I normally don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but after reading the Masschusetts AG complaint, I wonder if Young America bills its customers (e.g. Canon) for all rebates submitted whether or not they are "approved"; then pockets the money. Think about it: if they deny your claim but tell Canon they filled x claims, your "rebate check" is one of those in the "unclaimed property" category because you never received and hence never cashed it.
BTW, Young America is not the only firm to run afoul of state AGs. Simon Properties (owner and operator of many, many shopping malls) and the state of NH is duking it out over that company's policy on gift certificates. In NH, gift certificates cannot expire. Simon's expire and contain a monthly service charge on unused balances.
Here is the number as promised. 8778626870. Your case sounds exactly like mine. Invalid UPC submission.
You don't have to wait for the postcard because all it states is the same thing and the number. Took them 1 1/2 weeks to send me the darn postcard.
Just call them. Be nice, but firm. The thing you want is to have them tell you what was wrong with the UPC. They won't know as that what they kept telling me they don't know. They tried to say, just send in the copies, but I insisted the copies were what I sent in originally, so it's not going to fix anything unless they SPECIFICALLY tell me what was wrong with the original. They also tried to get me off of the phone anyway they could, saying things like don't worry we probably sent you two checks and the other is on the way.
After 5 - 10 minutes of this, they will eventually just give it to you without any further proof, at least in my case and others here.
hey guys, something to think about:
compusa was selling bluetooth headsets that are free after rebate (excluding the tax, of course, which nobody pockets other than our very own beloved government).
of course it's meant to lure one in, but how much is it costing them? initially, it was motorola h300 headsets, then jabra bt350's. and neither of which are free.
is compusa paying out all that money to whoever is their rebate processor? and not getting any of it back?
and also, compusa and riteaid have easy rebates now. you have to send absolutely nothing in. how does that work? if they want people to not send in the rebate, isn't it better to make them do work? why would they want to make it easier for people to do their rebates? (and now it's even easier to keep copies. well, cause you still have the originals)
Canon said they recieved my rebate last week
This week its back to "internet submission"
Called today and John says there is no record at all. Not my name or address or anything. He then transfered me to the supervsor and I was promptly disconnected
Called back and spoke to Matt who is rather rude and wouldnt even look up my records.
There has got to be a better way to deal with this. If I dont get my check I am out $830
Any suggestions?
BTW I spoke to the self described "highest paid supervisor" who would not let me speak. Raised his voice multiple times. Basically concluded with saying that the web status form has nothing to do with my rebate. What an ass this guy was
Ok, to update my situation [which is similar to others here] involving a rejection of my rebate submission for a 5D and a 17-40L [total of $690] based on an "invalid UPC"; I received a post card advising of an error. The online status showed that a check for $45 was being processed [single rebate on lens]. Clearly they thought there was a problem with my 5D UPC code. I sent in another complete set of UPC codes for both items two weeks ago.
Today I called and spoke to Jen. She asked me for the tracking # at the lower left corner of the post-card. I read it to her and she asked "what's the problem? Your check for $45 was approved, processed and mailed on the 26th. Is there something else I can help you with?" I said heck-yeah, there should be another $645 check coming to me. She put me on hold and came back three minutes later and said "ok, I've put a stop payment order on the $45 so don't cash it when you get it and will issue a payment order now for $690. Will there be anything else?"
Well, that was easy! Didn't have to say anything; now, if there really was a problem with my original UPC submission, you think they give up that easily? She didn't even ask if I had re-submitted copies of the UPC codes or mention that they received them.
Anyway, as they say, the "proof will be in the pudding" - she asked that I wait 2-3 weeks for the check to arrive, so we'll see ...
rycelover wrote:
slightly off topic, but you're incorrect. Once the seller puts the lens in a proper packaged with sufficient postage, then what ever happens to the lens is between you the buyer and the carrier. Tentacle would have no obligation to refund the money. Many people mistakenly conclude that shipping insurance is for the benefit of the shipper - not true, it is to protect the buyer. in a case where insurance was purchased, it is the buyer's responsibility to make a claim with the carrier.
