Swanson Health Products swansonvitamins.com Double Billing on Bankcards resulting in cascading bank fees-unhelpful in resolution Fargo North Dakota
Please keep in mind as you read these letters to Swanson Health Products and the North Dakota Attorney General that a simple mistake gets corrected in a few minutes. We all make mistakes, however, making a customer wheel spin and waste an afternoon trying to fix a problem elevates this to an intentional fraudulent action.
===================
01 May 2014
Ms. Rhonda Barreth, Executive Assistant
Swanson Health Products/SwansonVitamins.com
4075 40th Ave, SW
Fargo, North Dakota 58104
VIA FAX TRANSMISSION TO (###) ###-####
NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS TRANSMISSION - 4
Ref: Customer Number ########; Order Number ########
Dear Ms. Barreth:
Swanson Health Products/SwansonVitamins.com has an illegal practice of double billing customers for their orders. When this happened to me on my recent order it resulted in fees from my [financial institution] being assessed against me because of this second fraudulent charge. At first I considered this to be a mistake. However, the stonewalling I received from your staff when trying to resolve this matter indicates to me that this reprehensible practice is fully endorsed by the corporate staff. When, not if, I contact the North Dakota State Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem I will directly ask him to shut your business down as I doubt you isolated me for such abuse and it is more likely, based on the run around and stonewalling I got, that you engage in the practice of double billing as a matter of course.
Now for the details. On Sunday, 27 April 2014 I placed an order via your internet website swansonvitamins.com totalling $281.43. A hold for this amount was placed on my account, dated Monday 28 April 2014 (a week date is used as financial institutions only use calendar dates from a business day and not from a weekend or holiday). This was appropriate as I am responsible for paying for something once, but only once.
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 another hold got put on my account of $281.52 which resulted in three consecutive bank fees being assessed against me as I exceeded my limit for the number of overdraft transfers for the month of April. This would not have happened were it not for the fraudulent second charge by your company as these transfers would not have been necessary as a result. For all practical purposes the hold behaves the same as final clearance as the [financial institution] sets aside funds for final clearance and is inaccessible by me. At the time of the setting aside of funds the fees get assessed – this is financial institution common practice, regardless of the institution. I made allowances for a single hold or charge but not two!! I did not learn of this problem until today, 01 May 2014.
I was impressed with the quickness in the fulfillment of my order which arrived on Tuesday, 29 April 2014, since it was sent from your warehouse in Nevada. However, the quickness of merchandise receipt and accuracy of merchandise fulfillment was severely overshadowed by being double billed resulting in [financial institution] fees being assessed against me. Again, it is readily apparent by the behavior of your customer service staff that this double billing is standard operating procedure and not some kind of innocent mistake.
Fortunately, the [financial institution] took pity on me and refunded my fees. But it does not negate the fact that I have three negative marks against me in my relationship with my [financial institution] which are initiated by your fraudulent action of double billing. In addition, the fact that I received pity this time does not mean they will do so again. As I indicated before, I doubt you isolated me for this kind of reprehensible business practice and it is more reasonable to conclude that you regularly engage in such financial misbehavior. Shame on you!
On Thursday, 01 May 2014, today, I discovered what had happened when I looked into my account. After speaking with Patti XXXXXX at my [financial institution] I called your customer service department. (Note: At this time of year North Dakota is two hours ahead of [my city's] time; so please add two hours to the times I give if you want to research your records.)
At 13:20 MST I spoke with Tyler and told him what had happened. He seemed genuinely concerned and told me that he was composing an eMail to another department. I informed him that this concern had to be resolved today and I needed to speak with someone in that department. It is my experience the use of eMails is to give the impression that something effective is being done when it is not. eMails can be ignored, a human presence not so much. He complied and transferred me to Wendy.
At 13:32 MST I started speaking with Wendy. Initially, I considered that this problem was going to be resolved and that this was just a mistake and would be resolved by the helpful, pleasant and competent staff of Swanson. As time went on I realized that my initial impression was a little too naive. She agreed to call my representative at the [financial institution], Patti XXXXXX. I later received confirmation that she did. When she came back to the phone she told me that she could do nothing more. I told her that she could; she could call Swanson’s financial institution and get a cancellation code to have the hold and the effective seizure of my funds released. She refused. So it no longer became a matter of “can” not but rather one of “will” not. Gee, I wonder why? It couldn’t be that Swanson regularly engages in this fraudulent practice of double billing, is it?
