VinoTemp

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
User avatar
Scott Brunson
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 5745
Joined: November 15th 2011, 3:55am
Location: in between coastal SC and south FL

VinoTemp

Post #1  Postby Scott Brunson » December 23rd 2013, 3:56pm

Since a VinoTemp saga was a thread on this forum as well as the CT forum, it may interest Berserkers to see the link Eric Levine posted on CT
http://scotchtape.ductwhisky.com/2013/1 ... sumer.html
What a bunch of douchebags.
Tous les chemins mènent à la Bourgogne!
On CT, I'm S1

Advertisement

User avatar
c fu
ModeratorModerator
Domaine De La Husky
 
Posts: 24327
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:26pm
Location: DTLA/Pasadena

VinoTemp

Post #2  Postby c fu » December 23rd 2013, 4:05pm

In case people don't want to read a link.

It's a non disparagement clause similar to the one that recently popped up in the news from the company Kleargear. It's actually pretty similar to the Kleargear used. In Kleargear's case, someone posted a negative review and they "fined" (aka charged) them $3500. When they wouldn't pay, they put it as a non payment of bills on their credit report. (a little more info if you're interested.. http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_ins ... eview.html)

Non-Disparagement Clause
In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts Vinotemp, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.
Should you violate this clause, as determined by Vinotemp in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.
Ch@rlie F|_|

"Roulot is Roulot"©
User avatar
andy velebil
 
Posts: 4928
Joined: February 2nd 2009, 5:54pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA

VinoTemp

Post #3  Postby andy velebil » December 23rd 2013, 4:17pm

Well that makes it easy. I'll never buy one of their products so long as they have such a clause.
I'm a Port drinking fool!
User avatar
c fu
ModeratorModerator
Domaine De La Husky
 
Posts: 24327
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:26pm
Location: DTLA/Pasadena

VinoTemp

Post #4  Postby c fu » December 23rd 2013, 4:19pm

wow.. actually.. vinotemp copied EXACTLY the same clause as Kleargear. I'd be curious who would put this on after the whole Kleargear fiasco?

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.
Ch@rlie F|_|

"Roulot is Roulot"©
Richard Malloy
 
Posts: 550
Joined: May 24th 2011, 11:20am

VinoTemp

Post #5  Postby Richard Malloy » December 23rd 2013, 4:53pm

Thankfully when I was searching for a wine cabinet, the many, many, many stories of terrible customer service at Vinotemp steered me well away from their products. Don't get me wrong, I was tempted. Low prices will do that, and certainly they are cheaper than some of their competitors. But that cheapness doesn't come cheaply as it turned out for far too many people.

Fortunately, I read one too many horror stories to risk making such a large purchase from such a dodgy company. And I suspect it was those very same horror stories that caused Vinotemp to make the dire decision to include such a clause in their purchase agreements.

After all, why would anyone purchase anything from them? There's but one reason: ignorance.

Thank you, Eric (and Scott), for helping to keep us informed. Hopefully the other poor suckers around the web are learning what this company's all about.
User avatar
Rick.T
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: February 19th 2013, 10:06pm

VinoTemp

Post #6  Postby Rick.T » December 23rd 2013, 5:38pm

I'm with Andy and everyone else on this, will NEVER purchase one of their products. Just from what I know about VinoTemp I wouldn't purchase their wine cooler anyway but this seals the deal.
T~@~n**d~y
User avatar
Eric LeVine
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12091
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:58pm
Location: Seattle, WA & Bern, Switzerland

VinoTemp

Post #7  Postby Eric LeVine » December 23rd 2013, 5:56pm

Charlie Fu wrote:wow.. actually.. vinotemp copied EXACTLY the same clause as Kleargear. I'd be curious who would put this on after the whole Kleargear fiasco?