anyway, back on topic, although I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, I do believe there is a concerted effort on the part of the rebate companies, very much like the medical insurance companies, to deny rebates (or coverage in the case of the insurance company) at first and see how many people actually bother to continue with a rebate claim. Certainly they do not deny EVERYONE's claims, just a randomly selected few. I currently am having a problem with the double rebates - the case of the missing UPC for a 5D - and can attest that I followed the instructions to the letter. There is absolutely no reason why my submission should have been denied, but it was. In my case, I think they're trying to screw me out of a $645 rebate [they're willing to send me just $45]. I've re-submitted a copy of the UPC, so we'll see what happens next.
someone probably corrected you already, but i just googled for "ups insurance claims", and got this:
Report a Lost Package
If you believe your package is lost, report the loss to request that UPS perform a tracking system search. If the package is not found, the shipper can file a claim for the replacement value of the package contents up to the declared value.
it clearly states the shipper files the claim, not the receiver.
call this number: 877 862-6870
They'll usually "fix it for you". For those that don't take action, they won't get their rebate.
Me in NJ and my brother in CA both bought a 5D plus lenses, after submitting rebate papers, we both got "invalid UPC" post card. Once we called, they would apologize and say they don't know what happened but it was a mistake and they would fix it.
nobody235 wrote:
someone probably corrected you already, but i just googled for "ups insurance claims", and got this:
Report a Lost Package
If you believe your package is lost, report the loss to request that UPS perform a tracking system search. If the package is not found, the shipper can file a claim for the replacement value of the package contents up to the declared value.
it clearly states the shipper files the claim, not the receiver.
sorry, but no one corrected me because I was not wrong.
The passage you quoted does not mean that the seller bears the risk of loss which was what I was trying to say - although quite inartfully.
Generally, after agreeing on the material terms of the agreement [price, item, quantity, etc] if the parties agree to use a common carrier to deliver the item [as it usually is in most transactions here on FM], then once the seller delivers the item to the common carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer. Things would be different if the seller was delivering the item personally - as in a face to face transaction; in which case, if the seller happens to drop the lens before he meets the buyer, the risk of loss does not pass and the seller is out of luck - he can't force the buyer to go forward with the transaction.
OK, I have to add my two cents: I received the same invalid UPC on my 5D. Also was approved at same time for the rebate on the 24-105. I am generally not a conspiracy theorist here, but there does seem to be a solid pattern of invalid UPCs for rebates for the 5D. As a matter of actual fact, the last three rebates I sent in for more that $100 were rejected for 'invalid UPC'. That is a 100% hit rate. I am very careful and for this rebate we actually made a submission checklist and had three people check the envelope contents before sending the material return receipt requested (as we did for the other invalid UPC items). In the first two cases, I got the money after extensive complaining. This time I just decided that it is time to do something and I filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau against Canon USA (I used the New York address on their website). Lo and behold, I received an e-mail from Canon saying they would personally review it and two days later the status changed to approved. My advice is that if we want to end the rebate scams, just file an immediate complaint with the better business bureau and the FTC. The percentage of people reporting on this site who filed double rebates involving the 5D and received the rebate for the lower priced item while getting invalid UPC on the 5D appears to be close to 100%. I have not seen a single case of the reverse on this thread. This appears to be pretty close to intentional to me.
I talked to Matt, too! He instructed me to REsubmit my 'lost' 70-200L. I sent it certified mail so I know they got it. He then told me that it takes 30 days for it to 'post' to the internet. Something's DEFINITELY fishy here.
rycelover wrote:
sorry, but no one corrected me because I was not wrong.
The passage you quoted does not mean that the seller bears the risk of loss which was what I was trying to say - although quite inartfully.
Generally, after agreeing on the material terms of the agreement [price, item, quantity, etc] if the parties agree to use a common carrier to deliver the item [as it usually is in most transactions here on FM], then once the seller delivers the item to the common carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer. Things would be different if the seller was delivering the item personally - as in a face to face transaction; in which case, if the seller happens to drop the lens before he meets the buyer, the risk of loss does not pass and the seller is out of luck - he can't force the buyer to go forward with the transaction.
in any event, as i said, this was OT, but I had to respond....Show more →
1) A common carrier could care less who bears the risk of loss. The major carriers only deal with the shipper when handling claims, not the one who bears the risk of loss. That means even if the buyer bears the risk of loss (and that's a big if, see point 2), only the seller can file a claim.
