Sandy Hutchens at Ripoff Reporting thinks these are some great warning signs for consumers trying to stay safe from fraudsters.

1. The “Bait and Switch” Fraud - Management is the real culprit behind this deception; they advertise items at very low prices (usually below their cost), to drive customers into the store. The problem is they generally don’t have the items in stock, or they have far fewer than needed to meet the demand they created with their ad. Then management insists that the salespeople “step the customer up” or “step off” the advertised item, to a higher priced, more profitable model. In some cases the sales staff is penalized for failing to make the “step off”. Selling the “bait” can even cost the salesperson their job. If you push them to sell you the advertised model they’ll usually give you a “rain check” and promise to call you as soon as more stock comes in. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the call. Remember, they lose money on every one they sell. When you run into this fraud, it tells you something about the people in charge. Just imagine how helpful they’ll be if something breaks and you need service. Our advice: Head for the exit, and never return.. There are stores that have what they advertise, and will actually sell it to you, if you decide you want the item. Seek them out.

2. The “Keep You Waiting /Wear You Down” Ploy – This is a famous one at car dealerships. The salesperson puts you in a little room, then abandons you for very long periods of time. They claim to be working on the “sales manager” to get you a better deal. (In actuality, they’re in the back eating donuts or playing cards while you’re fidgeting in the little office, soaking up the ambiance of the sales awards and family pictures.) The psychology behind this ploy is simple: the longer you’re in the dealership, the greater the sense of “investment” you have in finally making a deal with them. They also know you don’t have unlimited time to shop, and the more of your time they eat up, the less of it you’ll have to shop around. Don’t allow it! After two or three minutes, get up and WALK OUT. They’ll probably tackle you before you get away.

3. Extended Warranty Scare Tactics - Extended warranties may (or may not) be a good deal, depending on the item in question, the likelihood of it needing repairs during the warranty period, and the price you have to pay for it. Keep in mind that what you’re buying is insurance; and like any other kind of insurance, an extended warranty can provide valuable protection, or it can be a waste of money. What you need is honest information about the average cost of repair, and frequency of repair record to make an intelligent determination. Unfortunately, some stores choose to skip the facts and go directly to scare tactics to try to pressure you into buying an overpriced extended warranty. Lines like:”You’ll sleep better knowing you’re protected from costly repair bills”, or “a friend of mine paid over $200.00 to get his fixed. . . now he wishes he’d bought the extra warranty”. Another tip off: When the salesman (or woman) pushes much harder to sell the warranty than the product. This is the case when the store makes more money on the warranty than on the sale of the product. A good way to gauge the relative price of an extended warranty is to compare the stores cost per year of coverage with the manufacturers own extended warranty plan. It would be foolish to pay MORE than the manufacturer charges. Comparison shopping in this way can turn up a good value, but, (and this is a BIG BUT), be sure the warranty is insured by an outside underwriter – too many stores have gone belly up and left their customers holding the bag. . .and the bag is empty.

4. The “I Made a Mistake Adding This Up” Trick – This is an old trick, sometimes used when you’re negotiating to purchase several items at once, like a furniture ensemble, or a car with a number of options. Prior to your making a buying decision, the salesman will offer to give you an estimate of the “total investment”. (They never say price; it’s always an investment – even though it does nothing but depreciate from day one. Very strange.) The trick is, they “make a mistake” and quote you a figure, perhaps a few hundred dollars too high. Then, they carefully gauge your reaction to the inflated price. The idea is to “soften you up” with the higher figure, then “discover” their error, and viola’, you just “saved” another two hundred dollars. You’re supposed to be so excited by this “discovery” and the “lower” price that you go ahead and agree to make the purchase right then. It’s an old trick, but it still works on the uninformed.

5. The “Get `Em Saying Yes” Routine – This is easy to spot. You’re asked a series of questions that you will likely answer in the affirmative. “Do you want a car that handles well?” (Who doesn’t?) Is low maintenance cost important to you? (No, I like $150 oil changes.) Is the safety of your family a concern? (No, I just took out a big insurance policy on the whole bunch.) See the pattern? This is supposed to “set you up” to say yes to the all important “closing” question: “Can I get you into this car today?” If you see the pattern developing, throw them a few curves, just for fun – then “just say no!”

