LA WEIGHT LOSS the centre was deceptive non- communicative and adjusted the amount of product I had as soon as I paid my fees NEVER telling me this Ripoff Calgary Alberta
On or about March 22, 2007, I had a surprise phone call from LA Weight Loss inviting me back to the Centre! I was shocked to get the call, as I had been thinking about returning already. I spoke with a lady named Tuba (I believe that is her name) I told her I had been thinking of returning but felt there might some "confrontation" as I had heard about them in the Media . I asked her if she could tell me how many boxes of LA Lites I had remaining, as I knew I had plenty. She said I had 84. I said to her "84 or 84 boxes". She said "no, 84 boxes". I said "oh, I knew I had a lot, that's good then".
So I asked her if I had any weeks I could use and she said no, but I had maintenance weeks left. (which I find out is NOT true either).
I made an appointment to see her, for March 28, 2007 at 5pm. I showed up early, and managed to see Tuba at about 4:40pm. We discussed everything, the amount of bars I had left, 84 boxes, which also showed on my file as well. I saw the circled number showing on my OLD file. The Manager (Tamica Johnstone) came and welcomed me back, as I had known her previously. Tuba and I went over everything again, including the amount of LA lites I had owing to me which was stated at 84 boxes, the amount of weeks of weight loss I would have, the amount of stabilizing weeks and the maintenance weeks for a total cost of $716.56. (including tax).
I left with directions to do the 2 day "take-off program" and would return on Saturday March 31, 2007 to weigh in and receive the program guide and diet booklet and I would be measured up at that time. (that didn't occur)
I returned on Saturday, March 31, 2007 around noon to find that when I met with Tuba, I no longer had 84 boxes of LA Lites, but now I had 64 boxes showing on my nice NEW file! The explanation was: the computer is right, your file was wrong and we take the computer number as the right one! Through no fault of Tuba's, except maybe bad training, she gave me the information present on my file and apparently she didn't do an audit before calling me or before taking my MONEY. Is this now MY problem? Apparently YES.
I demanded to see my OLD file, where of course I was correct, it showed 84 boxes. I was now at the front desk, where I was attempting to have my file corrected. Tuba admitted to me that she had told me I had 84 boxes, BUT, she found out she was wrong and the computer was right! One of the staff came to make things right and said to me, "I'll give you the 20 boxes Anne". So, a correction was made, albeit with an effort to make me feel guilty for perusing what I still feel was mine in the first place.
She was GIVING me nothing but what I had been promised on the telephone, then again on the day I paid my $716.56. I know human error can happen, but how can a company run without some sort of balance kept?? Not to mention, I don't buy the idea that the computer is now right, and my file is now wrong.
When I showed up at the LA Weight Loss Centre at Crowfoot on Wednesday, April 4, 2007, I noticed that Tuba avoided taking me as her next client. I was instead greeted by a very nice lady and taken to her office after the usual weigh-in. It was at that time, I could see that my numbers were changed once again! The 20 boxes were taken away AGAIN and an additional box as well. A claim was made that an audit was made to my file, and they had adjusted it accordingly. No one from the centre had called to tell me what they had arbitrarily done again, it was there for me to find out, when I showed up.
A business such as a weight loss centre, is supposed to be a supportive/positive business, and such negativity, just encourages one to fail in what is already a trying time. In addition, this has upset me greatly, causing anxiety over returning to the centre and frustration over the amount of LA Lite boxes I actually should have pre-paid. I have attempted to speak directly with Tamica Johnstone, who was not available on any occasion when calling.
I filed a report with the Better Business Bureau claim #1145860. As I told them, The point is this: I was signed up, and paid for re-joining the weight loss program with the information as stated above. Someone doesn't just arbitrarily change the rules AFTER money is paid. I consider this fraud. I feel that the LA Weight Loss Centre located at Crowfoot, Calgary, Alberta has treated me unfairly and taken my money under FALSE PRETENSES. Good customer service would certainly have been to honor what I was told BEFORE I paid my money.
I requested a FULL REFUND which they refuse. They held back money, as if it were me who acted inappropriately..Never was it a random choice....it was because they cannot be trusted that I quit, and quit within a week as well. I am still out almost 300.00 which I believe it mine, and not theirs to train the losers working at the centre.
I am at a total loss as to how a business can legally operate in this province, and arbitrarily hold back money of any amount, when it was THEM who were WRONG.
PS. When I went to pick up my 55 boxes of LA Lite bars, MIRACULOUSLY appeared 76 boxes! I went to pick up 55, and lo and behold, the COMPUTER said I had 76. Totally unbelievable! Not what they had told me, right up to the area supervisor Wendy, who adamantly told me there were only 55.
Trust them! no way!
Anne
Calgary, Alberta
Canada
9 Updates & Rebuttals
Kathyryn
Seattle,Washington,
U.S.A.