At this point I recognized what was happening and told her point blank that this fraudulent second billing needs to be reversed otherwise I need to have the name of Swanson’s legal counsel and I would contact the North Dakota State Attorney General first and later the attorneys general of the remaining 50 states and of the U.S. Federal Government. With a sheet of paper an attorney general has the capacity to walk into a fraudulently run business and shut it down.
She put me on hold and when she came back at 13:50 MST claimed she did not have the information. She indicated that I would need to send fax proof from my [financial institution] of this double billing. Really? You double bill me and then tell me that I have to come up with the evidence – information you have and have already acknowledged by your verbal responses and your actions? Frankly, if I had any doubts as to Swanson’s culpability in engaging in fraudulent double billing this idiotic statement removed these doubts. When I asked to be transferred to the person who could tell me the name of Swanson’s legal counsel she put me on old again. All she had to do was to tell me to call the corporate number. She did not. Gee, I wonder why?
When she came back at 13:59 MST she started to answer all kinds of questions I did not ask. When I told her that I did not ask about the things she was “answering” I told her again the information I was demanding – the name of the Swanson legal counsel or to be connected with the executive offices so I could get the information so I could communicate with this person. This information was not forthcoming – this is information that should be readily available to a customer. Stonewalling in this manner only annoys a customer worse, results in a more firm handling of a customer service matter and leads one to reasonably to believe that some fraudulent activity is afoot. She wanted me to wait until Monday, 05 May 2014 for this to be resolved. Yes, someone hijacks money from you and he wants you to wait longer to see if the hijacking will be undone. Last time I looked in the mirror the letters S-T-U-P-I-D were not written on my forehead.
Then she claimed that she was going to transfer me to her supervisor. I just got transferred to a ringing telephone. Nothing like an incident like that to reinforce the idea that one is being stonewalled and given the runaround. Gee, I wonder why? It couldn’t be that Swanson regularly engages in this fraudulent practice of double billing, is it?
At 14:00 MST I called back and spoke to a supervisor Eric. He claimed that he had a “release code” that he regularly uses to fix these kinds of double billing matters. Really? Why did Wendy not have this code? Or if she did, why was she unwilling to use it? Eric was unwilling to find the information I requested of the name of Swanson’s legal counsel and to be connected to the executive offices but he agreed to call my [financial institution] and fix the matter. I got disconnected. I called my [financial institution] and Patti XXXXXX confirmed that Eric did just call her but she herself was a little uncertain. So she called the [financial institution] card department and they were finally able to release the hold and hence the effective seizure of my funds that were fraudulently initiated by your company. Ms. XXXXXX agreed that double billing was not a good thing and is interested in knowing the results of this incident.
After speaking with Ms. XXXXXX I had to go on the internet to find out the names of the corporate officers of Swanson. After all, this information which should have been readily available from your customer service people was not available. Finally, I was able to get some headway by using an alternative source to find this information. This is information that should be readily available when an unhappy customer demands it from your customer service people. You may hire these people to resolve customer service problems yet when it is clear that they are unable or unwilling to do so then this information should be readily available. And if your corporate officers don’t want to be bothered with this kind of concern then don’t double bill! I am forced to wonder why your legal counsel advised you that double billing customers was an acceptable business practice. It is difficult to imagine that a reputable attorney would permit such behavior to be linked with his name.
Again, I doubt that my circumstances are unique. This concern could have been prevented if you did not engage in the practice of double billing. Did you really consider that no one would complain?
It is a real shame Swanson engages in fraudulent business practices. You ship the products correctly and in a timely fashion. It is a shame that a true mistake that could have been fixed within three minutes ended up taking my entire afternoon. An intentional “mistake,” would generate an afternoon’s wheel spinning on the part of the customer and then some. I do not knowingly do business with entities that engage in your type of business practices. As I told Tyler, I only pay for merchandise once or I sever my business relationship.
You put on a good show. You have nice catalogs. You have seemingly friendly customer service people; they stonewall you with a smile and soft voice. You seem to send the products ordered and accurately. You seem to stock some quality products. I wanted to believe that Swanson was a place I would be doing business with for many years to come. But cold hard facts have interfered and demonstrated to me that it seems to be quite common that you double bill. Again, I only pay for merchandise once and I will not afford the fallout generated by double billing. Nor should anyone else!
