My experience with FJR associates almost mirrors your own Victor.
I was recommended to buy the book by National warranties Australia, who said that it works very well for them. So I got online and ordered a copy, expecting that my credit card would be charged $99 US. Imagine my surprise when three weeks later I get an e-mail from Frank Rhombasskus, (Frank Rumbauskas) advising that may free trial had expired and I hadn't sent the book back, and that they were planning to sue me for all kinds of things.
Like Victor, I rang their call centre and spoke to a particularly pleasant Young man who informed me that he was a call centre, that he would pass the message through to Frank Rhombasskus (Frank Rumbauskas) and advise of my call.
Irrespective of the issues relating to printing, or any other part of this scam, Frank Rumbapasscasts just lies as a matter of course. Unfortunately people like National warranties Australia cannot see through this and not only do they buy this rubbish, they then foisted off on their business partners, who have led to trust them because as a general rule they have good information.
On this occasion however National warranties failed miserably in warning that customers about Frank run ### cuss (Frank Rumbauskas) and his organisation selling rubbish such as cold calling is a waste of time or some such crap.
Anyone who would like to comment or support my view feel free to post your message here. I will most assuredly pass this page on to approximately 8000 Australian prospective victims of Frank rumba ask us (Frank Rumbauskas).
Heather thank you so much for your input. For the record my credit card was hit twice not because it was declined but because there was one hit for the transport (postage and handling) and a second hit for the book/CD. Humorously, when you talk about 2/30, 000 happy customers can I suggest you do a somewhat wider search, where you will find without a single shadow of doubt that there are hundreds of stories out there about your organisation.
Whilst I do not care to accuse you of being a liar, or of adjusting the facts to suit the forum I can most certainly assure you that there are more than two of us.
I have accepted that I did not realise when I put my credit card details in that I would not be hit one time for $97 plus postage. This is my fault for not properly reading your website and I accept that. Can I point out that in all of the correspondence that I have found during my research into you and your organisation, that you are keen to go out of your way to make it extraordinarily difficult for people to return products by having multiple addresses over different websites. You constantly send e-mail which tells the receiver that they need to call one phone number to order something another phone number entirely to complain about something and there are at least three separate addresses involved in contacting you. This, Heather, is most definitely your organisation's fault.
I find it humorous that a professional sales organisation can use what one can best call intemperate and unprofessional language in dealing with customer complaints, such as mine when I quite reasonably asked why I was being billed for something that I had had in my hands for almost a month. The most appropriate way of managing my question, would have been to say "when you signed up you agree to a 30 day trial period". That was not done. Instead what I got was a half baked diatribe from somebody from the warehouse informing me that they were not passing my message onto Frank because he had "Important people" to deal with and had no time to deal with the likes of me.
In truth, Heather as I understand it from multiple people who have suffered at your hands one way or another, it is normal practice for you and yours to treat all of your customers in exactly that way. That is to say if you have a complaint we don't want to know about it.
Perhaps Frank might like to put his mind to doing a course on customer service, or handling difficult customers, or even (dare I suggest) handling objections.
For those interested, I have just fielded a call from an Indian Call Centre, hassling about an overdue payment of $115, due 2 days ago.
The call was initiated by machine, then an operator picked it up and advised me who they were calling for. This having been the fourth time I have fielded such a call in the last 7 days, and having rejected the initial machine call by hanging up, I requested immediate access to a supervisor and advised them of the law which limits their calls to 3 in any 7 day period.
I asked "Melanie" the supervisor (another Indian), where she was calling from to which she replied "Melbourne" which I didn't believe, and advised her of that, which she advised was my right to disbelieve (which I knew). I asked her "who won the football last Sunday" which she was unable to answer, and she responded "I don't know and it has nothing to do with this call anyway".
I then advised Melanie that her call was being recorded by me, as required by law (the advice not the recording).
Melanie then advised she was terminating the call as we as sufferers are not allowed to record their calls.
Melanie further advised that we would not receive any more calls from them for that reason.
Can I suggest this may be an avenue of self-defence for their clients.
@jetretry02009:
I am forced to presuppose, premised on the level of your knowledge of grammar, punctuation and to a lesser degree capitalisation, elicited by your post, that you are some form of American.
That having been decided your lack of knowledge/understanding of the aforementioned grammar, punctuation and capitalisation are understandable. They are also acceptable in the circumstances.
To support you in your learning about such things, I am going to repost what you said in such a way as to be directed at you, since it seems appropriate to do so "you [censor]".
Humorously, I didn't realise you had put a case.
In fact it would surprise me if you did, since the best you can do is 143 characters, and even that seems a mental stretch for you.
:)
American tosser.
Waste not waist you schtick.
Past not passed.
They're not their.
No one understands? You don't understand.
Whatsoever not what so ever.
End of interaction. Now back to your office at GE.
And that, says it all really.
Incapable of mounting a proper defense of your indefensible position, you revert to your monocellular expressive noun.
Indian call centres are outsourced, not owned by GE.
The other issue is that the more we slag off here, the better my notes Google (the verb), when people are looking for reasons to not deal with GE.
So, thanks for the assistance. [censor].
So I was right. American.