6. The “This is the Last One” Ruse - Along with a hundred variations: “Another couple is looking at this same home – but if you can make a decision now. . .” This is an attempt to play on our fear of “missing out” on something. Simple logic will tell you that even if it is the “last one”, whoever made it will be glad to make another. But they don’t want logic to come into this equation, they prefer emotion – and fear is a powerful motivator. Question the assertion. Is this the last one because they’re not making it any more? Why? Was it a bad design? Didn’t sell well? Sounds like a reason to negotiate a lower price! Don’t be pressured into making a premature decision.

7. The “Low-Ball” Lie - This is often used when you’re pre-shopping by phone. The salesman will give you a very low price (called a low ball) to get you to come into the store or dealership. Sadly, when you get there, the one you were quoted has been sold, but another even nicer model is available for just a little bit more. (It’s a variation of bait and switch.) Or apologies are forthcoming because a “mistake” has been made, and they can’t sell the item for the price you were quoted. In either case, the aimed for result was to get your warm body into striking distance of one of their snakes. Then they have a chance to try one or more of the other deceptions on you. Sure, it makes some people so angry that they never go back to a store that “low balled” them – but unfortunately, others fall for it. You don’t have to be one of them. Grab your wallet and run.

8. The “Today Only” Tactic - It’s a popular variation of the “this is the last one” ruse, but even more common, now as so many so called “power retailers” run sales promotions for very limited time periods. This sets up an atmosphere of supposed “urgency”, wherein you must decide to make the purchase right then. (The urgency is suspect since these guys will very likely be running another “Today Only” sale, with the “Lowest Prices EVER!” the day after tomorrow.) Again, they just want to make it difficult for you to shop the competition and comparison shop. Of course some sales and promotional offers ARE for a limited time, (nothing lasts forever), but a store that respects your intelligence and dignity will probably give you several days or even a week or two to shop, compare and make a decision that’s right for you.

9. The “Paperwork” Euphemism - This illustrates the power of words. Salespeople have been taught to be very careful about the words they use in front of a customer; especially at the point of finally closing the sale. You’ll hear an innocent sounding request like: “I just need you to “OK” the paperwork, sign right here”, or “just initial this for me”. Please note that the so called “paperwork” is actually a legally binding contract; salespeople know most of us have a natural aversion to signing a contract, so the “C” word is transformed into the more innocuous “paperwork”. Whatever they call it, remember: If you sign it, you may be legally obligating yourself to BUY, and you may forfeit any money put on deposit should you change your mind. READ the thing CAREFULLY before you sign. (The “three day cooling off period” that allows you to cancel a contract within three days usually applies only to “in home” sales presentations, in most states. Check locally to be sure of the laws that apply in your area.) It’s a good sign when you find a salesperson that calls a contract a contract.

10. The “Turn Over” Maneuver - Known on the inside as a “T.O.” or “hand-off”, it’s the last ditch attempt to turn a shopper into a buyer by turning you over to someone in higher authority. This person is usually identified as the “store manager”, or “sales manager”, but that may just be a euphemism for a very strong “closer”. Many stores REQUIRE their salespeople to do a “T.O.” if they fail to close the sale. So after trying every close they know, before you leave they may say something like: “Hold on, let me get the store manager to see if we can get you a better deal.” You may be able to negotiate a better price with the “T.O.” man, but it’s more likely that you’ll be subjected to additional pressure to buy right then. When you see the “T.O.” coming, it’s pretty strong evidence that the store’s focus is on selling you, rather than helping you. Caveat Emptor. Latin for “Let the buyer beware.”

read more at www.trampolinesales.com

Are new project called fail scam will now include some of the worlds worst scam artists, so stay logged in as we will be posting these fail scams ever now and again.

We at Tagged would like to clarify, for you and your readers, that this matter has been resolved with the New York Attorney General and there will be no lawsuit.

Tagged regrets the confusion some experienced with our email invitation campaign in early June of 2009, that resulted in some complaints. We immediately addressed the issue and cooperated fully with the NYAG office.