Not so clever. And certainly pretty nasty to customers.
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...
User avatar
M. Sai
 
Posts: 2012
Joined: January 28th 2009, 9:16pm
Location: Sonoma, CA

VinoTemp

Post #8  Postby M. Sai » December 23rd 2013, 10:07pm

Wow! ........ Thanks Charlie, duly noted.
Cheers!
Mike

Happily ITB
Steve Matthesen
 
Posts: 111
Joined: July 16th 2011, 7:08pm
Location: Weston, CT

VinoTemp

Post #9  Postby Steve Matthesen » December 24th 2013, 2:01pm

Interesting. An incredibly odd "contract" provision ... hard to believe it will stand-up in court. Also would seem impossible to enforce if you didn't buy directly from Vinotemp ... many are sold through places like Costco (who I imagine won't be a fan of this clause ... not their style).

I have been a Vinotemp customer (the 400E). Used happily for a decade or so. No negative experiences with the product or service, so generally I recommend them to folks. Agree this casts a shadow over that.
User avatar
Jay Winton
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 1954
Joined: June 1st 2009, 5:21pm
Location: University Park, MD/Rehoboth Beach, DE

VinoTemp

Post #10  Postby Jay Winton » December 25th 2013, 9:40am

Above clause is why I bought mine through Costco. So far so good after a few months.
Immaturity-my life, not my wine.
User avatar
Eric LeVine
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12091
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:58pm
Location: Seattle, WA & Bern, Switzerland

VinoTemp

Post #11  Postby Eric LeVine » December 25th 2013, 9:51am

The author of the blog states that the clause was only quietly added in the past 2 weeks. Did you see it a few months ago?
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...
Nick Ryan
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2637
Joined: October 7th 2009, 3:24pm
Location: NorCal

VinoTemp

Post #12  Postby Nick Ryan » December 25th 2013, 1:08pm

User avatar
Rick Dalia
 
Posts: 760
Joined: June 2nd 2012, 4:00pm
Location: Mill Valley, CA

VinoTemp

Post #13  Postby Rick Dalia » December 25th 2013, 1:31pm

It's too bad about this company, since they really would be in a position to be an exceptional product locally in the U.S.

I have a small VT-34 that has been fine for 2+ years and been happy with it, though haven't had to utilize the customer service. Based on the above issue, I will not purchase from then again.
User avatar
Scot H.
 
Posts: 423
Joined: April 2nd 2011, 12:19pm
Location: DC/Alexandria, VA

VinoTemp

Post #14  Postby Scot H. » December 25th 2013, 1:46pm

For better or worse, I am frequently asked to recommend wine and related products (sometimes coolers). Although I have recommended vinotemp in the past, I will not so again.
H@sselm@n
Fred C
ContributorContributor
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: July 11th 2011, 10:09am

VinoTemp

Post #15  Postby Fred C » December 25th 2013, 2:53pm

Rick Dalia wrote:It's too bad about this company, since they really would be in a position to be an exceptional product locally in the U.S.

I have a small VT-34 that has been fine for 2+ years and been happy with it, though haven't had to utilize the customer service. Based on the above issue, I will not purchase from then again.


Exactly. If they actually addressed the customer service issues it would be a recommendable and very competitive product. Shame. That clause is more damaging than anything that an individual could write about them.
Ch!3n
User avatar
Seo S a l i m i
 
Posts: 690
Joined: April 25th 2009, 5:23pm
Location: NY

VinoTemp

Post #16  Postby Seo S a l i m i » December 25th 2013, 3:14pm

Guess I've been lucky. I bought mine at Costco for a steal (compared to on-line prices). Have had it for at least 4 years without a hiccup. Selling my home next month and leaving the Vinotemp behind, so I guess I wont have to worry about it.
Listen to Bob Marley
Frank Mestas
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 40
Joined: October 27th 2009, 4:17pm
Location: Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, NM