2) The definitions you cited clearly state that the point at which risk of loss is transferred is negotiable (see the statements on "destination contract" vs "delivery contract"). IOW, the transfer can occur at the point the seller delivers the package to the carrier (a delivery contract, also known in some circles as FOB shipping point), or it can occur at the point the carrier delivers the package to the buyer (a destination contract, aka FOB destination).
Now, if you are simply saying that in the absence of any specific stipulation that contract law states that a delivery contract is assumed, that may be the case.
[Edit: Forgot to add the stuff on-topic. I've never had a rebate claim rejected, but I do believe rebate fulfillment companies have a strong incentive not to be entirely honest.
To ascribe what the people here who have their submissions rejected to incompetence or mishandling I find hard to believe. Didn't everyone see the press release cited by the OP about lawsuit filed by the state of Massachusetts against the rebate fulfillment company? How can the disbelievers continue to disbelieve in the face of that? You want numbers? Try $129 million owed to consumers!]
I cut out and sent in the "Origional" UPC from my 20D "kit" with 17-85 lens last year when that rebate was going on. All I got in return was a box with a hole in it.
The only thing worse than rebates is class action lawsuits. The people get nothing and the lawyers pocket a lot of $$$.
After reading 15 pages I must say I am happy that there are no rebates in Japan. It sucks having to wait the extra 6 months for the prices to fall to the rebate levels, but they always do...
monsoon wrote:
Over at the "Open Photography Forums", Chuck Westfall himself gave some instructions
about getting a rebate pre-qualified, have a look...
Ya. That's all well and good... mine was at step three and then the thing just dropped off the website. I called them up to ask what they deal was and they claim to have no record of the thing at all. It's pathetic and they are trying hard not to pay what they owe. Young America's been a problem for years it's nothing new. Everyone knows how bad they are, but they give a huge chunk of money back the the client and for this we are screwed. If Canon had our best interests in mind they would just reduce the price when bought in a certain time frame. As it is they rely on people not submitting and people having problems in thier submission as well as the practice of denied claims, for cause and not, to save them millions of dollars. If they really gave a damn about us they would make correct the problems and dump Young America. Have they? No! Nuff said.
$640.00 owed for 3 months.
They said they were upping it to the managers and they would have an answer for me in a week. I called next week and wow! they had no record of our conversation or anything regarding managers. They asked me to resubmit after that. I was told not to resubmit while waiting on managers. This is Canon now not Young America, so don't tell me they give a damn....
Plus they make you send it to a PO box which means that they don't have anyone to sign for it and limits how you can send in your rebate. Then they want you to wait an wait in the mean time the offer expires et c etc....
I don't like lawsuits, but it's time for class action.
rycelover wrote:
Ok, to update my situation [which is similar to others here] involving a rejection of my rebate submission for a 5D and a 17-40L [total of $690] based on an "invalid UPC"; I received a post card advising of an error. The online status showed that a check for $45 was being processed [single rebate on lens]. Clearly they thought there was a problem with my 5D UPC code. I sent in another complete set of UPC codes for both items two weeks ago.
Today I called and spoke to Jen. She asked me for the tracking # at the lower left corner of the post-card. I read it to her and she asked "what's the problem? Your check for $45 was approved, processed and mailed on the 26th. Is there something else I can help you with?" I said heck-yeah, there should be another $645 check coming to me. She put me on hold and came back three minutes later and said "ok, I've put a stop payment order on the $45 so don't cash it when you get it and will issue a payment order now for $690. Will there be anything else?"
Well, that was easy! Didn't have to say anything; now, if there really was a problem with my original UPC submission, you think they give up that easily? She didn't even ask if I had re-submitted copies of the UPC codes or mention that they received them.
Anyway, as they say, the "proof will be in the pudding" - she asked that I wait 2-3 weeks for the check to arrive, so we'll see ......Show more →
just spoke with a jen as well and she said my 700$ check is going to be in the mail....even gave me a tracking #! Here's hoping it comes.
