Poor service

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Let me help you out here...NGC thinks your coins are fake! I'm sure there is a legal reason they use the terms they do! I do believe NGC uses Artificial Toning whereas the other company says questionable toning. Same thing here. NGC says its definitely fake whereas other guys say they think it is. Why they use these terms is beyond me??? However I can assure you NGC knows your coins are fake, but they chose to use the terms they use!

 

At the risk of causing you to resort to another personal diatribe, a risk I am willing to take, the issue is lack of clarity of opinion by a TPG, and charging the submitter for the non-opinion opinion. What you may believe they mean by using the word "unverifiable", is not what the TPG states it means. When the TPG uses that word, it also triggers the Right of the TPG to keep the money the submitter paid.

[carnyman2]

Why can't they provide any reason as to why they suspect they are fakes?

 

Just suspecting is not sufficient reason to keep my money for not doing their job. They could do that with every Trade Dollar submitted. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW how to determine authenticity! That is in their job description.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Why can't they provide any reason as to why they suspect they are fakes?

 

Just suspecting is not sufficient reason to keep my money for not doing their job. They could do that with every Trade Dollar submitted. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW how to determine authenticity! That is in their job description.

 

 

It is not determined there is suspicion that the coins are fake.

 

It is determined the TPG does not know, by their own definition. This is a failure of the business model.

 

I concur the money charged for the non-opinion opinion coins should be returned. The marketing failure for not doing so is a larger failure than the TPG opinion for service business model. This is the heart of the issue, and the issue management should be addressing.

 

I don't think there is any conspiracy or intent to harm by the TPG.

 

An internal protocol most likely has caused this to occur, and just piles on itself. Human action/inaction is not perfection, even in successful business models. Fixing the things that need fixing is what separates the good model from the ok model.

 

Starting with a re-wording of the definition of "unverifiable" would be a good thing, followed closely by eliminating the "we keep the money" part of the definition, and for icing on the cake, eliminating the confusing slab language that is depicted in the example above.

 

BTW, I am interested of seeing a picture of the coin returned that labels it as "counterfeit" that you mentioned. Not so much the coin, but the slab using the word "counterfeit". That sort of sets aside the "we don't call things that" suggestion being made by other members.

[MarkFeld]

If the issue were filed with a state attorney general, consumer protection department or a court of law I would think that the law would side with the customer. The same thing would apply if you paid someone to appraise your antiques and authenticate them, though some appraisers would do it for free those who charge would never take your money after calling them fakes. As usual clarity should come as you compare similar situations in other fields, numismatics is not a world unto itself as much as some people would want it to be so.

 

Why are you talking about a court of law? Are you lawsuit-happy? The NGC language almost certainly protects them legally.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

If the issue were filed with a state attorney general, consumer protection department or a court of law I would think that the law would side with the customer. The same thing would apply if you paid someone to appraise your antiques and authenticate them, though some appraisers would do it for free those who charge would never take your money after calling them fakes. As usual clarity should come as you compare similar situations in other fields, numismatics is not a world unto itself as much as some people would want it to be so.

 

Why are you talking about a court of law? Are you lawsuit-happy? The NGC language almost certainly protects them legally.

 

I concur.

 

There are better ways to address this issue, such as this Thread. I would be very surprised if the management of the Host is not aware, and is evaluating the comments. I am also sure that reasonable suggestions that improve the business model will always be welcome. That benefits everybody.

[cpm9ball]

If the issue were filed with a state attorney general, consumer protection department or a court of law I would think that the law would side with the customer. The same thing would apply if you paid someone to appraise your antiques and authenticate them, though some appraisers would do it for free those who charge would never take your money after calling them fakes. As usual clarity should come as you compare similar situations in other fields, numismatics is not a world unto itself as much as some people would want it to be so.

 

Why are you talking about a court of law? Are you lawsuit-happy? The NGC language almost certainly protects them legally.

 

I concur.

 

There are better ways to address this issue, such as this Thread. I would be very surprised if the management of the Host is not aware, and is evaluating the comments. I am also sure that reasonable suggestions that improve the business model will always be welcome. That benefits everybody.

 

This is one of the reasons why I prefer NGC. You are permitted to voice your opinions, either pro or con, without fearing retribution. This isn't the first time that NGC has remained quiet and considered all of the comments before chiming in. Sometimes this has resulted in change and sometimes it hasn't. Either way, the members are made to feel like their opinion matters.

