VinoTemp

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Scott Brunson
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7499
Joined: November 15th, 2011, 2:55 am
Location: in between coastal SC and south FL

VinoTemp

#1 Post by Scott Brunson » December 23rd, 2013, 2:56 pm

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

User avatar
c fu
Moderator
<dfn>Moderator</dfn>
Posts: 29100
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Location: Pasadena

VinoTemp

#2 Post by c fu » December 23rd, 2013, 3:05 pm

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"©

Instagram: @clayfu.wine

User avatar
andy velebil
Posts: 6628
Joined: February 2nd, 2009, 4:54 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA

VinoTemp

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

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!
http://www.fortheloveofport.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ftlop.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
c fu
Moderator
<dfn>Moderator</dfn>
Posts: 29100
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Location: Pasadena

VinoTemp

#4 Post by c fu » December 23rd, 2013, 3:19 pm

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"©

Instagram: @clayfu.wine

Richard Malloy
Posts: 581
Joined: May 24th, 2011, 11:20 am

VinoTemp

#5 Post by Richard Malloy » December 23rd, 2013, 3:53 pm

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
Posts: 2857
Joined: February 19th, 2013, 9:06 pm

VinoTemp

#6 Post by Rick.T » December 23rd, 2013, 4:38 pm

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 12272
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 8:58 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

VinoTemp

#7 Post by Eric LeVine » December 23rd, 2013, 4:56 pm

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: 2252
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Sonoma, CA

VinoTemp

#8 Post by M. Sai » December 23rd, 2013, 9:07 pm

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

Formerly ITB

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

VinoTemp

#9 Post by Steve Matthesen » December 24th, 2013, 1:01 pm

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2511
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 5:21 pm
Location: University Park, MD/Rehoboth Beach, DE

VinoTemp

#10 Post by Jay $$ Winton » December 25th, 2013, 8:40 am

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 12272
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 8:58 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

VinoTemp

#11 Post by Eric LeVine » December 25th, 2013, 8:51 am

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2775
Joined: October 7th, 2009, 3:24 pm
Location: NorCal

VinoTemp

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

http://sites.google.com/site/nryan4242/CellarPlannerV11.zip

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

VinoTemp

#13 Post by Rick Dalia » December 25th, 2013, 12:31 pm

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: 431
Joined: April 2nd, 2011, 12:19 pm
Location: DC/Alexandria, VA

VinoTemp

#14 Post by Scot H. » December 25th, 2013, 12:46 pm

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
Posts: 2470
Joined: July 11th, 2011, 10:09 am

VinoTemp

#15 Post by Fred C » December 25th, 2013, 1:53 pm

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 848
Joined: April 25th, 2009, 5:23 pm
Location: NY

VinoTemp

#16 Post by Seo S a l i m i » December 25th, 2013, 2:14 pm

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.

Frank Mestas
Posts: 40
Joined: October 27th, 2009, 4:17 pm
Location: Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, NM

VinoTemp

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

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, 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Florida

VinoTemp

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

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: 581
Joined: May 24th, 2011, 11:20 am

VinoTemp

#19 Post by Richard Malloy » January 21st, 2014, 12:25 pm

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: 1876
Joined: May 14th, 2010, 1:34 pm

VinoTemp

#20 Post by AndrewH » January 21st, 2014, 2:34 pm

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: 2197
Joined: June 3rd, 2009, 9:44 am
Location: NYC

VinoTemp

#21 Post by A S K R O B A C K » January 21st, 2014, 4:39 pm

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7499
Joined: November 15th, 2011, 2:55 am
Location: in between coastal SC and south FL

VinoTemp

#22 Post by Scott Brunson » January 21st, 2014, 4:49 pm

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: 2197
Joined: June 3rd, 2009, 9:44 am
Location: NYC

VinoTemp

#23 Post by A S K R O B A C K » January 21st, 2014, 4:49 pm

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: 2197
Joined: June 3rd, 2009, 9:44 am
Location: NYC

VinoTemp

#24 Post by A S K R O B A C K » January 21st, 2014, 4:59 pm

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
Posts: 2857
Joined: February 19th, 2013, 9:06 pm

VinoTemp

#25 Post by Rick.T » January 21st, 2014, 7:29 pm

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: 2197
Joined: June 3rd, 2009, 9:44 am
Location: NYC

VinoTemp

#26 Post by A S K R O B A C K » January 23rd, 2014, 4:21 pm

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2498
Joined: March 12th, 2013, 7:32 am

VinoTemp

#27 Post by Scott Fitzgerald » January 23rd, 2014, 4:40 pm

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.
CT: BigTex22

User avatar
c fu
Moderator
<dfn>Moderator</dfn>
Posts: 29100
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Location: Pasadena

