Print the value of index0
  • Report:  #90606

Complaint Review: Tiny Details

Tiny Details ripoff deceptive practices Groton New York

  • Reported By:
    North Branch Minnesota
  • Submitted:
    Fri, May 07, 2004
  • Updated:
    Sat, December 31, 2005
  • Tiny Details
    www.tinydetails.com
    Groton, New York
    U.S.A.
  • Phone:
    877-489-2900
  • Category:

I to was foolish enough to get "entrapped" into thinking I could make a little bit of extra money. Their web site is enticing and I fell for it. However, when I completed my first project for them, OF COURSE, they mailed it back to me saying that it wasn't good enough. After rechecking every single packet, I again mailed it to them. It had taken over one month to get a response from them. I have even sent e-mails to get a response and was told one time that my completed project had not been reviewed yet because they were behind. Since then nothing. It has now been over three weeks since I mailed my project in.

After 4 weeks, I called them over the phone. I was now told that they had no record of even receiving my completed project. (Pretty amazing, huh!!). I have even asked for half of my deposit refunded and was told that wasn't an option. I know that the Attorney General's Office in Minnesota would be very interested in this if I can't get this resolved. I only want a refund or to be paid for the work that I did.

Lisa
North Branch, Minnesota
U.S.A.

2 Updates & Rebuttals


Abe

Gobles,
Michigan,
U.S.A.

Refund?

#3Consumer Comment

Sat, December 31, 2005

Peter claimed if Lisa had requested a refund, she would have received it.

I asked for a refund 3 months ago, during my 60 day period. That went completely ignored, and I never heard from them again.

This only emphasises Tiny Details is truely there to scam people, and makes their money from the $50 deposit on the $1 bottle of Elmers glue they send you.

They claim they kept half of the deposit for "costs" such as advertising, ect. That should and would be made up for in the "sold" product, not from the people working for them. Truely a dishonest business.


Peter

Groton,
New York,
U.S.A.

What really happened with Lisa

#3UPDATE Employee

Wed, May 19, 2004

"Their web site is enticing and I fell for it."

Thank you for the left-handed compliment. We have spent a lot of time making www.tinydetails.com complete, easy to use and attractive.

Lisa made a request for our Confederate Money kit on 1/24/04 and received her materials for the project on 1/30/04.

Our workers are given 60 days to complete the work. So, Lisa's work was due by 3/24/04.

Our records show that we mailed her FREE replacement parts for one-third of the project on 2/15/04.

We received and reviewed a sample of her work on 2/23/04. It was perfect.

We do not know and she does not say when she finally submitted her project in full.

"However, when I completed my first project for them, OF COURSE, they mailed it back to me saying that it wasn't good enough." "It had taken over one month to get a response from them."

OF COURSE that's the case. If she had done a good job, she would not be complaining! To be precise, we reviewed her project on 3/29/04 and said "Your miniature products have rough edges in places. The miniatures need to be cut out crisply with no paper shreds or rough edges." As to the "one month to get a response", we don't know when she sent them to us and we can't confirm or deny her claim.

Notice, also, that by this time the 60-day period for completing her work satisfactorily had run out.

She must have gotten them back from us promptly because her next communication was an email she wrote at 10:29AM on 4/4/2004: "I need to open some of my bags that I have already stapled. Do I need to get new bags or can I just staple them again. Thanks" To which we replied 28 minutes later at 10:57AM 4/4/2004: "Lisa, If you open them carefully you can just restaple them. When we sell the product, the stapled area is covered up."

"After rechecking every single packet, I again mailed it to them."

We do not know and Lisa does not say when she did this. But, in Lisa's next email, she says that she sent in her re-checked project 2 weeks before 4/24 which would make it 4/10. "I have even sent e-mails to get a response and was told one time that my completed project had not been reviewed yet because they were behind."

Here's precisely when and what that SINGLE e-mail was: At 08:43 AM 4/24/2004, Lisa wrote: "I was wondering how long it takes to hear back from you. I mailed a completed project in two weeks ago but haven't heard anything. can you tell me if it was accepted and when I will be getting another project to complete. Thanks!!" We repled 14 hours later: "The oldest stuff we're working on at the moment is postmarked 4/15/04. So far, your project has not been reviewed."

Evidently, she misinterpreted this to mean that we had her package but had not yet reviewed it. In fact, we never got her package. In the future, we will be more direct than we were with Lisa. The point was that if she postmarked her package before 4/15/04, then because it had not been reviewed, it meant that it had not been received.

"Since then nothing. It has now been over three weeks since I mailed my project in. After 4 weeks, I called them over the phone. I was now told that they had no record of even receiving my completed project. (Pretty amazing, huh!!)."

As we said above, we didn't get the package. Now, suddenly, this fact became clear to Lisa. And when we asked her to help us find the package by providing a delivery confirmation number or some other form of tracking, she was unable to do so. By the way, we encourage all of our workers to use the Post Office's Delivery Confirmation service. It costs only $0.45 and it takes the guess work out of finding out where a package is! We use Delivery Confirmation on all of the packages we send to workers.

For whatever it's worth, Lisa's package did eventually arrive, after she blasted us on here. The quality of her work was unimproved.

"I have even asked for half of my deposit refunded and was told that wasn't an option."

She knew right up front that she had until 3/24/04 to make that request...not 30 days or more later.

"I know that the Attorney General's Office in Minnesota would be very interested in this if I can't get this resolved. I only want a refund or to be paid for the work that I did."

In our eyes, it was Lisa's responsibility to: 1) Do a good job and 2) Put it in the mail on time, and 3) Get it to us. We would have paid her had she done so. We ALWAYS pay for good work. And we would have given her a refund if she had asked for it in a timely manner.

Respond to this Report!