VinoTemp

Post #17  Postby Frank Mestas » January 10th 2014, 11:25am

Wow. Thank God for Wineberserkers... I was considering getting a couple of units from Le Cache and then I saw that Costco has similar Vinotemp units at a much lower cost... Even though Costco has excellent customer service, there's no way I'm going to indirectly support such a shady company as Vinotemp. Le Cache gets my business.
User avatar
Daisy R e e d
 
Posts: 167
Joined: May 19th 2009, 7:17pm
Location: Northern Florida

VinoTemp

Post #18  Postby Daisy R e e d » January 10th 2014, 11:36am

We bought one from Costco in 2010. Luckily we haven't had any problems with it, but will definitely be looking for a different model if/when we upgrade or need to replace.
Usually hoppy, sometimes grapey.
Richard Malloy
 
Posts: 550
Joined: May 24th 2011, 11:20am

VinoTemp

Post #19  Postby Richard Malloy » January 21st 2014, 1:25pm

Given other recent nastiness by Vinotemp against a fellow Berserker, I just want to push thread this back to the top.
User avatar
AndrewH
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: May 14th 2010, 1:34pm

VinoTemp

Post #20  Postby AndrewH » January 21st 2014, 3:34pm

Charlie Fu wrote:In case people don't want to read a link.

It's a non disparagement clause similar to the one that recently popped up in the news from the company Kleargear. It's actually pretty similar to the Kleargear used. In Kleargear's case, someone posted a negative review and they "fined" (aka charged) them $3500. When they wouldn't pay, they put it as a non payment of bills on their credit report. (a little more info if you're interested.. http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_ins ... eview.html)

Non-Disparagement Clause
In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts Vinotemp, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.
Should you violate this clause, as determined by Vinotemp in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.


That's pretty funny: "In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback . . . this contract prohibits you form taking any action that negatively impacts Vinotemp . . . " In other words, it's "fair and honest public feedback" only if it's positive. If it's negative it must not be fair and honest!
Andrew H e i m e r t
User avatar
A S K R O B A C K
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: June 3rd 2009, 9:44am
Location: NYC

VinoTemp

Post #21  Postby A S K R O B A C K » January 21st 2014, 5:39pm

From the post, I'm not sure how they are trying to impose this as an actual contractual obligation on the purchaser. That said, thanks for the heads up to avoid Vinotemp. Scumbags just for trying that.
d r e w s k r o b a c k
User avatar
Scott Brunson
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 5745
Joined: November 15th 2011, 3:55am
Location: in between coastal SC and south FL

VinoTemp

Post #22  Postby Scott Brunson » January 21st 2014, 5:49pm

Look at the Cellar Tracker forum to see the latest development.
Tous les chemins mènent à la Bourgogne!
On CT, I'm S1
User avatar
A S K R O B A C K
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: June 3rd 2009, 9:44am
Location: NYC

VinoTemp

Post #23  Postby A S K R O B A C K » January 21st 2014, 5:49pm

Charlie Fu wrote:In case people don't want to read a link.

It's a non disparagement clause similar to the one that recently popped up in the news from the company Kleargear. It's actually pretty similar to the Kleargear used. In Kleargear's case, someone posted a negative review and they "fined" (aka charged) them $3500. When they wouldn't pay, they put it as a non payment of bills on their credit report. (a little more info if you're interested.. http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_ins ... eview.html)

Non-Disparagement Clause
In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts Vinotemp, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.
Should you violate this clause, as determined by Vinotemp in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.



Wow...never heard of Kleargear, but I'll seek to avoid them as well. Hope the Palmers nail them to the wall.
d r e w s k r o b a c k
User avatar
A S K R O B A C K
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: June 3rd 2009, 9:44am
Location: NYC

VinoTemp

Post #24  Postby A S K R O B A C K » January 21st 2014, 5:59pm

Scott Brunson wrote:Look at the Cellar Tracker forum to see the latest development.


