Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: It was a $bonus and *** of *** told me it was $per showing after the $and $bonusOn my assignment list it said $+ screens, I did not accept $bonusThis company is a total SCAM ARTIST and I will be sure to tell anyone even remotely interested in doing businessI've asked multiple representatives to explain the payment to me and they never said it was $per screenThey all said $per showing and they can listen to my recordings with each individualThis company promises one thing, makes you fill out your OWN invoice then tells you this *** after they "pay you! I see why no one does this st for them and I am still in talks with my lawyer over what our next move is, because it's companies like this that need to be addressed by a judge in order to Gove someone what they PROMISED ON THE PHONE IN MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS! Sincerely,
*** ***
The Complainant acknowledges that somehow when she was entering her shop data into her report the name of one of the employees was misspelled. The mystery shopper has an obligation to review her report data prior to hitting the Submit button so that any mistakes made by her are caught then and
she can correct them. If they are caught by us or the Client, as they were in this case, the shopper risks having her shop be invalidated. Usually by the time the Client or we discover a mistake in a shop, it is too late to pull it back because the shop is put out for reassignment immediately to be done by another Shopper following an invalidation so that we can meet our contractual obligations with our Clients. An uncaught mistake also calls into question whether other mistakes were made in the report that the shopper’s foregoing of the very crucial step of checking her work might have revealed. We will not be offering this shopper any more assignments and in return we will pay her the sum requested
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Although I disagree with MFI's response and it doesn't match what was said in original email communication, I am happy with this resolution as long as I am paid in time in April
Sincerely,
*** ***
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/08/10) */
This *** (XXXXXXX) indeed completed an assignment for us on the weekend of June 7thShe only returned partial paperwork which has held up her payment
She was contacted on 7/via email and then again on 7/when she submitted a pay inquiry
We're happy to process her payment; however, we need the completed paperwork
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/08/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I would like a copy of the original email that was sent on the dates of July and July 23, that requests missing paperworkI'm requesting the senders email the request came fromOnce I receive it, I will check with my provider to find out if those emails were actually received from my providerI have been contacting them prior to those dates inquiring about payment and was informed that they get tons of mail and if it wasn't received I would have been contactedNo one ever contacted me until I filed this complaintII will contact my internet provider on the dates they claimed to have emailed me directly on the dates of the incompletely materialsWhen I called to inquire no one at their company could tell me what was missingAs of August 11, 2015, no one has contacted me to tell me what they were missing in detailWhy would I pay to send incomplete documents? I worked days and I'm not being compensatedI will get justice one way or anotherIt's quite obvious this company has no intention on paying meI guess you take a chance when working with companies that take advantage of people who want to make some extra moneyI never imagined this could happen to mePeople need to know about this company and how their employees are negligent in how they handle paperwork
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/08/17) */
*** was contacted regarding her incomplete paperwork via email at 5:pm EST on July 7thIn addition, she was in contact with our online payment inquiry department on July 22nd and she spoke with our help desk via a phone conversation on July 23rd; both instances were in regards to the incomplete paperwork
We are reimbursing her for this assignment
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 16, 2015/08/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Mr*** did assign himself this shop. Part of the guidelines stipulated that if he were not given napkins as part of his order, he needed to bring it to the attention of the employee so as to evaluate their ability to ‘make it right’, a very important issue for the Client. Mr***
did ask for napkins, but for an unclear reason did not wait to have the employee give him the napkins. Instead, he drove off apparently upset that he had to wait for his receipt and was not going to wait for napkins. Since the guideline referring to allowing the location a chance to 'make it right' was not followed, the shop had to be invalidated It was Mr***'s choice to either wait for the napkins or not and he chose not to wait.We have no idea why he and the employee were engaged in a four-minute stare down when Mr*** requested his receiptMr*** is incorrect in what he says about keeping his identity as a mystery shopper on an equal or higher footing than the guidelines for each shop. He is also incorrect in saying that he would not be paid for the shop if he were to be identified. This was explicitly addressed and explained to him in the lengthy email conversation that Help Desk had with him that he would still get paid if he were identifiedFor resolution purposes we have already informed Mr*** earlier this week that we would pay him for his shop even though the shop was not done correctly and we were unable to submit his report to the Client for payment. After the email exchanges, we deactivated Mr***’s account because of the profanity he used when communicating with the Help Desk so we will be unable to offer him any further shops
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/04) */
Please see attached explanationWe have checked all our systems and find no evidence of a systemic error, but would like to consider any documentation the shopper can offer to support his claim