 

Chris

[Scott_Schechter]

First, to address the OP, NGC has the most competent graders. They may well be the most virile, although we have not independently tested this. We also have the best customer service and care deeply about providing fair value to all submitters.

 

I didn't see these coins personally, so I'll talk only in generalities. When a coin comes in that is not readily discernible as authentic, NGC Graders must examine it for diagnostics previously identified on counterfeit coins and/or compare it against an image archive of examples certified previously. This takes a lot of time and can still be inconclusive, especially when the subject coin is cleaned or otherwise impaired.

 

This is work that we need to charge for, regardless of what the outcome will be. Otherwise we simply could not perform it. Usually, it allows us to grade a coin or call it Not Genuine. But sometimes, not. Also, if we refunded money when we called a coin Authenticity Unverifiable, we would be inviting customers to send deceptive counterfeits with impunity. (For the record, I don't believe for a second that was the intent with this submission.)

 

Last, when an very limited database of diagnostics exists or when we believe that no useful further inquiry can be made, we do refund the fee and call the coin Questionable Authenticity.

 

This is a good policy that serves the best interest of our customers. We also have it clearly spelled out on our Web site.

 

Regarding customer service, I will say the following. We never provide refunds based on grading results. But NGC also doesn't provide "poor service." If an error or mistake that we made is brought to our attention -- we are human! -- we correct it.

 

If a dealer calls up and says, "I submitted coins for a customer on invoice XXXXXXX and he is unhappy. He's never submitter before. What can we do?" Our customer service department would be very sympathetic and would try to figure something out. I don't think that happened here.

 

[cpm9ball]

I knew that someone would chime in sooner or later. Thanks, Scott!

 

Chris

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

First, to address the OP, NGC has the most competent graders. They may well be the most virile, although we have not independently tested this. We also have the best customer service and care deeply about providing fair value to all submitters.

 

I didn't see these coins personally, so I'll talk only in generalities. When a coin comes in that is not readily discernible as authentic, NGC Graders must examine it for diagnostics previously identified on counterfeit coins and/or compare it against an image archive of examples certified previously. This takes a lot of time and can still be inconclusive, especially when the subject coin is cleaned or otherwise impaired.

 

This is work that we need to charge for, regardless of what the outcome will be. Otherwise we simply could not perform it. Usually, it allows us to grade a coin or call it Not Genuine. But sometimes, not. Also, if we refunded money when we called a coin Authenticity Unverifiable, we would be inviting customers to send deceptive counterfeits with impunity. (For the record, I don't believe for a second that was the intent with this submission.)

 

Last, when an very limited database of diagnostics exists or when we believe that no useful further inquiry can be made, we do refund the fee and call the coin Questionable Authenticity.

 

This is a good policy that serves the best interest of our customers. We also have it clearly spelled out on our Web site.

 

Regarding customer service, I will say the following. We never provide refunds based on grading results. But NGC also doesn't provide "poor service." If an error or mistake that we made is brought to our attention -- we are human! -- we correct it.

 

If a dealer calls up and says, "I submitted coins for a customer on invoice XXXXXXX and he is unhappy. He's never submitter before. What can we do?" Our customer service department would be very sympathetic and would try to figure something out. I don't think that happened here.

 

Taking time to reply is indicative of integrity and a business that does value the customer.

 

Your reply very courteously suggests an invitation to the OP to contact NGC and discuss the situation.

 

You may have missed the comment by the OP that the NGC Dealer that submitted the coins on behalf of the OP called NGC and no reason for the issue was forthcoming. However, the OP apparently did not call himself.

 

I am sure you will review the use of "unverifiable" as an opinion alternative, especially when the use of the word triggers a no refund situation, yet "questionable authenticity" yields a refund.

 

A review of the Holder in an earlier Post can also use a review.

 

Both of these possible confusion protocol methods have a simple solution that will only better the reputation, if you conclude the problem exists.

 

On behalf of all, your response is appreciated and we thank you. You didn't have to comment. An adequate company wouldn't. A good company does.

 

On the subject of virility of the Graders, I have been told there is some suspicion of excellence. Then again, it it does involve coins, and that alone accounts for the lack of virility in the minds of the general public, I think.

[RWB]

Communication is important. Scott has certainly been listening to the situation and thinking beyond the emotional veneer some paste over reality.

 

Good job!

[coinman_23885]

First, to address the OP, NGC has the most competent graders. They may well be the most virile, although we have not independently tested this. We also have the best customer service and care deeply about providing fair value to all submitters.