Uhm
#10Consumer Comment
Thu, April 02, 2009
To the person above me, you must be confused. You've obviously never spoken to a lawyer, about this or anything else. Had you you would know that if someone /wrote/ something false about you it would be considered libel, not slander, something a child would know let alone an individual who has passed the barr.
Slander, my dear, is spoken, not written.
What the person stated in her original post is neither slander nor libel as they do not claim anything malicious against you or anyone else. You've admitted that what she's said is true, that she was told one thing and after she'd paid she was given the bait and switch and no longer was in the position she was told she would be in. Indeed she was out 20 boxes, t.w.e.n.t.y. More than a tiny error there.
Kathyryn
Seattle,Washington,
U.S.A.
Uhm
#10Consumer Comment
Thu, April 02, 2009
To the person above me, you must be confused. You've obviously never spoken to a lawyer, about this or anything else. Had you you would know that if someone /wrote/ something false about you it would be considered libel, not slander, something a child would know let alone an individual who has passed the barr.
Slander, my dear, is spoken, not written.
What the person stated in her original post is neither slander nor libel as they do not claim anything malicious against you or anyone else. You've admitted that what she's said is true, that she was told one thing and after she'd paid she was given the bait and switch and no longer was in the position she was told she would be in. Indeed she was out 20 boxes, t.w.e.n.t.y. More than a tiny error there.
Kathyryn
Seattle,Washington,
U.S.A.
Uhm
#10Consumer Comment
Thu, April 02, 2009
To the person above me, you must be confused. You've obviously never spoken to a lawyer, about this or anything else. Had you you would know that if someone /wrote/ something false about you it would be considered libel, not slander, something a child would know let alone an individual who has passed the barr.
Slander, my dear, is spoken, not written.
What the person stated in her original post is neither slander nor libel as they do not claim anything malicious against you or anyone else. You've admitted that what she's said is true, that she was told one thing and after she'd paid she was given the bait and switch and no longer was in the position she was told she would be in. Indeed she was out 20 boxes, t.w.e.n.t.y. More than a tiny error there.
Tamica
Calgary,Alberta,
Canada
remove
#10REBUTTAL Individual responds
Mon, September 15, 2008
please find a way to remove this. I have contacted a lawyer and this is straight slander. this woman lied...is still lying, and i do not appreciate my name being linked to this. i will need a response immediately, otherwise action will be taken. as a matter of fact, it already has started.
thank you.
Anne
Calgary,Alberta,
Canada
LA WEIGHT LOSS
#10Author of original report
Sun, March 23, 2008
I am sorry to read the update by Tamica.
If there were not the amount of boxes of LA LITES, then the proper way to handle it would be to TALK to the client, NOT just change the amounts and hope she won't notice.
It goes to show how fickle the so called counsellors are, when they want to blame my non-weight loss on my NON-TRUST of a company.
I rest my case. I was LIED to and communication was never there!
THAT in itself is NOT how employees of any company who are supposedly HELPING, should ACT. I liked and enjoyed ALL the employees until I found I was deceived, and the trust was totally lost.
My life is good. I don't embrace DECEIPT/sneeky people.
Tamica
Calgary,Alberta,
Canada
Inappropriate to have my name linked to this under a google search
#10UPDATE Employee
Sat, January 26, 2008
I was very alarmed and disturbed that my full name was linked to this complaint. I just happened to google my name today and lo and behold, this negativity appeared linked to my name. The last time (about 2 years ago) when I googled my name, it came up linked to my deceased grandfather's obituary (thornton johnstone). You can imagine how one feels when they do a random search and this appears. The decision made by the owner in regards to the lalite dispute was HER decision...not mine....I only followed orders and did as I was directed to do. The fact is that Anne Macallister did in fact not have as many lalites as what was in her original file. What had happened was she had come in and redeemed some of her pre-purchased lalites, and whomever she had met with had failed to document accordingly in her file.
However, when we pulled the redeem report, we were able to physically show Anne what had happened, and that she indeed had less lalites than originally quoted. Anne pulled something very sneaky and went into the center on a day that I was not in and unbenounst to the staff, she took all the lalites, which then resulted in my paycheque being garnished to cover the loss. I understand Anne's frustration, however I do not appreciate my name being linked to this when you try to google tamica johnstone.