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10,
2015/06/19) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The documentation requested by Market Force Information does not exist in hard copyI used the electronic documentation provided by market force in completing the project for which I was not paidThe error in this electronic information was a mistake on tghe part of Market Force InformationAfter the project, this information is not retrievable by me
I have complied with the Complainant’s request for expanded information on her earnings for 2017. I was out of the office for a week and I told the Complainant that I appreciated her patience while I got the information together for her.The Complainant is requesting that we treat all Shoppers better and that we restore her shopper status. We regret that she feels we did not treat her with respect and kindness and that we tried extensively to point out where the error had occurred in uploading the same images to two reports.As far as restoring her shopper status, this is an Independent Contractor relationship and we are under no obligation to continue offering her new assignments, any more than a Shopper is obligated to keep taking assignments if they no longer want to
We need to have a phone number to contact our Independent Contractors should the need arise. If an IC deletes his phone number from his account or his phone is disconnected, we have to deactivate his account until the IC supplies us with a phone number. As to using blocked numbers, many
of our Schedulers work from their homes and are required to block their phone numbers when calling an IC. While we are deeply appreciative of Mr***’s concern about being contacted by a scammer, we cannot give out our home phone numbers. This was explained to Mr*** and we even put a restriction on his account so that Schedulers would not call him with shop offers, but he chose not to provide us with a phone numberThat is his right, but it is also our right not to offer him any more shopsWhen Mr*** failed to upload a receipt into his report for a shop he did over miles from his home, we had to deactivate his account temporarily until he provided us with the receipt. We notified him of this. He was unable to provide us with that receipt, but we reinstated his account as a one-time courtesy as this was the first time he had failed to submit a receipt for a shop done far from his homeIn an Independent Contractor relationship, either party is free to engage in the relationship or notWe cannot force Mr*** to do shops and we are not required to offer him assignments. We have opted not to continue this relationship
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/11/02) */
After reviewing the information associated with this situation, we agree that we did not handle this specific case in the best manner possibleThe additional image provided by the shopper should have been reviewed and compared to other
receipts submitted for previous shops at that locationThat has now been done and we've verified the receipt appears validWe apologize for the handling of this situation and have reinstated the shopper's account with us
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2015/11/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I had several shops scheduled that were cancelled and or stripped from me as a result of this mishandlingI believe that I should be compensated for the shops that were suddenly taken from me/disappeared from my accountAdditionally, I completed a Publix shop the night before (someone contacted me from MarketForce and assigned) that was $plus shopper reimbursement of $I was unable to log this information and complete this shop online due to my account being suddenly deactivated
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/11/19) */
The account was reinstated on 10/26/Previous communications did not mention the issue with the shop that was unable to be reported as a result of the account deactivationPayment has been authorized for this shop in the amount of $*** XXXXXXXX)
When reviewing shop reports, receipts are reviewed as wellReceipts help to verify the shopper went to the correct location and performed the shop as requestedUnfortunately not all shoppers are honest and will alter their receipt in some way to hide evidence of performing the shop incorrectlyThe receipt initially submitted for assignment XXXXXXXX looked altered as if information was cut and pastedOnce the subsequent image was provided and reviewed, which was different than the original image, it showed it was not altered and the account was re-instated
This action might seem extreme but our reputation is based squarely on the integrity of the data our shoppers collectIf there is potential evidence calling that integrity into question, immediate action is taken to prevent further issues
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 16, 2015/11/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
There shouldn't be any accusations for shoppers or anyone without the proper factsThe extreme measure taken by this company is a direct reflection of the poor judgment of character usedMy initial complaint indicated that I would like to have the shops that were yanked from me replacedSince that was not done then of course I am going to bring up the shop that was completed but no longer appeared in my boxThis company won't last very long using a "defensive" response instead of a tactical and apologetic response to mattersSo long as the payment of $is included as promised in this company's response, I will consider this matter closed
The Customer’s statement of facts is substantially correct. He inquired why he was not being offered any more telephone shops and we replied that after reviewing this Shopper’s shop history using several different historical reports with regard to his past assignments, we would not be able to