Todd, I hope a cross-post for this subject is ok. Pretty wild stuff.

https://www.cellartracker.com/forum/tm.asp?m=286889
d r e w s k r o b a c k
User avatar
Rick.T
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: February 19th 2013, 10:06pm

VinoTemp

Post #25  Postby Rick.T » January 21st 2014, 8:29pm

Reading that post on CT was just too much drama for me....
T~@~n**d~y
User avatar
A S K R O B A C K
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: June 3rd 2009, 9:44am
Location: NYC

VinoTemp

Post #26  Postby A S K R O B A C K » January 23rd 2014, 5:21pm

Yep. Just be glad it wasn't you!

Where is Vinotemp located? Anyone know? Some states have consumer protection statutes that can be brought to bear.
d r e w s k r o b a c k
User avatar
Scott Fitzgerald
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: March 12th 2013, 7:32am
Location: The Lone Star State

VinoTemp

Post #27  Postby Scott Fitzgerald » January 23rd 2014, 5:40pm

You can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean it will hold up in court. This is a form of "lawsuit bullying" that scares folks with the fear of having to "lawyer up" at great personal cost to clear their good name. What goes around, comes around - this is bad business at its worst.
Big Tex
CT: BigTex22
User avatar
c fu
ModeratorModerator
Domaine De La Husky
 
Posts: 24327
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:26pm
Location: DTLA/Pasadena

VinoTemp

Post #28  Postby c fu » January 23rd 2014, 6:11pm

Scott Fitzgerald wrote:You can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean it will hold up in court. This is a form of "lawsuit bullying" that scares folks with the fear of having to "lawyer up" at great personal cost to clear their good name. What goes around, comes around - this is bad business at its worst.

unfortunately putting something on your credit is a real thing and a super hassle to take off.
Ch@rlie F|_|

"Roulot is Roulot"©
Austin Fulk
 
Posts: 85
Joined: February 19th 2012, 9:59am

VinoTemp

Post #29  Postby Austin Fulk » February 3rd 2014, 12:16pm

Vinotemp's non-disparagement clause is now getting more negative publicity:

http://overlawyered.com/2014/02/consume ... t-clauses/
User avatar
andy velebil
 
Posts: 4928
Joined: February 2nd 2009, 5:54pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA

VinoTemp

Post #30  Postby andy velebil » March 5th 2014, 6:42am

Here's a good one. Check out how they've modified and renamed their Non-Disparagement clause to "Honest Feedback" and changed the terms slightly as well. I suspect they got so much negative press from here and other sites they've slightly changed their tune...though not by much.

HONEST FEEDBACK: In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts Vinotemp, its reputation, products, services, management or employees, unless you: (A) have first communicated with Vinotemp, and (B) taken any unresolved issue heard by an independent mediator with ADR Services in Los Angeles, CA. Should you not follow this process, Vinotemp in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question, until after mediation. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed US$3,500.00 for your share of the mediation costs, and legal fees associated with establishing the mediation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.


Here's the old one for ease of reading/comparing.

Non-Disparagement Clause
In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts Vinotemp, its reputation, products, services, management or employees. Should you violate this clause, as determined by Vinotemp in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.
I'm a Port drinking fool!
User avatar
AndrewH
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: May 14th 2010, 1:34pm

VinoTemp

Post #31  Postby AndrewH » March 5th 2014, 7:08am

andy velebil wrote:Here's a good one. Check out how they've modified and renamed their Non-Disparagement clause to "Honest Feedback" and changed the terms slightly as well. I suspect they got so much negative press from here and other sites they've slightly changed their tune...though not by much.


Interesting definition of "honest feedback" - Vinotemp decides in its sole discretion what is "honest".
Andrew H e i m e r t
Dan.Gord0n
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: May 10th 2010, 10:47am

VinoTemp

Post #32  Postby Dan.Gord0n » March 5th 2014, 7:23am

Given it is CA in particular, I am surprised that the CA governmental agency overseeing consumer issues and the CA AG's office have given this behavior a pass (I assume that individuals involved have brought this to their attention through filing complaints).

