Mystery Shopping Thread 25 *PLEASE READ THE OP FIRST**PLEASE NO CLIENT NAMES OR FEES

MysteryMe

My view is that there are two sides to a contract and once that contract has been breeched the terms of the contract are void.


It is the MSC who are at fault if what is being claimed is correct about misleading information being given regarding credit checks. Such checks can have adverse and lasting effects on individuals and it is unacceptable to state that no footprint will remain when in fact it does.


If, and like I said I am only going on what has been posted, the MSC has acted in bad faith then the adverse comments should be directed at them and not the shopper concerned.

Big_Graeme

MysteryMe wrote: »

My view is that there are two sides to a contract and once that contract has been breeched the terms of the contract are void.


It is the MSC who are at fault if what is being claimed is correct about misleading information being given regarding credit checks. Such checks can have adverse and lasting effects on individuals and it is unacceptable to state that no footprint will remain when in fact it does.


If, and like I said I am only going on what has been posted, the MSC has acted in bad faith then the adverse comments should be directed at them and not the shopper concerned.

People and companies make mistakes, they have been offered compensation, running to the company concerned (who may or may not be the client) only puts the whole contract at risk taking money out of your and my pocket.

One of the key rules of this job is you don't go running to anyone but the MSC.

Aasimuk

Big_Graeme wrote: »

People and companies make mistakes, they have been offered compensation, running to the company concerned (who may or may not be the client) only puts the whole contract at risk taking money out of your and my pocket.

One of the key rules of this job is you don't go running to anyone but the MSC.

Apologies Big Graeme, I don't think I explained it right! I have been speaking to TNS since July, and have been fobbed off by them all this time, they have been stating that the checks had been removed, infact, I have three emails confirming this. It was only after 3 months that I have contacted the bank (which is what I was advised to do by the Credit Reference Agencies) TNS offered no compensation, and this was sorted out by the bank in question. I would NEVER run to a client unless the mystery shopping company had breached the contract, which in this case "only a soft identity check" would take place.

ms_night_ryder

Did you mention that the checks were for a msc to the bank? If so that's bad form and where it can affect us all

JWIOW

Does anyone have any experience working for PIP??

Big_Graeme

JWIOW wrote: »

Does anyone have any experience working for PIP??

<Does a quick check see if there is owt available>

Yup.

I only do report only work for them but they have decent briefs, the reports are OK and they pay on time. Pay isn't stella mind but they pay about average for the work needed.

superliss

ms_night_ryder wrote: »

Did you mention that the checks were for a msc to the bank? If so that's bad form and where it can affect us all

I understand what your saying but realistically what else are you meant to do if the MS company are not playing ball? We all know how much credit applications can affect credit scores. If the proverbial hit the fan and I needed a loan from the bank, this may sound selfish but I'm not going to be thinking about my fellow MSers first.

If you have had 3 creit apps in 3 weeks or less that could have a massive impact on you. You take the assignments in good faith not thinking you are going to get screwed over. I would have done the same.

Gamereat

I see MF lost there betting shop to SL. Be a lot lower fee for them now. Not surprised

MysteryMe

Big_Graeme wrote: »

People and companies make mistakes, they have been offered compensation, running to the company concerned (who may or may not be the client) only puts the whole contract at risk taking money out of your and my pocket.

One of the key rules of this job is you don't go running to anyone but the MSC.

No, one of the key rules on running a business is that you ensure you are treated as a business and not some sop so desperate for a few quid that you are happy to be mugged off.


In general and not referring specifically to the MSC under discussion, if I was the client I would be more concerned learning that the MSC was not following my instructions. The worst that can happen is that the client decides to change MSC and perhaps that would be no bad thing. The assignments (and therefore money) will still exist just offered by another MSC.


The only bad form being shown is by those who are supportive of bad business practice. It is those people's attitude that allow many MSC to treat mystery shoppers poorly in every respect and it is those people who are the problem not those who wish to be treated in a professional and honest manner.

MysteryMe

Aasimuk wrote: »

Apologies Big Graeme, I don't think I explained it right! I have been speaking to TNS since July, and have been fobbed off by them all this time, they have been stating that the checks had been removed, infact, I have three emails confirming this. It was only after 3 months that I have contacted the bank (which is what I was advised to do by the Credit Reference Agencies) TNS offered no compensation, and this was sorted out by the bank in question. I would NEVER run to a client unless the mystery shopping company had breached the contract, which in this case "only a soft identity check" would take place.

It was quite obvious from your earlier post that it was not the MSC that had offered you compensation. So you have had three emails plus verbal communications all providing factually incorrect information? And to think some on here think you should just put it down to a mere mistake!