/exchange policy. The most frequent requests for exchanges/upgrades are from students who originally purchase the BASIC package because it is less expensive. However, they find out they would prefer to have the printed textbook, so we upgrade the package for them, the same offer I made to Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] says that our Virtual Classroom lectures are valueless and he doesn’t want to waste his time going through them. This statement makes it apparent that he purchased this course believing that it would be a quick and easy process and when he found that he would actually have to study the material, he decided it wasn’t worth his time. If this was his opinion, and he asked for a refund within the 15 day return policy, it would have been granted fully, no questions asked. At this point, Mr. [redacted] refused to use the course he purchased as it was intended, he refused to take the upgrade offer, and he continued to make unreasonable demands. In my e-mail response I recapped his unreasonable demands, made it clear that the options laid out to him were the only options open to him, told him that further bullying on his part would not make a difference and to please stop contacting me about this. He immediately sent yet another email requesting I forward the return policy to him so he can use it to report us to the Revdex.com (his second threat). I informed him that our policy is listed under the Customer Service tab on our website and that further, he had to agree to that policy before he was even permitted to complete the purchase of his course on our website. Additionally, I told him that I looked forward to being able to defend my company’s policies with the Revdex.com, an organization that had already given us an A+ rating. Mr. [redacted] responded yet again, to provide me with part of the complaint he was going to file with the Revdex.com if we didn’t succumb to his demands (his third threat). Then, he proceeded to further malign the instructor who teaches our Virtual Classroom course, saying his voice sounds worse than [redacted]’s and that he adds no additional life or value to the printed materials. This email upset me greatly because he included the instructor on the e-mail and at this point, my patience with Mr. [redacted] had run out. Our instructor has been in the insurance business for more than 40 years and we have numerous companies request that he, personally teach classes to their employees. Further, within the Virtual Classroom, he provides numerous anecdotes from his unparalleled experience in the insurance industry and provides many examples that will assist the student in passing their state insurance licensing exam. We are a small, family-owned company and we consider everyone who works with us as members of our family. The instructor that Mr. [redacted] so maligns is a major reason our company has been so successful and we will simply not tolerate any student who is abusive to someone so important to us. If you review the attached emails, you will see how upset I became and I told Mr. [redacted] that if he did not stop harassing us, I would report him to the ** and ** insurance departments. This was not a “veiled threat” as Mr. [redacted] states in his report to the Revdex.com, I was very forthcoming in what I intended and WILL do. Our company has garnered so much respect in our 28 years of providing insurance education, that the [redacted] Department of Financial Services (the Insurance Department is under their jurisdiction) actually refers questions regarding licensing to us. Many other State Departments of Insurance have reviewed the very Virtual Classroom that Mr. [redacted] feels is terrible, and after doing so, recommend our course products on their websites. There is no other company in the country that has the knowledge regarding state reciprocity of licenses, how to best handle getting multiple licenses, state exam outline topics, and any other possible question that an adjuster or agent would have, than Insurance Schools, Inc. Additionally, the reason we have that knowledge is due to the instructor of the course that Mr. [redacted] so insulted. After I informed Mr. [redacted] that he cc’d the very instructor he insulted, he proceeded to apologize in an email to the instructor (see attached). However, he cc’d my husband and me on this “apology” so that I could see his apology to the instructor while in the very same email he continued to malign me. I find this email very enlightening, because at this point, Mr. [redacted]’s complaint became less about finding an equitable resolution and more about making sure that a woman, a mere “customer service rep.” was put in her place. Complainant’s Accusation 6: The policy of refusing to provide me the ability to print the manuals unless I click through a lecture I’ve decided not to waste my time with is like telling me I must wait in the lobby of the hotel unless I swim in the pool before I am permitted to get to the room I paid for already. These are separate items I purchased and the program description does not indicate otherwise. Insurance Schools Response to Accusation 6: If Mr. [redacted] is going to use such a ridiculous analogy in his complaint, then we will respond. You reserve a room in a hotel and arrive to find that your room, for which you paid a very reasonable rate, is located through the pool area in an inconvenient location. You might ask the front desk clerk what your options might be to receive a room near the front door of the hotel in a more convenient location, saving you the “trouble” of walking all the way to your original room. The desk clerk informs you that you can indeed have the more conveniently located room, but because it is an upgrade, you will need to pay a small additional fee. At this point, you might demand that you be given the better room for the same rate because it wasn’t spelled out to you in words that you understood, that you had to walk so far through the pool area when you booked the room. When the desk clerk refuses to give you the upgraded room at the same price, you may ask for a refund for your original room. However, the desk clerk informs you that to receive a refund, you must cancel 24 hours in advance and because you did not request that refund within the allotted time frame, you are not eligible to receive it. You then proceed to insult the desk clerk, the hotel