offer him any more telephone shops. We regularly do this analysis with all our Shoppers and all their reports in our continuing efforts to assure that our Clients are being provided the most objective evaluations possible. If we discover any anomalies, we will take the action to restrict the Shopper from that particular type of shop, either temporarily or permanently. His reply to our explanation was: “Thank you for the informationI'll be forwarding the information to federal authorities for review.” As a follto that, the Customer later sent this email: “YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED I AM FILING A FEDERAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU FOR VIOLATION OF AMERICAN EMPLOYMENT LAWS AND FOR RETALIATION AGAINST ME.” In an Independent Contractor relationship, such as this is, either party is free to offer or accept assignments without explanation or punitive action. We cannot force any of our Shoppers to take any or all of the shops that we offer them; nor can a Shopper force us to offer him certain shops or even any at all. Additionally, when a Shopper says that he is bringing in federal authorities, we will discontinue offering him any more assignments because that type of attitude and action is counterproductive to maintaining a business relationship. He is free to take whatever action he wants, but we are free not to offer him any further assignments
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: I did not do or say anything to jeopardize the integrity of mystery shopping for this companyThe only issue that can closely resemble being red flagged was providing honest feedback to the company's own survey regarding their own mystery shopping standardsTherefore, if honesty is detrimental to answering their own questionnaire, then so be it
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I've tried to inform the business that answering the question that was asked of was confusing, and gave an answer in order to submit the questionnaireHere are some emails that I've messaged the business to inform them of this issueMy main problem is that I wasn't given the opportunity to clarify like I was in past shopsSince I was recorded on surveillance video during the shop, they would of seen what my response was to what actually happened doesn't match, and the business should of realized thatThis should of been reviewed, and asked why I've answered the confusing question wrongI don't feel this business realized this, and so why I'm here continue to file my complaint with Revdex.comIn case the attach file doesn't open, I copied and pasted it below
Sincerely,
*** ***Well if that is the case, than why wasn't I given the chance to clarify my answer before it was considered a invalid shop? A few times in the past I've received emails on previous shops, and was asked to clarify my answersI don't believe this is right, and that your not understanding this, so if this is the way how things are done, than I no longer want to waste my time on these shopsThank you for wasting my effort to help your businesses as well as mineI've copied and pasted some of those past emails in case yours was deleted or forgotten. (Email to clarify #1)*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***FEB 20, | 09:23AM EST *** replied:Good morning ***:We are showing you resubmitted the report a few minutes agoIt was placed back on your list as incomplete by our auditors who e-mailed you the following:Hi, You left no comments for the Customer Service section, but later wrote, “Customer service employee *** really made me angry on how he treated to help me.” Please explain your interaction with *** in detail. Thank you***
*** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** (Email to clarify #2) This e-mail is from the Quality Control Department at Market Force InformationThank you for doing the shop listed aboveWe need some additional information and/or clarification in order to submit your report to our clientPlease respond immediately to the question(s) below via e-mail to ***We need your prompt response in order to process your report in a timely manner to our client so that we will be able to pay youIf your shop required photos that you need to submit, please forward them to ***Thank you for shopping with usHi, You left no comments for the Customer Service section, but later wrote, "Customer service employee *** really made me angry on how he treated to help me." Please explain your interaction with *** in detailThank you On Sep 27, 08:51, "Market Force Help Desk"
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: First,I would like to thank the Denver/Boulder Revdex.com for the time and effort they expended trying to resolve this matter in a positive way.Unfortunately ,it appears that Market Force Information{MFI}was totally uninterested in maintaining a relationship of any kind,with a highly motivated,competent individual who had proven their value to the companyAs evidenced in a number of online reviews,Market Force Information{MFI}frequently behaves in an arbitrary and capricious behavior towards its labor force. Eventually this type of behavior will catch up with the company and they will have great difficulty recruiting and maintaining a competent work force
We understand the frustration of the shopper, but unfortunately, we have checked several times with the site and have received repeated confirmation that there is a restroom on the premises that can be accessed by customers In fact, after receiving this complaint, one of our employees once
again called the location calling as a member of the public; we spoke to the person in charge of the facilitating and asked whether there were restroom facilities on the premises as she would be bringing her car in next door with a small child in her presence The caller was once again told that there was such a restroom. We would never ask (nor did we ask) or expect a shopper to evaluate a restroom located on someone else’s premises If this location did not have a restroom available for its customers, we would not even ask any questions relating to the restroom evaluation or those questions would be marked N/A as to this location.We do not believe that the instructions were ambiguous This is a question of fact: whether there is a restroom on the premises or notWe have been told repeatedly that there is a restroom that is available for customers of the facility
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/07/08) */
On May 27, 2015, we emailed the shopper acknowledging receipt of his voice mail about the payment issue and noting that a paper check was mailed to the address on file in the amount of $90.00. Our records showe that he de-enrolled from direct...