Respectfully,
[My Name]
cc: Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Attorney General, (###) ###-####
Patti XXXXXX, [My Financial Institution], (###) ###-####
= = = = = = =
01 May 2014
Mr. Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General
State of North Dakota
Consumer Protection Division
1050 E Interstate Ave., Suite 200
Bismark, North Dakota 58503-5574
Ref: Swanson Health Products/SwansonVitamins.com, 4075 40th Ave, SW,
Fargo, North Dakota 58104, (800) 437-4148, (701) 356-2700
VIA FAX TRANSMISSION TO (701) 328-5568
NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS TRANSMISSION: 5
Dear Mr. Stenehjem:
Swanson Health Products /aka/ SwansonVitamins.com has an apparent regular practice of double billing customers which can result in customer financial institution assesses fees that would otherwise be unnecessary had the second fraudulent transaction not taken place.
When a customer attempts to resolve the problem the customer service people are virtually no help. Because of my tenacity and determination both I and my credit union were able to resolve the problem. But other unsuspecting customers may not have the help I did with their financial institution and may not have the tenacity to fix the problem of the double billing.
Enclosed in this fax transmission is my letter to Rhonda Barreth, Executive Assistant at Swanson Health Products which delineates in great detail my experience.
I trust that after you quickly look into this matter you will suspend Swanson Health Products/SwansonVitamins.com from doing business for two major reasons. First, they are involved in fraudulent practices. Second, it gives a tarnished mark to the reputation of the State of North Dakota to have such a business active engaged in financial bankcard fraudulent activities.
Thank you for your assistance.
Respectfully,
[My Name]
2 Updates & Rebuttals
Gary
Tucson,Arizona,
Supplementary Information on This Report
#3Author of original report
Mon, May 19, 2014
A letter dated 08 May 2014 was sent from Swanson Health Products to me. Attached is a copy of this letter and below is my reply. Remember, Swanson initiated a fraudulent second transaction which rippled into three derogatories in my association with my financial institution. I have been refunded the fees but the derogatories remain for one year in spite of the fact that they were caused through the negligence of others. Swanson on the one hand is claiming full responsibility but on the other equivacating. One is not allowed to have it both ways. Furthermore, the Orwellian Customer Care is stonewalling in naming the principals of the business and not being forthcoming with the name of their legal representation. While the information is available from third party sources, they themselves removed one avenue of one to one resolution of this problem before outside intervention was called in by me. It was their choice all around in how they mishandled this concern which could have been fixed in a matter of a few minutes.
==================
16 May 2014
Ms. Rhonda Barreth, Executive Assistant
Swanson Health Products/SwansonVitamins.com
4075 40th Ave, SW
Fargo, North Dakota 58104
VIA FAX TRANSMISSION TO (###) ###-####
NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS TRANSMISSION - 5
Ref: Customer Number ########; Order Number ########
Dear Ms. Barreth:
I found the 08 May 2014 reply to my fax letter of 01 May 2014 regarding your company’s double billing to be most disturbing. A copy of which is attached to this fax letter for your reference.
First, no human being signed nor took responsibility for the response letter. The “Customer Care Department” is an inanimate object supposedly operated by animate human beings. If your company is so much out of control that an inanimate object has taken over then you really do have severe problems. I will refer to the entity that replied as the “inanimate object” to reinforce the image you have projected by failing to have adult human beings in charge of your company and by your operation of an Orwellian “Customer Care Department.”
Second, in your company’s response by the inanimate object it was indicated towards the end of the first paragraph that your company was unaware of the outstanding authorization of $281.52 nor was it reflected in your ordering system. How can this be? The next time you go to the grocery store and use your bankcard look closely at the receipt. There is an authorization code printed on this receipt. All bankcard transactions are now given authorization codes whether done in person or via the internet. As such, when I placed my order on 27 April 2014 the bankcard authorization system gave you an authorization code for this $281.52. Why did you fail to record such a basic element in bankcard processing? So regarding this authorization code it is entirely unclear to me how Swanson Health Products/ SwansonVitamins.com could, should and would be “not aware of and was not reflected in [your] ordering system.” Seems to me this would be basic and rudimentary information that Swanson would need to have in order to make sure that it would be able to process any kind of bankcard transaction.