manager, and even go so far as to send nasty emails to the hotel owner himself if you don’t get what you desire. Then, you might report the hotel to the Revdex.com bureau, claiming that they threatened YOU when they inform you that they will have to call the authorities if you continue to harass them. Complainant’s Desired Settlement: Reduce Revdex.com rating. Reprimand for poor customer service and refusal to provide product/service paid for. Process an exchange of the product I purchased so I may obtain the $99.95 package without the virtual classroom and with the hard-copy textbooks sent to my address below. The refunded balance may be charged back to the credit card I used for the original purchase. Insurance Schools Response to Complainant’s Desired Settlement: Again, very telling that he lists as his top priority in his desired settlement is that my company be given a reduced Revdex.com rating, even though out of thousands of students we have served, he is the only one making allegations against us. Additionally, before he lists anything regarding a resolution, he would like for me, a lowly female “customer service rep.” to be “reprimanded for poor customer service”. This actually shows a complete lack of understanding as to what the role of the Revdex.com entails. The charge that we refused to provide the product/service that he paid for is completely false and I consider it a defamatory statement. Our website DOES NOT say, “If you don’t like the way we provide the product or service, we will change our products in any way that you request simply to keep you from defaming our company.” What we DO provide, is a total refund, “no questions asked” within 15-days of purchase as long as the student has not already used the course. Regarding his request for an exchange and partial refund, at 2 months beyond the purchase of a 6 month course subscription, his only options are to use the course he purchased as it was described and intended OR to purchase the upgrade for $40.00. The upgrade option was made possible to him even though our policy is that we do not allow an upgrade more than 30 days beyond the purchase. (We have not adequately spelled-out the upgrade time limit in our policy and therefore, I made the offer to Mr. [redacted] more than 60 days afterward because it would not be fair to hold him to a policy that we had not adequately explained.)
We are in receipt of Mr. [redacted]’s response to our original rebuttal and find that he is simply, once again, seeking resolution by restating the same complaint and the same resolution that we have already proven were not promised to him. We offered him the upgrade to the textbook, which he has declined numerous times and now he has wasted almost three of the six months of the course that remains open to him. The remaining components of his course are going to expire on June 9th; therefore resolution in one way or another should be reached as soon as possible. We would like to respectfully request that the Revdex.com recognize this as our final response and use the information already provided (see out February 15, 2015 email below) to make a decision regarding Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. In our original rebuttal, we attached all of the original e-mails showing that Mr. [redacted]’s assertion that we have unilaterally threatened and called him names is a lie. We have stated our policies regarding returns, exchanges, and upgrades and shown that Mr. [redacted] agreed to those policies when he made the purchase. We have shown that Mr. [redacted]’s charge that we did not deliver the product / service promised is also completely false. Mr. [redacted] made several “assumptions” regarding how our course was delivered. He “assumed” he could download the .mp3 audio files, he also “assumed” he could download the textbook in one single .pdf file. Those “assumed” delivery methods were not promised in our product description. However, if Mr. [redacted] would have accessed the course, discovered that his assumptions were incorrect, and made a request for a full refund, an exchange, or an upgrade within 15-days, he would have been granted one...no questions asked. However, he waited for (more than) 2 months into his 6 month course, and then began making demands as to how we were going to deliver the course to him. Due to constant changes in state licensing exams, state laws, federal laws, and insurance coverages, our course materials are updated frequently so any one course purchased by a student is good for six months only. Therefore, making refunds, exchanges, upgrades within 15-days is imperative to keep all course components on the same expiration date and to be sure the content is current. This is the reason we have a 15-day exchange policy. Mr. [redacted]’s assertion that he shouldn’t be bound to a 15-day return policy because he had nothing “physical” to return is just silly. Almost every product we sell is delivered online, therefore why would he assume our return policy would only apply to a “physical” product? Mr. [redacted] has made several “assumptions” and is now trying to force our company to change our policies and deliver our products in ways that were not advertised or promised to him. These are the same policies that thousands of other students find perfectly acceptable. We are a small and extremely busy company, dealing with thousands of students at any given time. Our company has grown every year since its inception and has almost doubled in sales within the last year alone. We have very few complaints, and this is the first one filed with the Revdex.com in 27 years of business. We have sold the very same course that Mr. [redacted] purchased to hundreds of other students, who read the very same product description, did not make the same assumptions as Mr. [redacted] made regarding course delivery, and finished the course without issue. We would also be very happy to provide those student numbers if the Revdex.com would like to see them. Again, please accept this as our final statement regarding this issue as we need to focus our attentions on the students who are actively using their courses. The only resolution we find acceptable is the upgrade that we offered to Mr. [redacted] and that he has repeated declined. We respectfully defer to the decision made by the Revdex.com regarding this issue and will await a final decision.
[redacted], President & CEO