deposit on May 5 and re-enrolled the same date with a new account. We advised him that a new direct deposit enrollment requires approximately 3 weeks to process; therefore, a paper check was issued and mailed to his address when the April payment was processed. We also advised him to check his personal profile page to ensure that we had his correct mailing address and allowed time for delivery.
Shopper contacted us via email about the missing check on June 19 for a replacement check.
The replacement check will be sent shortly after July 15 as per our standard procedures.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/07/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Their response doesn't show this has been resolved. This is not resolved because I have not been paid. I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE PAYMENT. Their response detailing me changing my direct deposit (as a resolution) is irrelevant. People can make changes to their direct deposits when they need to. I was told I would be sent a check, which I DID NOT EVER get is the only issue. My profile address is, was, and has always been correct. I actually contracted them prior to 6/19/15 about not getting the check. They told me I had to wait a month before they would research it unless I wanted to pay $30 for them to do it earlier. After telling them on 6/19/15, via email, that I still didn't get the check they have just dragged this out. It is now 7/17/15 and I have NOT BEEN PAID for the assignments I did in April 2015. This sending the payment after 7/15/15 may be a step to resolve this. But that doesn't resolve it it because I STILL HAVE NOT BEEN Paid as of 7/17/15.
Have they actually re-submitted the payment, if so how was it re-submitted and when was it re-submitted? Their response doesn't cover these questions. The way this can be resolved is to RE-SUBMITTED THE PAYMENT to me for the work I have done in April 2015 ASAP.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 35, 2015/09/30) */
Our records show that a replacement payment was issued to her on 7/17/15 via direct deposit. We are unclear what her continuing complaint might be.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 37, 2015/10/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I finally did the payment on 7/20/2015, which of course is after the 7/17/15 response that I made. As of 7/20/15, this has been resolved.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: There was no notification to myself when I was not allowed any shops. The only way I found out was logging on to the website. I also believe response given by the business is extremely vague and I believe that there was no justification to discontinuing my service. I put this complaint out there to warn future shoppers about the way MarketForce treats their shoppers.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted] The response is not accurate. Here is what they sent to me initially: MAY 05, 2017 | 01:17PM EDT[redacted] replied:Good afternoon,Thanks for checking with us. Unfortunately, we have decided that we cannot offer you any more telephone assignments. As you know from reviewing the Shopper Quality Standards that are posted on our shopper website, we review each shopper’s shopping history using several different historical reports. We hope that you can understand that we cannot share the specifics regarding why you are no longer being given the opportunity to select these shops; doing otherwise could reveal some of the most confidential and proprietary aspects of our business. Because Market Force is unique in this industry, we are not at liberty to share the decisions behind how and why shops are or are not offered to certain shoppers.We hope that you will continue to find other shops you are interested in.[redacted]. Shopper Advocate [redacted]
[redacted]I intend to use every legal means possible to address this problem. Market Force gave me no warning or anything else that suggested I had broken any rules. I know I followed their guidelines and was very productive, making a lot of money for them. What they did is a violation of labor laws in the United States and their retaliation is a further violation. Their arrogant response will get them sued for lying about the facts, for retaliation and for failure to at the minimum issue a warning that I had violated one of their rules that they refused to tell me about in their initial response.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Based on the response you and I received from the company, they seem to be making the same excuses as before with me and not willing to work with me and help me out, instead all they care about is criticizing people and treating them like trash. The things they do or unprofessional, unethical, abusive, manipulating, intimidating,& and unbecoming for such company to practice. I have done Mystery shops for different companies and this company by far does not care about it shoppers, I would like for something to be done so that the company will be held liable for their actions and for their treatment of it shoppers.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Complaint: ***
t for them and I am still in talks with my lawyer over what our next move is, because it's companies like this that need to be addressed by a judge in order to Gove someone what they PROMISED ON THE PHONE IN MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS! Sincerely,
I am rejecting this response because: It was a $bonus and *** of *** told me it was $per showing after the $and $bonusOn my assignment list it said $+ screens, I did not accept $bonusThis company is a total SCAM ARTIST and I will be sure to tell anyone even remotely interested in doing businessI've asked multiple representatives to explain the payment to me and they never said it was $per screenThey all said $per showing and they can listen to my recordings with each individualThis company promises one thing, makes you fill out your OWN invoice then tells you this *** after they "pay you! I see why no one does this s