In the second paragraph of your company’s response pains were taken to indicate in essence that Wendy had insufficient access to vital information to have her do her job properly. In addition, pains were taken to indicate that you “attempted to resolve the issue in good faith.” Good faith results in results. Perhaps an example would help. Say you commission me to deliver a package from Fargo, North Dakota to Bismark, North Dakota. So I pick up the package in Fargo, drive to Bismark and then drive around Bismark. But the package does not get delivered. The job does not get done. It is irrelevant that I actually went to Bismark. It is irrelevant that I may have spent several hours giving the impression that I was acting in “good faith” to get the job done. Still regarding this example, if I came back to you and stated that I was acting in “good faith” regarding this non delivery of the package in Bismark you would correctly assert that I was scamming you on this issue. So back to this double billing, the fact that Wendy was not provided with the necessary tools to do her job and then she made “further inquiries of [me] and the bank” – which amounted to information she had already verbally acknowledged as indicated in my first fax letter – makes me correctly assert that I am being scammed in some way by your company. Giving the impression of being helpful is not the same as actually being helpful.
Furthermore, your inanimate object’s assertion that “[d]epending on whether it is a charge or an authorization, is a very important distinction.” Tell that to my credit union who initially assessed me $90 in charges because I did not account for this second fraudulent double billing by your company. The fact that I was dealing with a credit union and not a bank helped considerably. A bank would not have refunded my fees nor would it have released the fraudulent hold your company assessed against me. Nevertheless, I now have three, that is three, derogatories on record with my credit union for the next year. The fact that I had these fees reversed does not negate that fact that these three derogatories are on my record through no fault of my own. Again, it was your company’s fraudulent action that put me in this situation. There is a small distinction, however. If the second transaction had cleared I would have personally initiated the process for a court order to suspend your operations. It is not unreasonable to expect that one will only be billed once for an order. It is not unreasonable that if a mistake is made that it be fixed within a matter of a few short minutes. Instead I got stonewalled. Have no doubt, it was my financial institution that resolved the matter not Swanson! Again, results matter not impressions.
The fact that you and your inanimate object are trying to minimize the negative impact on me is reprehensible! Furthermore, if you are conducting these fraudulent acts against me it is reasonable to conclude that you are doing the same to others. Not every victim of your type of fraudulent bankcard activity has the time nor persistence to deal with this kind of nonsense. I have learned the hard way through three identity thefts that the only way to deal with this kind of fraudulent activity, of which your company demonstrated to me is company policy, is to do so immediately and head on.
It is nice that you take full ownership of this “technical issue.” Really? It does not seem so with all this backpedaling your inanimate object is projecting. Frankly, as a computer programmer I also find it reprehensible that this internet order processing was not tested thoroughly before you released this in the working environment. This is not rocket science. There are certain basic and rudimentary things you do in programming. An intelligent programmer would have taken the discount on the final total and not on the individual items within the order. If it was necessary for your company’s internal job costing function to know the discount applied to each individual item, that can be done separately, simultaneously and in the background. Calculating power is now cheap and this is the task for which computers are designed.
And to make matters further worse, your inanimate object indicated that “[a]t no time was anyone giving you difficulty by not transferring [me] to [a legal team and corporate.] Let us be clear, yes you were! The fact that your inanimate object is trying to justify the unjustifiable is additionally condemnable. I was being stonewalled. Being that your inanimate object acknowledged that the customer service (robots?) and corporate offices are all in one central building it would have been a simple matter for Wendy or her supervisor get out of his or her chair and get a responsible human adult to deal effectively with this matter. This was not done. Legal services had better be made available for these kinds of bankcard fraudulent acts by your company in the future or a process server will have much to alter your policy of stonewalling customers. To use similar phrasing that your inanimate object did, any issues involving order status that are not adequately handled by your Orwellian customer care department which is located in your main office will be handled legally. Legal services, unfortunately, will be involved and will be made available for consumers for order related inquiries either voluntarily or, via a process server, involuntarily. Your choice! The fact that I had to get corporate personnel information from an outside third party is clear demonstration that Swanson Health Products is a fraudulently run outfit! Again, an honorably run company would have this information readily available when the customer service department is over its head.
Clearly someone, or the inanimate object that replied, thinks that somehow the letters S-T-U-P-I-D are on my forehead. I checked the mirror again – not there. Sending me a $20 coupon is the height of considering that I am. After being lied to, fraudulently charged, made to fix my relationship with my financial institution, and being replied to by an inanimate object are clear indicators that Swanson should close its doors – either voluntarily or involuntarily by legal means. Humans seem not to be in control of this entity. So what possible reason wold I even consider using this $20 coupon since I have already been put on notice regarding Swanson’s fraudulent activity? You really think that I am that stupid???