Again, particularly in CA, I could see the legislature passing a bill making it illegal to intimidate a customer from posting reviews or otherwise commenting if such comments are truthful. I wonder if any state has that on the books.....
User avatar
AndrewH
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: May 14th 2010, 1:34pm

VinoTemp

Post #33  Postby AndrewH » March 5th 2014, 2:03pm

Dan.Gord0n wrote:Given it is CA in particular, I am surprised that the CA governmental agency overseeing consumer issues and the CA AG's office have given this behavior a pass (I assume that individuals involved have brought this to their attention through filing complaints).

Again, particularly in CA, I could see the legislature passing a bill making it illegal to intimidate a customer from posting reviews or otherwise commenting if such comments are truthful. I wonder if any state has that on the books.....


My guess is that there would need to be an actual case before they would intervene - i.e., someone posts something that Vinotemp then asserts violates this policy and seeks to collect money on. The relevant agency might intervene in the court proceeding.
Andrew H e i m e r t
User avatar
c fu
ModeratorModerator
Domaine De La Husky
 
Posts: 24327
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:26pm
Location: DTLA/Pasadena

VinoTemp

Post #34  Postby c fu » March 5th 2014, 2:09pm

an update on the Kleargear end of things

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2014/ ... -void.html

Our suit also named the debt collector Fidelity Information Corp., who by this point owned the debt. Now Fidelity has done an independent review of the case and reported to the credit agencies that the debt was erroneous. So the Palmers have a measure of relief – the KlearGear debt is off John’s credit report, finally, after 18 months. Today the Palmers voluntarily dismissed Fidelity from the lawsuit.


Apparently Kleargear has yet to respond to the complaint and have shuttered all social media presence.
Ch@rlie F|_|

"Roulot is Roulot"©
Andrew Kaufman
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 14028
Joined: March 12th 2012, 10:09am
Location: LAX/San Fernando Valley, CA.

VinoTemp

Post #35  Postby Andrew Kaufman » March 5th 2014, 5:45pm

User avatar
Mike Wenzel
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 241
Joined: August 6th 2009, 10:20am
Location: Sonoma County

VinoTemp

Post #36  Postby Mike Wenzel » March 5th 2014, 7:36pm

"(B) taken any unresolved issue heard by an independent mediator with ADR Services in Los Angeles, CA."


Who drafted this?
Eric Liaw
 
Posts: 59
Joined: January 21st 2014, 11:30pm

VinoTemp

Post #37  Postby Eric Liaw » March 5th 2014, 10:16pm

your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action


So... if I get my wife(or anyone who did not purchase the cellar) to write a review for me, I should be good right?

I don't actually own one, I got a artevino by eurocave from Costco and have been very happy with it thus far.
Eric
S. Williams
 
Posts: 221
Joined: November 16th 2010, 3:19pm

VinoTemp

Post #38  Postby S. Williams » March 6th 2014, 7:32am

Charlie Fu wrote:an update on the Kleargear end of things

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2014/ ... -void.html

Our suit also named the debt collector Fidelity Information Corp., who by this point owned the debt. Now Fidelity has done an independent review of the case and reported to the credit agencies that the debt was erroneous. So the Palmers have a measure of relief – the KlearGear debt is off John’s credit report, finally, after 18 months. Today the Palmers voluntarily dismissed Fidelity from the lawsuit.


Apparently Kleargear has yet to respond to the complaint and have shuttered all social media presence.


Wish we could at least that get that much resolution. VinoTemp sold my imaginary debt, for a cabinet that was never even in the same zip code as I am and that they still have, or even already sold to someone as else, as far as I know--assuming any specific cabinet ever existed in the first place--to not one, but TWO, debt collection agencies. Both of which added their own "fees and charges" to the already hysterically astronomical amount VinoTemp claims I owe them (basically 90% of the cabinet's cost) and have reported BOTH nonexistent, fantasy "debts." By the way, both so-called "debts" are a higher amount than the entire cabinet would have been.

