Posts Tagged ‘refund’

Crappy “Bauer’s ‘Intelligent’ Transportation” Update: “Upgrades” Wedding Limo to Corporate Van – Gets Sued by S.F. Bride

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

Let’s just say that long-time Yelper Rosie S is not a fan of Bauer’s Limousine / Bauer’s Transportation / Bauer’s Intelligent Transportation. Why? Well, ’cause they sent a tacky van instead of a proper limo to her wedding a few months back. Check the excerpts:

The 10 passenger limo I ordered did NOT arrive. Instead, they sent us a VAN! The morning of my wedding. Not what I ordered.

I contacted the company when I returned from my honeymoon–note: they NEVER contacted me to explain the situation nor to apologize–and they said:

“I have checked with our operations department as to what happened this day and it appears there had been a mechanical issue with a regular stretch limo so they made the last minute decision to upgrade the vehicle to a limousine van.  This was our next best option at the moment.  I sincerely apologize that a regular stretch did not appear, but this was viewed as a free upgrade to the original vehicle reserved.”

Horrendous company, terrible service, awful fleet of cars if they have seemingly frequent “mechanical issues.”  Do yourself a favor and STAY AWAY FROM BAUER’S unless you want to get ripped off and disappointed!  Especially on your wedding day….

Can you believe that? Now, if I were running a crappy limo / transportation / “intelligent” transportation company, I’d feel bad about my fail whale exploding all over a wedding and I’d apologize and then I’d give a full refund, but that’s just me.

Now, speaking of crappy, how about them Bauer limousine van / bus / whatever drivers on the 101?

Speeding? Sure, we’ve got to get you to the church (or wherever) on time! But signaling? Not so much. You see, there’s no money in signaling:

Click to expand

Rosie says that the Bauer people didn’t respond to her until after she filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court, Small Claims Division. Oh well.

Now, judges might be sympathetic to plaintiffs in a situation like this, but you never know how they’d rule. Sometimes what’s in the contract is what matters and sometimes not so much. Oh well.

But I believe the gist of Rosie’s story – I don’t think that she’s committing Yelp fraud, I don’t think that she owns a rival cheesy “intelligent” transportation company or that she’s sponsored by one.

Speaking of which, there’s somebody on Yelp saying how great Bauer’s is but he neglected to add in or update the little tidbit that Bauer’s is a “sponsor” of his. Oh well. I’ll give you one guess how many Yelp stars he gives to Bauer’s IT.

Did you guess cinco?

You’re right, mi amiga/o. (And actually, it appears that purported “Luminary” and “City Bright” writer at the San Francsico Chronicle’s SFGate.com Zenophon / Zennie62 is incapable of ever giving anything less than five stars on Yelp. How sporting!)

Anyway, good luck Rosie!

A Unique Birds-Eye View of the Bay Bridge When Traffic is Jammed Due to a Hostage Crisis, The Way it is Right Now

Thursday, November 11th, 2010

ActionNewsSF points to this unique photo just taken by Sky1Ron.

(At this point, the situation with the White Guy and the Black SUV and CHP and SFPD and, allegedly, his daughter, and guns, and bombs is unresolved…)

Click to expand

How much revenue will BATA lose over this one? And will those drivers who decide to turn around at Treasure Island get a refund? Only Time Will Tell.

A view of the scene from CBS San Francisco:

The Purposefully Destroyed Timbuk2 Messenger Bags of the Lower Haight

Monday, February 16th, 2009

Look at just a part of the cache of TIMBUK2 messenger bags that were strewn about the sidewalks of the Lower Haight recently. Can you see how somebody took a blade and methodically rendered these bags useless – who would do that?

Are these factory seconds from the San Francisco Timbuk2 production line, like there was there a concern that inferior products could hurt the brand? Or maybe somebody didn’t want these items to getting returned to the store for refund or exchange?

Click to expand:

Now the people at the North Face Outlet, hooh boy, when they used to have sales in San Francisco’s SOMA back in the day, they used to bring it – just the tiniest flaw would justify a huge discount (and sometimes they’d have great deals on perfectly good, but unpopular, goods).

But how would The North Face people keep outlet purchasers from going to the full-price yuppie store in Union Square to get a full-price refund? Why, TNF would have a worker color in the iconic logo’s “O” with a Sharpie:

 

No refund for you! Some wear this blackened “O,” this scarlet ebony letter, as a badge of honor.

Anyway, It seems a shame about all those Timbuk2 bags. 

Poor little fellers.

Jerry Brown Prohibits H&R Block From Marketing “Early Tax Refunds”

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

Oh snap! Just in time for tax season, California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s 2006 lawsuit against H&R Block has borne some fruit. He just reached agreement prohibiting deceptive marketing of tax refund loans:

“The settlement provides for up to $2.45 million in restitution for consumers who purchased a “Refund Anticipation Loan” or a “Refund Anticipation Check” through H&R Block between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008. In addition, H&R Block will pay $500,000 in penalties and $1.9 million in fees and costs.”

Will the “settlement administrator” be contacting you about getting some money from H&R? Read on for details.

California’s dogged AG:

via “Thomas Hawk’s” Photostream

Attorney General Brown Reaches Agreement with H&R Block Prohibiting Deceptive Marketing of Tax Refund Loans

Sacramento—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today reached a $4.85 million settlement with H&R Block, which prohibits the company from marketing refund anticipation loans as early tax refunds.

This settlement prevents H&R Block from marketing high-cost loans as early tax refunds,” Attorney General Brown said. “This is especially important because often these loans go to those who can least afford them.”

Attorney General Brown filed suit against H&R Block in early 2006 regarding its marketing and sale of income tax refund anticipation loans and a related product called refund anticipation checks.

H&R Block continues to deny any wrongdoing. During the course of the investigation, Block has worked with the Attorney General to improve its practices.

A refund anticipation loan is a short-term loan secured by a taxpayer’s anticipated income tax refund. The complaint alleged a variety of deceptive practices by H&R Block including:

Deceptive advertising designed to disguise refund anticipation loans, which carry fees and other costs, as tax refunds, which the IRS provides without charge; and

Unfair debt collection practices by which customers’ refund proceeds were garnished to pay off debts they supposedly owed.

The settlement provides for up to $2.45 million in restitution for consumers who purchased a
“Refund Anticipation Loan” or a “Refund Anticipation Check” through H&R Block between
January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008. In addition, H&R Block will pay $500,000 in penalties and $1.9 million in fees and costs.

In addition. H&R Block will be prohibited from marketing these loans and related products in a deceptive or misleading manner and will be required to make clear and conspicuous disclosures to consumers prior to their purchase of these products. Terms of the settlement are limited to three years.

A settlement administrator will be contacting eligible consumers directly. Eligible consumers may also write to the Attorney General’s Public Inquiry Unit at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, or may send an e-mail at http://ag.ca.gov/contact/.

Attorney General Brown previously settled claims against Jackson Hewitt and recently concluded a trial against Liberty Tax Service, the second and third largest tax preparation companies in the country, respectively. All three lawsuits involved refund anticipation loans and related products.