*** ***
The Complainant acknowledges that somehow when she was entering her shop data into her report the name of one of the employees was misspelled. The mystery shopper has an obligation to review her report data prior to hitting the Submit button so that any mistakes made by her are caught then and
she can correct them. If they are caught by us or the Client, as they were in this case, the shopper risks having her shop be invalidated. Usually by the time the Client or we discover a mistake in a shop, it is too late to pull it back because the shop is put out for reassignment immediately to be done by another Shopper following an invalidation so that we can meet our contractual obligations with our Clients. An uncaught mistake also calls into question whether other mistakes were made in the report that the shopper’s foregoing of the very crucial step of checking her work might have revealed. We will not be offering this shopper any more assignments and in return we will pay her the sum requested
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Although I disagree with MFI's response and it doesn't match what was said in original email communication, I am happy with this resolution as long as I am paid in time in April
Sincerely,
*** ***
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/08/10) */
This *** (XXXXXXX) indeed completed an assignment for us on the weekend of June 7thShe only returned partial paperwork which has held up her payment
She was contacted on 7/via email and then again on 7/when she submitted a pay inquiry
We're happy to process her payment; however, we need the completed paperwork
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/08/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I would like a copy of the original email that was sent on the dates of July and July 23, that requests missing paperworkI'm requesting the senders email the request came fromOnce I receive it, I will check with my provider to find out if those emails were actually received from my providerI have been contacting them prior to those dates inquiring about payment and was informed that they get tons of mail and if it wasn't received I would have been contactedNo one ever contacted me until I filed this complaintII will contact my internet provider on the dates they claimed to have emailed me directly on the dates of the incompletely materialsWhen I called to inquire no one at their company could tell me what was missingAs of August 11, 2015, no one has contacted me to tell me what they were missing in detailWhy would I pay to send incomplete documents? I worked days and I'm not being compensatedI will get justice one way or anotherIt's quite obvious this company has no intention on paying meI guess you take a chance when working with companies that take advantage of people who want to make some extra moneyI never imagined this could happen to mePeople need to know about this company and how their employees are negligent in how they handle paperwork
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/08/17) */
*** was contacted regarding her incomplete paperwork via email at 5:pm EST on July 7thIn addition, she was in contact with our online payment inquiry department on July 22nd and she spoke with our help desk via a phone conversation on July 23rd; both instances were in regards to the incomplete paperwork
We are reimbursing her for this assignment
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 16, 2015/08/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Mr*** did assign himself this shop. Part of the guidelines stipulated that if he were not given napkins as part of his order, he needed to bring it to the attention of the employee so as to evaluate their ability to ‘make it right’, a very important issue for the Client. Mr***
did ask for napkins, but for an unclear reason did not wait to have the employee give him the napkins. Instead, he drove off apparently upset that he had to wait for his receipt and was not going to wait for napkins. Since the guideline referring to allowing the location a chance to 'make it right' was not followed, the shop had to be invalidated It was Mr***'s choice to either wait for the napkins or not and he chose not to wait.We have no idea why he and the employee were engaged in a four-minute stare down when Mr*** requested his receiptMr*** is incorrect in what he says about keeping his identity as a mystery shopper on an equal or higher footing than the guidelines for each shop. He is also incorrect in saying that he would not be paid for the shop if he were to be identified. This was explicitly addressed and explained to him in the lengthy email conversation that Help Desk had with him that he would still get paid if he were identifiedFor resolution purposes we have already informed Mr*** earlier this week that we would pay him for his shop even though the shop was not done correctly and we were unable to submit his report to the Client for payment. After the email exchanges, we deactivated Mr***’s account because of the profanity he used when communicating with the Help Desk so we will be unable to offer him any further shops
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/04) */
Please see attached explanationWe have checked all our systems and find no evidence of a systemic error, but would like to consider any documentation the shopper can offer to support his claim
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10,
2015/06/19) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The documentation requested by Market Force Information does not exist in hard copyI used the electronic documentation provided by market force in completing the project for which I was not paidThe error in this electronic information was a mistake on tghe part of Market Force InformationAfter the project, this information is not retrievable by me