So, now I have two so-called "debts" on my credit, plus VinoTemp saying they'll potentially sue me if I don't pay them what they're asking, another ludicrous $5,000-or so amount, and all for something that I never even freaking saw and for which they had, and held, my money for, for seven months without giving me a cotton pickin' thing, all the while lying to me, repeatedly, in writing, about it's delivery date, completion status and whereabouts. So, they're basically saying I owe them--which, I know I actually don't and will never, not even if hell really does freeze over give them--for air and B.S.

And, yes, we did hire a lawyer. And, yes, we did contest the so-called "debts," in writing, with both debt collection agencies, AND the credit bureaus, as well as VinoTemp and, so far (5 weeks later), diddly squat has happened. No response from anyone, anywhere, other than the bogus "debts" showing up on my credit.

While many keep saying I'll win if it comes to court and I have zero plan to give ANYTHING to VinoTemp, this is sure a royal pain in the butt (to put it mildly) and I'm shocked and awed by what VinoTemp is doing to me is. I don't understand how it's legal to just slam someone with fake debts, sold, apparently, to multiple collectors even, because it sure as hell isn't honest, fair or OK in any sense of those words. (And forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the process, because I have zero knowledge of debt collectors and how they work because I've never, ever not paid a valid debt in my life.)

EDIT: To be clear, VinoTemp is not saying they're charging me for posting online (though I might have my suspicions that, that's why they're pursuing this, I have no proof at all to back that gut feeling up), as that clause didn't exist in the paperwork I signed. They're attempting to charge me supposed "restocking" and "delivery" fees for an item that never left their stock, was never even near me, let alone in my possession, and on which delivery was never even attempted, let alone refused.

The short version: I placed an order and paid in full in April 2013, in August 2013 after four months of "it will be there next week" promises--at least 12 scheduled delivery dates that came and went without anything occurring--I told them I didn't want anything from them. They refused to refund anything and I contested the credit card charge and was told my credit was permanent in October 2013. I started receiving debt collection notices and letters purporting to be from VinoTemp's lawyer's in January 2014.
$u$@n Wi!!i@m$
User avatar
AndrewH
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: May 14th 2010, 1:34pm

VinoTemp

Post #39  Postby AndrewH » March 6th 2014, 8:09am

I imagine you've already researched this, but generally you should be pretty well protected on this stuff. Here's info from the US FTC:

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/01 ... collection
Andrew H e i m e r t
Richard Malloy
 
Posts: 550
Joined: May 24th 2011, 11:20am

VinoTemp

Post #40  Postby Richard Malloy » March 6th 2014, 11:38am

In addition to helping out our members who are currently being screwed over, we need to make sure NOT A SINGLE BERSERKER/WINE LOVER/POTENTIAL VICTIM EVER MAKES THE GRAVE MISTAKE OF ENTERING A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH VINOTEMP!

I can say that as I've never signed away my rights as a human being to this company.

Long before this latest insult, Vinotemp had built quite a reputation for horribleness among our little community. Several years ago, I was looking for a storage solution and Vinotemp was in the running. Fortunately, searches of this forum and others revealed to me a long history of customer service problems with Vinotemp. But one had to look carefully. Hopefully, all this will help to amplify that.

Hey, Vinotemp! [1928_middle_finger.gif]
Nick Ryan
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2637
Joined: October 7th 2009, 3:24pm
Location: NorCal

VinoTemp

Post #41  Postby Nick Ryan » March 6th 2014, 3:52pm

S. Williams wrote:And, yes, we did hire a lawyer. And, yes, we did contest the so-called "debts," in writing, with both debt collection agencies, AND the credit bureaus, as well as VinoTemp and, so far (5 weeks later), diddly squat has happened. No response from anyone, anywhere, other than the bogus "debts" showing up on my credit.