Tagged has completely revamped our invitation process, used by all social networks, to make it the clearest in the industry. Everyday millions of people around the world enjoy interacting with our site and we are committed to ensuring people have a positive experience with Tagged.

If you would like to read more about the situation and our settlement please visit The Tagged Blog and this post: http://blog.tagged.com/?p=193. Thank you

We direct your attention to the analysis at Snopes.com!

NOTE THAT THE TAGGED BLOG POST IS DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2009. THE SNOPES ARTICLE WAS LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 14, 2009 WHICH IS FIVE DAYS LATER!!!

Snopes says that YES there was deceptiveness by Tagged.com or Tagged.

Tagged.com is a social networking site which has been around since 2004.

Its current registration process asks applicants to supply an e-mail address and a password for accessing the corresponding e-mail account so Tagged can “match you up with your friends,” information which the company apparently uses to traverse address books (or other e-mail contacts) and send e-mailed invitations to the addresses found there — invitations like the ones noted above, which deceptively appear to have been sent by the Tagged members themselves and claim that the recipients have been “added as a friend,” “sent photos” or “sent a private message” on Tagged (even though no deliberate “adding” has taken place, nor have any photos or private messages for the recipients been posted for viewing).

An April 2007 eWeek article describes and verifies Tagged’s disingenuous e-mail generation process, and McAfee SiteAdvisor entry for Tagged.com has logged numerous complaints about the practice.

Tagged.com’s current terms of service (TOS) now include the following disclaimer acknowledging that its members’ personal information may be used for the purpose of “initiating commercial e-mail messages” (i.e. sending spam):

E) Notice Regarding Commercial Email

MEMBERS CONSENT TO RECEIVE COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES FROM TAGGED, AND ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES AND OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION MAY BE USED BY TAGGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES.

In November 2009, tagged.com was ordered to pay $500,000 in penalties and costs to the state of New York and $250,000 in penalties and costs to Texas.

Tagged CEO Greg Tseng said the 5-year-old company had voluntarily proposed reforms and overhauled its registration process. It also planned to add more privacy features. However, the company has failed to admit any wrongdoing.

Last updated: 14 November 2009

Evidence of….?

Social Network Tagged.com Being Sued for Identity Theft (video)

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has charged that social-networking service Tagged.com stole the identities of more than 60 million Internet users by sending e-mails that raided their private accounts. Cuomo says he plans to sue the site for deceptive marketing and invasion of privacy.

Many are now planing to sue the social networking website for deceptive marketing and invasion of privacy.
Consumers had their privacy invaded and were forced into the embarrassing position of having to apologise to all their email contacts for Tagged illegal behaviour.

Started in 2004 by Harvard math students Greg Tseng and Johann Schleier-Smith, Tagged calls itself a “premier social-networking destination.” The California-based company claims to be the third-largest social networking site after Facebook and MySpace, with 80 million registered users.

Tagged may have acquired many of them fraudulently, sending unsuspecting recipients emails that urged them to view private photos posted by friends.The message read: “(name of friend) sent you photos on Tagged.”
When recipients tried to access the photos, they could in effect become new members of the site

The system was set up so that a user was asked whether the sender of the photos was a friend, then suggesting that if the recipient didn’t respond, the friend “may think you said no” (accompanied by a sad face icon). Every person on a user’s contact list received an email that again read, “(name of user) sent you photos on Tagged.” The site then released a flood of offers for everything from sweepstakes to other services.

The attorney general said a lawsuit would seek to stop Tagged from engaging in “fraudulent practices” and to seek fines. Plans to sue the social networking website for deceptive marketing and invasion of privacy are definitely in the works.

If you or anyone you Know have more information on this scam please leave us a comment on Sandy Hutchens Ripoff Repoting.

Millions of customers have been hit by the charges, with some forced to pay hundreds of pounds just for going a few pence into the red.

But the watchdog has decided it can no longer pursue its claim that the fees are unfair after a surprise Supreme Court ruling last month that sided with the banks.

The court said that the OFT had no jurisdiction over the charges and no right to reach a ruling that would have paved the way for customers to claim a refund.

Some estimates had suggested that the banks would have faced repaying more than £10billion if they had lost. The OFT’s decision was described as a ‘huge blow’ for consumers yesterday.