I have complied with the Complainant’s request for expanded information on her earnings for 2017. I was out of the office for a week and I told the Complainant that I appreciated her patience while I got the information together for her.The Complainant is requesting that we treat all Shoppers better and that we restore her shopper status. We regret that she feels we did not treat her with respect and kindness and that we tried extensively to point out where the error had occurred in uploading the same images to two reports.As far as restoring her shopper status, this is an Independent Contractor relationship and we are under no obligation to continue offering her new assignments, any more than a Shopper is obligated to keep taking assignments if they no longer want to
We need to have a phone number to contact our Independent Contractors should the need arise. If an IC deletes his phone number from his account or his phone is disconnected, we have to deactivate his account until the IC supplies us with a phone number. As to using blocked numbers, many
of our Schedulers work from their homes and are required to block their phone numbers when calling an IC. While we are deeply appreciative of Mr***’s concern about being contacted by a scammer, we cannot give out our home phone numbers. This was explained to Mr*** and we even put a restriction on his account so that Schedulers would not call him with shop offers, but he chose not to provide us with a phone numberThat is his right, but it is also our right not to offer him any more shopsWhen Mr*** failed to upload a receipt into his report for a shop he did over miles from his home, we had to deactivate his account temporarily until he provided us with the receipt. We notified him of this. He was unable to provide us with that receipt, but we reinstated his account as a one-time courtesy as this was the first time he had failed to submit a receipt for a shop done far from his homeIn an Independent Contractor relationship, either party is free to engage in the relationship or notWe cannot force Mr*** to do shops and we are not required to offer him assignments. We have opted not to continue this relationship
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/11/02) */
After reviewing the information associated with this situation, we agree that we did not handle this specific case in the best manner possibleThe additional image provided by the shopper should have been reviewed and compared to other
receipts submitted for previous shops at that locationThat has now been done and we've verified the receipt appears validWe apologize for the handling of this situation and have reinstated the shopper's account with us
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2015/11/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I had several shops scheduled that were cancelled and or stripped from me as a result of this mishandlingI believe that I should be compensated for the shops that were suddenly taken from me/disappeared from my accountAdditionally, I completed a Publix shop the night before (someone contacted me from MarketForce and assigned) that was $plus shopper reimbursement of $I was unable to log this information and complete this shop online due to my account being suddenly deactivated
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/11/19) */
The account was reinstated on 10/26/Previous communications did not mention the issue with the shop that was unable to be reported as a result of the account deactivationPayment has been authorized for this shop in the amount of $*** XXXXXXXX)
When reviewing shop reports, receipts are reviewed as wellReceipts help to verify the shopper went to the correct location and performed the shop as requestedUnfortunately not all shoppers are honest and will alter their receipt in some way to hide evidence of performing the shop incorrectlyThe receipt initially submitted for assignment XXXXXXXX looked altered as if information was cut and pastedOnce the subsequent image was provided and reviewed, which was different than the original image, it showed it was not altered and the account was re-instated
This action might seem extreme but our reputation is based squarely on the integrity of the data our shoppers collectIf there is potential evidence calling that integrity into question, immediate action is taken to prevent further issues
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 16, 2015/11/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
There shouldn't be any accusations for shoppers or anyone without the proper factsThe extreme measure taken by this company is a direct reflection of the poor judgment of character usedMy initial complaint indicated that I would like to have the shops that were yanked from me replacedSince that was not done then of course I am going to bring up the shop that was completed but no longer appeared in my boxThis company won't last very long using a "defensive" response instead of a tactical and apologetic response to mattersSo long as the payment of $is included as promised in this company's response, I will consider this matter closed
The Customer’s statement of facts is substantially correct. He inquired why he was not being offered any more telephone shops and we replied that after reviewing this Shopper’s shop history using several different historical reports with regard to his past assignments, we would not be able to