By _law_ (the FCRA) at least the credit agencies must fully reinvestigate within 30-45 days to an allegation of a credit report inaccuracy, and respond within another 5 days:

§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

(a) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information

(1) Reinvestigation Required

(A) In general. Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any
item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting
agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency
directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free
of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the
disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed
information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5),
before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the
agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.

(B) Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph (c),
the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not
more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives
information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to
the reinvestigation.

(C) Limitations on extension of period to reinvestigate. Subparagraph (B) shall
not apply to any reinvestigation in which, during the 30-day period described
in subparagraph (A), the information that is the subject of the reinvestigation
is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or the consumer reporting agency
determines that the information cannot be verified.

...

(6) Notice of Results of Reinvestigation

(A) In general. A consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice to a consumer
of the results of a reinvestigation under this subsection not later than 5
business days after the completion of the reinvestigation, by mail or, if authorized
by the consumer for that purpose, by other means available to the agency.


Your lawyer should be telling you this! What are you paying him for?
Walter Nissen
 
Posts: 128
Joined: May 11th 2010, 4:23pm

VinoTemp

Post #42  Postby Walter Nissen » September 11th 2014, 9:14am

California law now provides a $2,500 penalty if "A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services." It goes on to say that "Any waiver of the provisions of this section is contrary to public policy, and is void and unenforceable."

I hope VinoTemp goes down on this, along with any other business scummy enough to insert such a disgusting provision.
S. Williams
 
Posts: 221
Joined: November 16th 2010, 3:19pm

VinoTemp

Post #43  Postby S. Williams » September 11th 2014, 2:27pm

Very interesting Mr. Nissen, thanks for posting and I've passed it on to my lawyer. (No idea if it's helpful or not.)

No news to report from my end, other than the case is ongoing. They did make a settlement offer but the terms were slightly crazy pants so, on gut instinct backed by advice of counsel, did not accept. We countered with a drop everything, Vinotemp pays my legal expenses to date and we all move on with our lives. No response to date. (And it's been a bit.)

Have been told it could be year-plus till we actually get a day in court, as civil things move very, very slowly.
$u$@n Wi!!i@m$
User avatar
Howard Cooper
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 11150
Joined: May 30th 2009, 8:37am
Location: Rockville, MD

VinoTemp

Post #44  Postby Howard Cooper » September 11th 2014, 3:00pm

Walter Nissen wrote:California law now provides a $2,500 penalty if "A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services." It goes on to say that "Any waiver of the provisions of this section is contrary to public policy, and is void and unenforceable."

I hope VinoTemp goes down on this, along with any other business scummy enough to insert such a disgusting provision.


Has anyone sent anything about this or anything like it to the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. I bet they would be interested in something like this.
Howard

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things." Tyrion Lannister
User avatar
Mark Golodetz
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: May 29th 2009, 8:49pm

VinoTemp

Post #45  Postby Mark Golodetz » January 21st 2015, 8:13am

S. Williams wrote:
Charlie Fu wrote:an update on the Kleargear end of things

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2014/ ... -void.html

Our suit also named the debt collector Fidelity Information Corp., who by this point owned the debt. Now Fidelity has done an independent review of the case and reported to the credit agencies that the debt was erroneous. So the Palmers have a measure of relief – the KlearGear debt is off John’s credit report, finally, after 18 months. Today the Palmers voluntarily dismissed Fidelity from the lawsuit.


Apparently Kleargear has yet to respond to the complaint and have shuttered all social media presence.


Wish we could at least that get that much resolution. VinoTemp sold my imaginary debt, for a cabinet that was never even in the same zip code as I am and that they still have, or even already sold to someone as else, as far as I know--assuming any specific cabinet ever existed in the first place--to not one, but TWO, debt collection agencies. Both of which added their own "fees and charges" to the already hysterically astronomical amount VinoTemp claims I owe them (basically 90% of the cabinet's cost) and have reported BOTH nonexistent, fantasy "debts." By the way, both so-called "debts" are a higher amount than the entire cabinet would have been.