Philip Cullum, of the official customer body, Consumer Focus, said: ‘Consumer trust in banks is at an all-time low. This decision will add to the public frustration towards the banking sector.’

Conservative Shadow Treasury minister Mark Hoban added: ‘This is a huge blow. Given the uncertainty-about the fairness of charges for unauthorised overdrafts, we urge the OFT to use other avenues to ensure a fair deal for consumers.’

The Tories have pledged to set up a Consumer Protection Agency to represent ordinary people against the might of large organisations if they win the General Election.

LibDem leader Nick Clegg described the move as ‘extremely disappointing’. He added: ‘We will continue the fight for fair bank charges in Parliament and push for a change in the law if necessary so that High Street banks cannot keep ripping off their customers.’

The OFT said it would change its focus to winning a voluntary agreement from banks to adopt a fairer and more open system of overdraft charges.

Chief executive John Fingleton said: ‘We remain deeply concerned that the market for personal current accounts is not working well for consumers and does not give banks sufficient incentives to compete.

‘We are committed to securing significant changes to unarranged overdraft charges going forward, whether through voluntary agreement with the banks or by other means.’

Some consumer campaigners, including Which?, believe there is still scope to mount a legal challenge.

But it is unlikely any change could happen before next year’s General Election. The Daily Mail has campaigned for customers to be given refunds of unfair charges since February 2006.

Anger was fuelled by reports of students and pensioners being forced to pay huge amounts of money. Banks have been raking in more than £2.6billion a year – £5,000 a minute – from the charges.

One-off charges have included up to £39 for bouncing a cheque or exceeding an overdraft limit.

Even the banks themselves were doubtful that the charges were legal, with many offering refunds to customers who threatened to take them to court even before the OFT launched its legal challenge.

It is believed banks paid out more than £500million to those who complained and asked for refunds.

But once the OFT tried to cap the charges, the banks poured millions into a legal case and repeated appeals to block it.

Detectives with the Shelby County Sheriff’s ALERT Squad (Area Law Enforcement & Retailers Team) say they’re tracking a spate of locker room thefts at fitness centers from Southaven to Collierville to East Shelby County.

The latest, a break-in at 24-Hour Fitness Sport, 1285 Ridgeway Rd. in East Memphis, led to a credit card theft caught on the Action News 5 Scam Cam.

ALERT Det. Dee Bowling says Nov. 7, someone worked her way through 24-Hour Fitness Sport’s check-in process and broke into a member’s locker inside the women’s locker room.

“Cut the lock off her locker, took all of the personal belongings out, then replaced it with a new lock,” says Bowling.

Not long afterward, the Scam Cam caught the woman below using the member’s credit card at two Southeast Shelby County department stores.

Bowling says the suspect charged over $8,500 in electronics.

“We’re talking IPods, Wii games, high-end electronics, and each time she forged the victim’s signature,” says Bowling.

A department store source says the cashier never asked the suspect for identification because credit card companies, including VISA and MasterCard, advise retailers not to request identification on credit card purchases. The source says — and a MasterCard source confirms — that the companies believe it’s more beneficial to keep purchases flowing and let the credit card’s built-in insurance against unauthorized purchases protect the consumer.

Bowling disagrees.

He says retailers should make it store policy to request identification on all credit and debit card purchases. He also believes consumers should write “Ask For ID” or “Check ID” in the signature boxes on the back of their credit cards to subtly encourage cashiers to check.

The programme’s makers revealed the plan at the end of Monday’s ITV1 documentary about the furore, which drew more than 15 million viewers, according to unofficial estimates.

Major Charles Ingram, who was convicted of cheating his way to the jackpot with the help of coded coughs, accused the documentary of being “an incredibly one-sided affair”.

Programme makers Granada rejected Mr Ingram’s suggestion, with the Tonight show’s editor James Goldston saying it was “not unfairly or selectively edited in any way”.

He said the documentary had been based on footage from the original recording of the show played to the jury in court.

Major Ingram told BBC One’s Breakfast programme that the quiz show’s makers were “greedy” and were making millions of pounds out of the scandal.

The ITV1 documentary was seen by an estimated 15.1 million people – one million more than watched the controversial exposé of Michael Jackson in February.