offer him any more telephone shops. We regularly do this analysis with all our Shoppers and all their reports in our continuing efforts to assure that our Clients are being provided the most objective evaluations possible. If we discover any anomalies, we will take the action to restrict the Shopper from that particular type of shop, either temporarily or permanently. His reply to our explanation was: “Thank you for the informationI'll be forwarding the information to federal authorities for review.” As a follto that, the Customer later sent this email: “YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED I AM FILING A FEDERAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU FOR VIOLATION OF AMERICAN EMPLOYMENT LAWS AND FOR RETALIATION AGAINST ME.” In an Independent Contractor relationship, such as this is, either party is free to offer or accept assignments without explanation or punitive action. We cannot force any of our Shoppers to take any or all of the shops that we offer them; nor can a Shopper force us to offer him certain shops or even any at all. Additionally, when a Shopper says that he is bringing in federal authorities, we will discontinue offering him any more assignments because that type of attitude and action is counterproductive to maintaining a business relationship. He is free to take whatever action he wants, but we are free not to offer him any further assignments
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: I did not do or say anything to jeopardize the integrity of mystery shopping for this companyThe only issue that can closely resemble being red flagged was providing honest feedback to the company's own survey regarding their own mystery shopping standardsTherefore, if honesty is detrimental to answering their own questionnaire, then so be it
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I've tried to inform the business that answering the question that was asked of was confusing, and gave an answer in order to submit the questionnaireHere are some emails that I've messaged the business to inform them of this issueMy main problem is that I wasn't given the opportunity to clarify like I was in past shopsSince I was recorded on surveillance video during the shop, they would of seen what my response was to what actually happened doesn't match, and the business should of realized thatThis should of been reviewed, and asked why I've answered the confusing question wrongI don't feel this business realized this, and so why I'm here continue to file my complaint with Revdex.comIn case the attach file doesn't open, I copied and pasted it below
Sincerely,
*** ***Well if that is the case, than why wasn't I given the chance to clarify my answer before it was considered a invalid shop? A few times in the past I've received emails on previous shops, and was asked to clarify my answersI don't believe this is right, and that your not understanding this, so if this is the way how things are done, than I no longer want to waste my time on these shopsThank you for wasting my effort to help your businesses as well as mineI've copied and pasted some of those past emails in case yours was deleted or forgotten. (Email to clarify #1)*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***FEB 20, | 09:23AM EST *** replied:Good morning ***:We are showing you resubmitted the report a few minutes agoIt was placed back on your list as incomplete by our auditors who e-mailed you the following:Hi, You left no comments for the Customer Service section, but later wrote, “Customer service employee *** really made me angry on how he treated to help me.” Please explain your interaction with *** in detail. Thank you***
*** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** (Email to clarify #2) This e-mail is from the Quality Control Department at Market Force InformationThank you for doing the shop listed aboveWe need some additional information and/or clarification in order to submit your report to our clientPlease respond immediately to the question(s) below via e-mail to ***We need your prompt response in order to process your report in a timely manner to our client so that we will be able to pay youIf your shop required photos that you need to submit, please forward them to ***Thank you for shopping with usHi, You left no comments for the Customer Service section, but later wrote, "Customer service employee *** really made me angry on how he treated to help me." Please explain your interaction with *** in detailThank you On Sep 27, 08:51, "Market Force Help Desk"
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: First,I would like to thank the Denver/Boulder Revdex.com for the time and effort they expended trying to resolve this matter in a positive way.Unfortunately ,it appears that Market Force Information{MFI}was totally uninterested in maintaining a relationship of any kind,with a highly motivated,competent individual who had proven their value to the companyAs evidenced in a number of online reviews,Market Force Information{MFI}frequently behaves in an arbitrary and capricious behavior towards its labor force. Eventually this type of behavior will catch up with the company and they will have great difficulty recruiting and maintaining a competent work force
We understand the frustration of the shopper, but unfortunately, we have checked several times with the site and have received repeated confirmation that there is a restroom on the premises that can be accessed by customers In fact, after receiving this complaint, one of our employees once
again called the location calling as a member of the public; we spoke to the person in charge of the facilitating and asked whether there were restroom facilities on the premises as she would be bringing her car in next door with a small child in her presence The caller was once again told that there was such a restroom. We would never ask (nor did we ask) or expect a shopper to evaluate a restroom located on someone else’s premises If this location did not have a restroom available for its customers, we would not even ask any questions relating to the restroom evaluation or those questions would be marked N/A as to this location.We do not believe that the instructions were ambiguous This is a question of fact: whether there is a restroom on the premises or notWe have been told repeatedly that there is a restroom that is available for customers of the facility
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/07/08) */
On May 27, 2015, we emailed the shopper acknowledging receipt of his voice mail about the payment issue and noting that a paper check was mailed to the address on file in the amount of $90.00. Our records showe that he de-enrolled from direct...
