The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In

123 Free Travel club / Refund

1 United States Review updated:

AARP recomended Generation X as a site for older, handicapped people that like to travel. Generation X recommended 123 Free Travel club. I went to 123 Free Travel web site and signed up on July 1st, 2004 for $189.

On July 6th I noticed the small print at the bottom of the web site that said 'restrictions apply'. I clicked on this and found out that to receive these free services I would have to go to specific places & stay in certain hotels for a set amount of time. If I had known this I would not have signed up for the club. I already own a time-share package that provides me with places to stay, geared for the handicapped,all over the world.

I called 123 Free Travel on July 6th, 2004 and spoke with Jerrie. I said I wanted to cancel my membership. Jerrie said the charge had been posted already so I would have to dispute the charge with my credite card. I have disputed this charge with my Bank of America credit card.
On July 12th I received a package of material from 123 Free Travel and I sent it back by return mail.
Bank of America will not give me credit on this charge without written verification that the material was returned and 123 Free Travel refuses to give me written verification. I believe this is false advertising on 123 Free Travel, they are taking advantage of the older generation.

Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • To
      9th of Oct, 2011
    -1 Votes

    So, who DID set up The Social Media People scam?

    A few days ago I posted questioning whether the McVey gang actually set up The Social Media People as they have so often claimed.
    I had hoped to get some clarification from what would almost certainly be the company’s well staffed ‘Archives Department’.

  • To
      29th of Oct, 2011
    -1 Votes

    A while ago there was some difficulty posting comments, but ComplaintsBoard has said it fixed it.
    If this post appears at `17.15hr on 29 October 2011 it demonstrates that things are back to normal.

  • To
      31st of Oct, 2011
    -1 Votes

    31-10-2011; 01.30hr:
    Is it justified to name the characters at the centre of the Net66 and The Social Media People gang?

    Either directly, or via its aliases TSMP has criticised me, and others, for naming individuals in 'The Family', citing some sort of 'privacy code', or saying that it is unfair to name individuals when criticising a Ltd. company.
    Their protestations are rubbish because:
    (a) As Directors of a Ltd. company, whose names are on public record BECAUSE they own the company, the actions of those companies are their responsibility. They can't shirk that (as they have tried to do) by claiming some sort of 'rights of privacy from criticism when they are found out'.
    (b) By placing themselves at the centre of the controversy by personally 'signing' posts on public forums, which attempt to defend the indefensible and defame their critics, they invite and deserve to be in the spotlight themselves.
    (c) By publicly revealing private data about a customer (and I don't mean me!), whilst trying to discredit them, TSMP / Net66's owners - 'The Family' show a despicable disregard for the law (breach of Data Protection Act), and other people's rights to privacy.
    (d) By hiding behind aliases when making telephone threats to customers, they show that they have no compunction in telling pre-meditated lies; and it is not junior staff involved in that - it goes right to the top.

    People can, and will, judge for themselves, but 'The Family McVey' have earned their naming and shaming.

  • To
      10th of Nov, 2011
    0 Votes

    Why would a happy customer, willing to give a testimonial to a company be annoyed? Why not just confirm the supplier did a good job?

  • To
      10th of Dec, 2011
    0 Votes

    Testing attachment for legibility

Post your comment