At the end of Monday’s programme, it was revealed that the head of Millionaire’s production company Celador, Paul Smith, hoped to turn the story into a blockbuster film.
Catherine Zeta Jones and Hugh Grant have already been mentioned by the press as possible stars.

Along with former college lecturer Tecwen Whittock, the Ingrams were convicted of conspiracy to cheat the programme out of £1m at the start of April.

Major Ingram revealed the couple are now £460,000 in debt after their legal battle.

They protested their innocence and said the verdict had ruined their lives in a series of BBC interviews.

“What the viewers saw last night was one of the greatest TV editing con tricks,” Major Ingram told Breakfast.

He said the guilty verdict was “extremely humiliating” and had been “cataclysmic” for his family.

“The clips that were played last night were wholly unrepresentative of the environment that I was sitting within,” he said.

“It is very, very unfair and it is worse, in fact, than what I had to sit through during the trial.”

Programme editor James Goldston said the documentary had not been unfairly edited.

“We are sure viewers will have made up their own minds,” he said.

Major Ingram said the couple had asked to be interviewed for the documentary to make it “more even-handed” – but their request was refused.

“Celador will make millions and millions of pounds out of this,” he added.

He also hit back at presenter Chris Tarrant’s comments that the major was “nice but dim”.

“I am not thick. I am a member of Mensa, for goodness sake,” he said.

“That was a very, very unfair comment and it is representative of what Celador has done. These people are the greedy people, not us.”

Major Ingram was shown in the documentary answering questions to win the jackpot while Whittock was in the audience, indicating the correct answers with coughs.

Diana Ingram, seen looking anxiously in Whittock’s direction, was found guilty of helping “set up” the scam.

The couple said lawyers were looking into whether they could appeal against the verdicts.

The Ingrams were sentenced to 18 months in jail suspended for two years.

Whittock received a 12-month sentence, also suspended for two years.

The couple were also fined £15,000 each and ordered to pay £10,000 costs.

Whittock was fined £10,000 with £7,500 costs.

The defence counsel argued Whittock had been suffering from hay fever and asthma.

Whittock has said he is also planning an appeal against the verdict.

ITV1’s Millionaire: A Major Fraud, an edition of Tonight with Trevor McDonald, featured interviews with presenter Chris Tarrant, the show’s producers and other contestants who suspected foul play.

On the documentary, Whittock’s series of coughs could be heard, including one followed by the word “no” as Ingram was about to give the wrong answer.

On a number of occasions, Ingram changed his answers after coughs from Whittock persuaded him he was wrong.

Mrs Ingram could also be heard coughing on one question when her husband was asked who had a hit UK album called Born To Do It.

This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT,and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.

This is what the Obama administration will be able to do once you log onto their “Cash for Clunkers” website at cars.gov do not go to this website.

Jeff Poor wrote, “Say what you want about the Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck and his antics, but to give credit where credit is due, he exposed some disturbing language from the Obama administration’s ‘Cash for Clunker’ program Web site Cars.gov.”

Your website privacy and everything on your hard drive may be in jeopardy.

Check out this video. It shows how on paintballbidwars.com is scaming its users. They says you win stuff but yet they fail to deliever the goods even after you pay.

The staff internal auditor for the bank frowned and said to the auditor-in-charge, “The Smith loan was $175,000, but the credit limit was $100,000. The file contained no explanation for granting a loan in excess of the credit limit. And the Jones loan for $150,000 was well within the borrower’s credit limit, but the documentation is missing!”

The auditor-in-charge replied, “Fortunately the Smith loan was paid off shortly after date of the loan listing, so there was no need for further follow-up. As for the Jones loan, we’ll follow up on that at the next audit. If we followed up on every little exception, we would never finish all our audits.”

Follow-up at the next audit revealed that the Jones loan had been paid off with funds from outside the bank. What the auditors did not realize was that both loans had been paid off with the proceeds of fictitious loans made in the names of other borrowers. Later it was determined that both loans were part of a fictitious loan scheme. Losses exceeded $5,000,000. Fraudulent loans totaled less than $2,000,000 at the time the auditors failed to follow through.