VinoTemp

Nick_Ryan · March 6, 2014, 10:52pm

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 · September 11, 2014, 4:14pm

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 · September 11, 2014, 9:27pm

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.

Howard_Cooper · September 11, 2014, 10:00pm

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.

Mark_Golodetz · January 21, 2015, 3:13pm

S. Williams:

Charlie Fu:

an update on the Kleargear end of things

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2014/02/kleargear-update-debt-collector-agrees-that-non-disparagement-clause-debt-is-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?

S_Williams · January 21, 2015, 3:56pm

Well, I’ve been occasionally, quite generally updating in this thread: Vinotemp Customer Service Issues -- Help Please - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers

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.

M_Sai · January 21, 2015, 5:56pm

I made a request to sticky the other Vinotemp thread here: http://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/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.

Brian_Tuite · September 4, 2017, 1:38pm

E.Magri:

Richard Malloy:

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