As indicated in my previous fax letter, I have contacted the North Dakota State Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem. Furthermore, I have also reported this situation to ripoffreport.com to help make sure that no other innocent victim falls prey to your fraudulent double billing scam and subsequent backpedaling and stonewalling. Also be aware, I will be contacting the financial institution that processes your bankcard transactions so they can take whatever action they deem necessary to stop this fraudulent action of double billing and to keep them from being an accessory to this kind of reprehensible behavior.
And when I get my next reply have a responsible adult human being do so and not some inanimate object!
Respectfully,
[My Name]
Enclosure: Copy of reply from “Customer Care Department” inanimate object of 08 May 2014
cc: Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Attorney General, (701) 328-2210
ripoffreport.com
Gary
Tucson,Arizona,
Response to my FAX letter of 01 May 2014 and my reply
#3Author of original report
Fri, May 16, 2014
Attached in JPG format is Swanson's 08 May 2014 reply to my FAX letter of 01 May 2014. As you may notice, that seem to equivocate. Furthermore, the fact that they continue to stonewall a customer on vital contact information is condemnable. Not only do they continue to stonewall they justify the unjustifiable practice of leaving the consumer to seek legitimate outside remedies to this concern. The fact that they seem to be cavalier in multiple billing even though they claim they are not cavalier is also appaling. They still do not understand the difference between the appearance of being helpful and actually being helpful. Below is my reply to their sophistry.
======================
16 May 2014
Ms. Rhonda Barreth, Executive Assistant
Swanson Health Products/SwansonVitamins.com
4075 40th Ave, SW
Fargo, North Dakota 58104
VIA FAX TRANSMISSION TO (###) ###-####
NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS TRANSMISSION - 5
Ref: Customer Number ########; Order Number ########
Dear Ms. Barreth:
I found the 08 May 2014 reply to my fax letter of 01 May 2014 regarding your company’s double billing to be most disturbing. A copy of which is attached to this fax letter for your reference.
First, no human being signed nor took responsibility for the response letter. The “Customer Care Department” is an inanimate object supposedly operated by animate human beings. If your company is so much out of control that an inanimate object has taken over then you really do have severe problems. I will refer to the entity that replied as the “inanimate object” to reinforce the image you have projected by failing to have adult human beings in charge of your company and by your operation of an Orwellian “Customer Care Department.”
Second, in your company’s response by the inanimate object it was indicated towards the end of the first paragraph that your company was unaware of the outstanding authorization of $281.52 nor was it reflected in your ordering system. How can this be? The next time you go to the grocery store and use your bankcard look closely at the receipt. There is an authorization code printed on this receipt. All bankcard transactions are now given authorization codes whether done in person or via the internet. As such, when I placed my order on 27 April 2014 the bankcard authorization system gave you an authorization code for this $281.52. Why did you fail to record such a basic element in bankcard processing? So regarding this authorization code it is entirely unclear to me how Swanson Health Products/ SwansonVitamins.com could, should and would be “not aware of and was not reflected in [your] ordering system.” Seems to me this would be basic and rudimentary information that Swanson would need to have in order to make sure that it would be able to process any kind of bankcard transaction.
In the second paragraph of your company’s response pains were taken to indicate in essence that Wendy had insufficient access to vital information to have her do her job properly. In addition, pains were taken to indicate that you “attempted to resolve the issue in good faith.” Good faith results in results. Perhaps an example would help. Say you commission me to deliver a package from Fargo, North Dakota to Bismark, North Dakota. So I pick up the package in Fargo, drive to Bismark and then drive around Bismark. But the package does not get delivered. The job does not get done. It is irrelevant that I actually went to Bismark. It is irrelevant that I may have spent several hours giving the impression that I was acting in “good faith” to get the job done. Still regarding this example, if I came back to you and stated that I was acting in “good faith” regarding this non delivery of the package in Bismark you would correctly assert that I was scamming you on this issue. So back to this double billing, the fact that Wendy was not provided with the necessary tools to do her job and then she made “further inquiries of [me] and the bank” – which amounted to information she had already verbally acknowledged as indicated in my first fax letter – makes me correctly assert that I am being scammed in some way by your company. Giving the impression of being helpful is not the same as actually being helpful.