So, now I have two so-called "debts" on my credit, plus VinoTemp saying they'll potentially sue me if I don't pay them what they're asking, another ludicrous $5,000-or so amount, and all for something that I never even freaking saw and for which they had, and held, my money for, for seven months without giving me a cotton pickin' thing, all the while lying to me, repeatedly, in writing, about it's delivery date, completion status and whereabouts. So, they're basically saying I owe them--which, I know I actually don't and will never, not even if hell really does freeze over give them--for air and B.S.

And, yes, we did hire a lawyer. And, yes, we did contest the so-called "debts," in writing, with both debt collection agencies, AND the credit bureaus, as well as VinoTemp and, so far (5 weeks later), diddly squat has happened. No response from anyone, anywhere, other than the bogus "debts" showing up on my credit.

While many keep saying I'll win if it comes to court and I have zero plan to give ANYTHING to VinoTemp, this is sure a royal pain in the butt (to put it mildly) and I'm shocked and awed by what VinoTemp is doing to me is. I don't understand how it's legal to just slam someone with fake debts, sold, apparently, to multiple collectors even, because it sure as hell isn't honest, fair or OK in any sense of those words. (And forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the process, because I have zero knowledge of debt collectors and how they work because I've never, ever not paid a valid debt in my life.)

EDIT: To be clear, VinoTemp is not saying they're charging me for posting online (though I might have my suspicions that, that's why they're pursuing this, I have no proof at all to back that gut feeling up), as that clause didn't exist in the paperwork I signed. They're attempting to charge me supposed "restocking" and "delivery" fees for an item that never left their stock, was never even near me, let alone in my possession, and on which delivery was never even attempted, let alone refused.

The short version: I placed an order and paid in full in April 2013, in August 2013 after four months of "it will be there next week" promises--at least 12 scheduled delivery dates that came and went without anything occurring--I told them I didn't want anything from them. They refused to refund anything and I contested the credit card charge and was told my credit was permanent in October 2013. I started receiving debt collection notices and letters purporting to be from VinoTemp's lawyer's in January 2014.


Just seen this thread. My God, it's unbelievable. Todd should use this as a sticky to warn Berserkers of the perils of Vino Temp.

Any updates?
ITB
S. Williams
 
Posts: 221
Joined: November 16th 2010, 3:19pm

VinoTemp

Post #46  Postby S. Williams » January 21st 2015, 8:56am

Mark Golodetz wrote:
Just seen this thread. My God, it's unbelievable. Todd should use this as a sticky to warn Berserkers of the perils of Vino Temp.

Any updates?


Well, I've been occasionally, quite generally updating in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29900&hilit=vinotemp

But the short answer is: Not really. Vinotemp is still suing me for the cabinet they never delivered. They have resisted all attempts to settle, including offers of everyone just dropping everything walking away and paying their own legal fees. I actually have another meeting with my lawyer tomorrow.
Last edited by S. Williams on January 21st 2015, 11:31am, edited 1 time in total.
$u$@n Wi!!i@m$
User avatar
M. Sai
 
Posts: 2012
Joined: January 28th 2009, 9:16pm
Location: Sonoma, CA

VinoTemp

Post #47  Postby M. Sai » January 21st 2015, 10:56am

Mark Golodetz wrote:Just seen this thread. My God, it's unbelievable. Todd should use this as a sticky to warn Berserkers of the perils of Vino Temp.

I made a request to sticky the other Vinotemp thread here: viewtopic.php?p=1639538#p1639538

Honestly - warning the community and visitors of this behavior does a larger service than the whole Rudy thread. A much larger proportion of participants here are in the market for a wine fridge - versus a small subset that could afford the wines that Rudy was counterfeiting. It's not as sexy, but much more likely to do the members of this community a service.
Cheers!
Mike

Happily ITB

Return to Wine Talk

logo
Food Advertising by