deposit on May 5 and re-enrolled the same date with a new account. We advised him that a new direct deposit enrollment requires approximately 3 weeks to process; therefore, a paper check was issued and mailed to his address when the April payment was processed. We also advised him to check his personal profile page to ensure that we had his correct mailing address and allowed time for delivery.
Shopper contacted us via email about the missing check on June 19 for a replacement check.
The replacement check will be sent shortly after July 15 as per our standard procedures.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/07/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Their response doesn't show this has been resolved. This is not resolved because I have not been paid. I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE PAYMENT. Their response detailing me changing my direct deposit (as a resolution) is irrelevant. People can make changes to their direct deposits when they need to. I was told I would be sent a check, which I DID NOT EVER get is the only issue. My profile address is, was, and has always been correct. I actually contracted them prior to 6/19/15 about not getting the check. They told me I had to wait a month before they would research it unless I wanted to pay $30 for them to do it earlier. After telling them on 6/19/15, via email, that I still didn't get the check they have just dragged this out. It is now 7/17/15 and I have NOT BEEN PAID for the assignments I did in April 2015. This sending the payment after 7/15/15 may be a step to resolve this. But that doesn't resolve it it because I STILL HAVE NOT BEEN Paid as of 7/17/15.
Have they actually re-submitted the payment, if so how was it re-submitted and when was it re-submitted? Their response doesn't cover these questions. The way this can be resolved is to RE-SUBMITTED THE PAYMENT to me for the work I have done in April 2015 ASAP.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 35, 2015/09/30) */
Our records show that a replacement payment was issued to her on 7/17/15 via direct deposit. We are unclear what her continuing complaint might be.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 37, 2015/10/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I finally did the payment on 7/20/2015, which of course is after the 7/17/15 response that I made. As of 7/20/15, this has been resolved.
An adjustment payment in the amount of $26.26 will be processed in our next paylog; which will be ran at the end of this month. Thank you,Market Force
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: There was no notification to myself when I was not allowed any shops. The only way I found out was logging on to the website. I also believe response given by the business is extremely vague and I believe that there was no justification to discontinuing my service. I put this complaint out there to warn future shoppers about the way MarketForce treats their shoppers.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted] The response is not accurate. Here is what they sent to me initially: MAY 05, 2017 | 01:17PM EDT[redacted] replied:Good afternoon,Thanks for checking with us. Unfortunately, we have decided that we cannot offer you any more telephone assignments. As you know from reviewing the Shopper Quality Standards that are posted on our shopper website, we review each shopper’s shopping history using several different historical reports. We hope that you can understand that we cannot share the specifics regarding why you are no longer being given the opportunity to select these shops; doing otherwise could reveal some of the most confidential and proprietary aspects of our business. Because Market Force is unique in this industry, we are not at liberty to share the decisions behind how and why shops are or are not offered to certain shoppers.We hope that you will continue to find other shops you are interested in.[redacted]. Shopper Advocate [redacted]
[redacted]I intend to use every legal means possible to address this problem. Market Force gave me no warning or anything else that suggested I had broken any rules. I know I followed their guidelines and was very productive, making a lot of money for them. What they did is a violation of labor laws in the United States and their retaliation is a further violation. Their arrogant response will get them sued for lying about the facts, for retaliation and for failure to at the minimum issue a warning that I had violated one of their rules that they refused to tell me about in their initial response.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Based on the response you and I received from the company, they seem to be making the same excuses as before with me and not willing to work with me and help me out, instead all they care about is criticizing people and treating them like trash. The things they do or unprofessional, unethical, abusive, manipulating, intimidating,& and unbecoming for such company to practice. I have done Mystery shops for different companies and this company by far does not care about it shoppers, I would like for something to be done so that the company will be held liable for their actions and for their treatment of it shoppers.
Sincerely,
[redacted]