Furthermore, your inanimate object’s assertion that “[d]epending on whether it is a charge or an authorization, is a very important distinction.” Tell that to my credit union who initially assessed me $90 in charges because I did not account for this second fraudulent double billing by your company. The fact that I was dealing with a credit union and not a bank helped considerably. A bank would not have refunded my fees nor would it have released the fraudulent hold your company assessed against me. Nevertheless, I now have three, that is three, derogatories on record with my credit union for the next year. The fact that I had these fees reversed does not negate that fact that these three derogatories are on my record through no fault of my own. Again, it was your company’s fraudulent action that put me in this situation. There is a small distinction, however. If the second transaction had cleared I would have personally initiated the process for a court order to suspend your operations. It is not unreasonable to expect that one will only be billed once for an order. It is not unreasonable that if a mistake is made that it be fixed within a matter of a few short minutes. Instead I got stonewalled. Have no doubt, it was my financial institution that resolved the matter not Swanson! Again, results matter not impressions.
The fact that you and your inanimate object are trying to minimize the negative impact on me is reprehensible! Furthermore, if you are conducting these fraudulent acts against me it is reasonable to conclude that you are doing the same to others. Not every victim of your type of fraudulent bankcard activity has the time nor persistence to deal with this kind of nonsense. I have learned the hard way through three identity thefts that the only way to deal with this kind of fraudulent activity, of which your company demonstrated to me is company policy, is to do so immediately and head on.
It is nice that you take full ownership of this “technical issue.” Really? It does not seem so with all this backpedaling your inanimate object is projecting. Frankly, as a computer programmer I also find it reprehensible that this internet order processing was not tested thoroughly before you released this in the working environment. This is not rocket science. There are certain basic and rudimentary things you do in programming. An intelligent programmer would have taken the discount on the final total and not on the individual items within the order. If it was necessary for your company’s internal job costing function to know the discount applied to each individual item, that can be done separately, simultaneously and in the background. Calculating power is now cheap and this is the task for which computers are designed.
And to make matters further worse, your inanimate object indicated that “[a]t no time was anyone giving you difficulty by not transferring [me] to [a legal team and corporate.] Let us be clear, yes you were! The fact that your inanimate object is trying to justify the unjustifiable is additionally condemnable. I was being stonewalled. Being that your inanimate object acknowledged that the customer service (robots?) and corporate offices are all in one central building it would have been a simple matter for Wendy or her supervisor get out of his or her chair and get a responsible human adult to deal effectively with this matter. This was not done. Legal services had better be made available for these kinds of bankcard fraudulent acts by your company in the future or a process server will have much to alter your policy of stonewalling customers. To use similar phrasing that your inanimate object did, any issues involving order status that are not adequately handled by your Orwellian customer care department which is located in your main office will be handled legally. Legal services, unfortunately, will be involved and will be made available for consumers for order related inquiries either voluntarily or, via a process server, involuntarily. Your choice! The fact that I had to get corporate personnel information from an outside third party is clear demonstration that Swanson Health Products is a fraudulently run outfit! Again, an honorably run company would have this information readily available when the customer service department is over its head.
Clearly someone, or the inanimate object that replied, thinks that somehow the letters S-T-U-P-I-D are on my forehead. I checked the mirror again – not there. Sending me a $20 coupon is the height of considering that I am. After being lied to, fraudulently charged, made to fix my relationship with my financial institution, and being replied to by an inanimate object are clear indicators that Swanson should close its doors – either voluntarily or involuntarily by legal means. Humans seem not to be in control of this entity. So what possible reason wold I even consider using this $20 coupon since I have already been put on notice regarding Swanson’s fraudulent activity? You really think that I am that stupid???
As indicated in my previous fax letter, I have contacted the North Dakota State Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem. Furthermore, I have also reported this situation to ripoffreport.com to help make sure that no other innocent victim falls prey to your fraudulent double billing scam and subsequent backpedaling and stonewalling. Also be aware, I will be contacting the financial institution that processes your bankcard transactions so they can take whatever action they deem necessary to stop this fraudulent action of double billing and to keep them from being an accessory to this kind of reprehensible behavior.
And when I get my next reply have a responsible adult human being do so and not some inanimate object!
Respectfully,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Enclosure: Copy of reply from “Customer Care Department” inanimate object of 08 May 2014
cc: Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Attorney General, (701) 328-2210
ripoffreport.com