Is there any way we can fix this please? And to call the staff losers? well perhaps her frustration also comes from her failure at weight loss and this is a good way to vent her frustrations, but does this mean we should call her a loser also? Only losers are sneaky and manipulating, and this was precisely how she conducted herself. Maybe she should have spend more time worrying about losing her weight loss to prolong her life, rather than waste her precious energy(and having anxiety???) creating a problem that she in fact started by taking boxes she didnt even pay for. (and that ended up costing me)
Tamica
Calgary,Alberta,
Canada
Inappropriate to have my name linked to this under a google search
#10UPDATE Employee
Sat, January 26, 2008
I was very alarmed and disturbed that my full name was linked to this complaint. I just happened to google my name today and lo and behold, this negativity appeared linked to my name. The last time (about 2 years ago) when I googled my name, it came up linked to my deceased grandfather's obituary (thornton johnstone). You can imagine how one feels when they do a random search and this appears. The decision made by the owner in regards to the lalite dispute was HER decision...not mine....I only followed orders and did as I was directed to do. The fact is that Anne Macallister did in fact not have as many lalites as what was in her original file. What had happened was she had come in and redeemed some of her pre-purchased lalites, and whomever she had met with had failed to document accordingly in her file.
However, when we pulled the redeem report, we were able to physically show Anne what had happened, and that she indeed had less lalites than originally quoted. Anne pulled something very sneaky and went into the center on a day that I was not in and unbenounst to the staff, she took all the lalites, which then resulted in my paycheque being garnished to cover the loss. I understand Anne's frustration, however I do not appreciate my name being linked to this when you try to google tamica johnstone.
Is there any way we can fix this please? And to call the staff losers? well perhaps her frustration also comes from her failure at weight loss and this is a good way to vent her frustrations, but does this mean we should call her a loser also? Only losers are sneaky and manipulating, and this was precisely how she conducted herself. Maybe she should have spend more time worrying about losing her weight loss to prolong her life, rather than waste her precious energy(and having anxiety???) creating a problem that she in fact started by taking boxes she didnt even pay for. (and that ended up costing me)
Tamica
Calgary,Alberta,
Canada
Inappropriate to have my name linked to this under a google search
#10UPDATE Employee
Sat, January 26, 2008
I was very alarmed and disturbed that my full name was linked to this complaint. I just happened to google my name today and lo and behold, this negativity appeared linked to my name. The last time (about 2 years ago) when I googled my name, it came up linked to my deceased grandfather's obituary (thornton johnstone). You can imagine how one feels when they do a random search and this appears. The decision made by the owner in regards to the lalite dispute was HER decision...not mine....I only followed orders and did as I was directed to do. The fact is that Anne Macallister did in fact not have as many lalites as what was in her original file. What had happened was she had come in and redeemed some of her pre-purchased lalites, and whomever she had met with had failed to document accordingly in her file.
However, when we pulled the redeem report, we were able to physically show Anne what had happened, and that she indeed had less lalites than originally quoted. Anne pulled something very sneaky and went into the center on a day that I was not in and unbenounst to the staff, she took all the lalites, which then resulted in my paycheque being garnished to cover the loss. I understand Anne's frustration, however I do not appreciate my name being linked to this when you try to google tamica johnstone.
Is there any way we can fix this please? And to call the staff losers? well perhaps her frustration also comes from her failure at weight loss and this is a good way to vent her frustrations, but does this mean we should call her a loser also? Only losers are sneaky and manipulating, and this was precisely how she conducted herself. Maybe she should have spend more time worrying about losing her weight loss to prolong her life, rather than waste her precious energy(and having anxiety???) creating a problem that she in fact started by taking boxes she didnt even pay for. (and that ended up costing me)
Tamica
Calgary,Alberta,
Canada
Inappropriate to have my name linked to this under a google search
#10UPDATE Employee
Sat, January 26, 2008
I was very alarmed and disturbed that my full name was linked to this complaint. I just happened to google my name today and lo and behold, this negativity appeared linked to my name. The last time (about 2 years ago) when I googled my name, it came up linked to my deceased grandfather's obituary (thornton johnstone). You can imagine how one feels when they do a random search and this appears. The decision made by the owner in regards to the lalite dispute was HER decision...not mine....I only followed orders and did as I was directed to do. The fact is that Anne Macallister did in fact not have as many lalites as what was in her original file. What had happened was she had come in and redeemed some of her pre-purchased lalites, and whomever she had met with had failed to document accordingly in her file.
However, when we pulled the redeem report, we were able to physically show Anne what had happened, and that she indeed had less lalites than originally quoted. Anne pulled something very sneaky and went into the center on a day that I was not in and unbenounst to the staff, she took all the lalites, which then resulted in my paycheque being garnished to cover the loss. I understand Anne's frustration, however I do not appreciate my name being linked to this when you try to google tamica johnstone.
Is there any way we can fix this please? And to call the staff losers? well perhaps her frustration also comes from her failure at weight loss and this is a good way to vent her frustrations, but does this mean we should call her a loser also? Only losers are sneaky and manipulating, and this was precisely how she conducted herself. Maybe she should have spend more time worrying about losing her weight loss to prolong her life, rather than waste her precious energy(and having anxiety???) creating a problem that she in fact started by taking boxes she didnt even pay for. (and that ended up costing me)