VinoTemp

#28 Post by c fu » January 23rd, 2014, 5:11 pm

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"©

Instagram: @clayfu.wine

Austin Fulk
Posts: 86
Joined: February 19th, 2012, 8:59 am

VinoTemp

#29 Post by Austin Fulk » February 3rd, 2014, 11:16 am

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

http://overlawyered.com/2014/02/consume ... t-clauses/

User avatar
andy velebil
Posts: 6628
Joined: February 2nd, 2009, 4:54 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA

VinoTemp

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

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!
http://www.fortheloveofport.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ftlop.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
AndrewH
Posts: 1876
Joined: May 14th, 2010, 1:34 pm

VinoTemp

#31 Post by AndrewH » March 5th, 2014, 6:08 am

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: 2652
Joined: May 10th, 2010, 10:47 am

VinoTemp

#32 Post by Dan.Gord0n » March 5th, 2014, 6:23 am

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: 1876
Joined: May 14th, 2010, 1:34 pm

VinoTemp

#33 Post by AndrewH » March 5th, 2014, 1:03 pm

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
Moderator
<dfn>Moderator</dfn>
Posts: 29100
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Location: Pasadena

VinoTemp

#34 Post by c fu » March 5th, 2014, 1:09 pm

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"©

Instagram: @clayfu.wine

Andrew Kaufman
Posts: 16213
Joined: March 12th, 2012, 10:09 am
Location: San Fernando Valley, CA.

VinoTemp

#35 Post by Andrew Kaufman » March 5th, 2014, 4:45 pm


User avatar
Mike Wenzel
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 332
Joined: August 6th, 2009, 10:20 am
Location: Sonoma County

VinoTemp

#36 Post by Mike Wenzel » March 5th, 2014, 6:36 pm

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


Who drafted this?

Eric Liaw
Posts: 60
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 10:30 pm

VinoTemp

#37 Post by Eric Liaw » March 5th, 2014, 9:16 pm

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: 232
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 2:19 pm

VinoTemp

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

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: 1876
Joined: May 14th, 2010, 1:34 pm

VinoTemp

#39 Post by AndrewH » March 6th, 2014, 7:09 am

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: 581
Joined: May 24th, 2011, 11:20 am

VinoTemp

#40 Post by Richard Malloy » March 6th, 2014, 10:38 am

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2775
Joined: October 7th, 2009, 3:24 pm
Location: NorCal

VinoTemp

#41 Post by Nick Ryan » March 6th, 2014, 2:52 pm

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?
http://sites.google.com/site/nryan4242/CellarPlannerV11.zip

Walter Nissen
Posts: 199
Joined: May 11th, 2010, 4:23 pm

VinoTemp

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

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: 232
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 2:19 pm

VinoTemp

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

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 14612
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Rockville, MD

VinoTemp

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

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
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5052
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

VinoTemp

#45 Post by Mark Golodetz » January 21st, 2015, 7:13 am

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: 232
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 2:19 pm

VinoTemp

#46 Post by S. Williams » January 21st, 2015, 7:56 am

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: http://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/vie ... t=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, 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
$u$@n Wi!!i@m$

User avatar
M. Sai
Posts: 2252
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Sonoma, CA

VinoTemp

#47 Post by M. Sai » January 21st, 2015, 9:56 am

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: http://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/vie ... 8#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

Formerly ITB

User avatar
Brian Tuite
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 17966
Joined: July 3rd, 2010, 8:53 am
Location: Podunk CA

VinoTemp

#48 Post by Brian Tuite » September 4th, 2017, 6:38 am

E.Magri wrote:
Richard Malloy wrote: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 hydromax was in the running. Fortunately, searches of this forum and others revealed to me a long history of customer service problems with hydromax. But one had to look carefully. Hopefully, all this will help to amplify that.

Hey, Vinotemp! [1928_middle_finger.gif]
Great,Mr. Nissen, thank you for publishing and I have passed it on my lawyer. (I don't know if it's useful or not.)No news to state from my end, other than the truth is ongoing. They made a settlement offer however the terms were a bit crazy pants so, on gut instinct supported by guidance of counsel, didn't accept.
Mods, get rid of this fraud E.Magri
S. Williams in September 2014 wrote: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.
Bob Wood - 1949-2013 Berserker for eternity! RIP

"On self-reflection, I think a big part of it was me just being a PITA customer..." ~ Anonymous Berserker

"Something so subtle only I can detect it." ~ Randy Bowman

2018 WOTY...
2014 Carter Cellars Wietz

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”