Shop Traffic LA

Firstly, may I say that we do not understand why there is still an issue with this person and his complaint from ***. He also told us he wanted to go by the name ***, which he said it was his professional name when he first came into our store approximately two years ago.

We are a high-end clothing store in the Beverly Center in Los Angeles. At that time, he said he was a stylist who needed merchandise for a client's upcoming photo shoot in New York and would be flying out either that night or the next day. One of our managers, ***, explained to him in detail our store's longstanding studio policy: Stylists may take out merchandize for clients for up to 24 hours with the understanding that, after that time, you have to purchase 20 percent of the goods you have taken out or pay a 20 percent restocking fee on that amount. All goods must be returned in their original condition. Price tags cannot have been removed. Merchandize also will not be accepted for return if the goods have been worn or used, or look like they have been worn or used or show stains, dirt or deodorant marks. Additionally, all goods being returned and not being bought cannot have been worn or used in any form. This includes photographs for professional or personal use, including use on social media. Anything that fails to meet our policy is an automatic purchase.

*** agreed to all those rules for taking out clothing under our studio services. As per our policy, we then did an approval taken out on his credit card for the total amount of the goods going out -- and he signed, agreeing to all the stipulations. He left our store with the clothing. About three days later, past the time of his extension for having the merchandise out, *** attempted to reach ***. When we had not heard from him, another of our store's managers made an Internet search of him under the name of "***" and found pictures of *** wearing some of the clothing he took out from our store on social media where he had posted photographs of himself in the clothes.

Later, *** finally returned to our store seeking to return a lot of the clothing he had taken out. A routine check of the items revealed obvious signs that the merchandise had been worn beyond just simply trying them on. There were holes on some of the clothing where price tags had been removed. Most of the clothing had been used, and some of the pieces showed dirt and soiling. *** explained to *** that he would have to keep the items that have been used or damaged. Additionally, when he insisted nothing had been worn, she informed him that there was indisputable proof he had worn the items: the photographs of him in the clothing that had been posted on social media.

When *** declined to accept the return of the used, damaged clothing, *** became argumentative and accused her of stalking him. I was called over to assist *** and defuse the situation. *** kept going on about how his photo shoot with Vogue magazine had been canceled and denying that he had worn any of the clothing. He then became hostile and threatening. He claimed to be a powerful individual who could damage our store and its reputation. When *** finally calmed down, he paid for the used or damaged goods and even purchased some other things from our store. Because the previous authorization on his credit card we believed had expired, we had to make a new charge that day on his card.

But *** did not give up on attempting not to pay for the clothes. He called us later to claim that he had been charged twice for the items he had taken out under studio services. I spoke to him myself and explained that this was just the approval pending and that it would "fall off" in a few days. Then *** attempted to do a "charge back" on his credit card, trying to get the credit card company to remove the charge. His credit card company investigated and determined that our store had been in the right.

You should know that *** would periodically call our store pretending he was various people fighting for his client who was wrongfully charged for goods -- a lawyer on one occasion, an agent on another occasion.

Finally, *** began calling our corporate office where he became such a nuisance that he was told he had to stop calling.

The last time our store hear from *** was on March 11, 2020. Our sales person who first took the call was so uncomfortable with the conversation that turned the call over to me. The caller wanted the name of a manager from our women's store. He then proceeded to tell me she was lovely but sold him used clothing with holes and that were we in the business of selling used clothing. I told him that we did not sell use clothing. We never have and would never do that. He told me that this manager told him that the clothing was used. The caller said he was calling on the behalf of a client who is a stylist for a "big artist." He would not tell me the name of this person nor would he tell me his name or the artist's name for whom the stylist was shopping. He wanted our corporate office number. As I was giving him the number, it dawned on me that this was the same person that had been calling on and off since he was charge for the clothing. After I finished the call, I looked at my phone's caller ID and confirmed it was it was *** because I remembered the distinctive name on the caller ID: ***. I thought this would be the end of this issue until we received your letter.

I thought it best to provide an extended summary because we believe ***'s unsettling behavior speaks volumes. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

In response, we have been in business for over 40 years. We have an excellent reputation not only in the fashion industry but also in the music and entertainment fields to which we have prided ourselves in providing top-notch customer service.

WE did not build our reputation by engaging in unlawful or illegal activity. We stand by the details our previous response.