 

I didn't see these coins personally, so I'll talk only in generalities. When a coin comes in that is not readily discernible as authentic, NGC Graders must examine it for diagnostics previously identified on counterfeit coins and/or compare it against an image archive of examples certified previously. This takes a lot of time and can still be inconclusive, especially when the subject coin is cleaned or otherwise impaired.

 

This is work that we need to charge for, regardless of what the outcome will be. Otherwise we simply could not perform it. Usually, it allows us to grade a coin or call it Not Genuine. But sometimes, not. Also, if we refunded money when we called a coin Authenticity Unverifiable, we would be inviting customers to send deceptive counterfeits with impunity. (For the record, I don't believe for a second that was the intent with this submission.)

 

Last, when an very limited database of diagnostics exists or when we believe that no useful further inquiry can be made, we do refund the fee and call the coin Questionable Authenticity.

 

This is a good policy that serves the best interest of our customers. We also have it clearly spelled out on our Web site.

 

Regarding customer service, I will say the following. We never provide refunds based on grading results. But NGC also doesn't provide "poor service." If an error or mistake that we made is brought to our attention -- we are human! -- we correct it.

 

If a dealer calls up and says, "I submitted coins for a customer on invoice XXXXXXX and he is unhappy. He's never submitter before. What can we do?" Our customer service department would be very sympathetic and would try to figure something out. I don't think that happened here.

 

Thank you for chiming in! On another note, has NGC ever considered drafting a form letter outlining this for inclusion with submissions where a coin is deemed "authenticity unverifiable"? I think a letter like this would help eliminate threads like this in the future.

 

P.S. It might help to avoid using ambiguous descriptions such as "authenticity unverifiable" and "questionable authenticity" as they could easily be confused by submitters. Perhaps you could clarify by changing the "questionable authenticity" label to "no decision" or "no decision - questionable authenticity."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

First, to address the OP, NGC has the most competent graders. They may well be the most virile, although we have not independently tested this. We also have the best customer service and care deeply about providing fair value to all submitters.

 

I didn't see these coins personally, so I'll talk only in generalities. When a coin comes in that is not readily discernible as authentic, NGC Graders must examine it for diagnostics previously identified on counterfeit coins and/or compare it against an image archive of examples certified previously. This takes a lot of time and can still be inconclusive, especially when the subject coin is cleaned or otherwise impaired.

 

This is work that we need to charge for, regardless of what the outcome will be. Otherwise we simply could not perform it. Usually, it allows us to grade a coin or call it Not Genuine. But sometimes, not. Also, if we refunded money when we called a coin Authenticity Unverifiable, we would be inviting customers to send deceptive counterfeits with impunity. (For the record, I don't believe for a second that was the intent with this submission.)

 

Last, when an very limited database of diagnostics exists or when we believe that no useful further inquiry can be made, we do refund the fee and call the coin Questionable Authenticity.

 

This is a good policy that serves the best interest of our customers. We also have it clearly spelled out on our Web site.

 

Regarding customer service, I will say the following. We never provide refunds based on grading results. But NGC also doesn't provide "poor service." If an error or mistake that we made is brought to our attention -- we are human! -- we correct it.

 

If a dealer calls up and says, "I submitted coins for a customer on invoice XXXXXXX and he is unhappy. He's never submitter before. What can we do?" Our customer service department would be very sympathetic and would try to figure something out. I don't think that happened here.

 

Thank you for chiming in! On another note, has NGC ever considered drafting a form letter outlining this for inclusion with submissions where a coin is deemed "authenticity unverifiable"? I think a letter like this would help eliminate threads like this in the future.

 

P.S. It might help to avoid using ambiguous descriptions such as "authenticity unverifiable" and "questionable authenticity" as they could easily be confused by submitters. Perhaps you could clarify by changing the "questionable authenticity" label to "no decision" or "no decision - questionable authenticity."

 

I am fairly certain those points have been covered, but then again I could be wrong....I haven't been following things very closely.....

[clydedenver]

The entire area of Trade Dollars in the hobby today illustrates how good the counterfeiters are getting. Bought two raw Trade Dollars on eBay back in 2006 and later took them to a major Baltimore show later that year, my first major national show. Tried selling them to various dealers. Some said both were fake. Some said both were real. Some said one was real and not the other. Spoke with a young man at the ICG table I later found out was Cameron Kiefer. I think he said both were real. I sold them at the show to a dealer who thought they were real. I was only slightly aware of fake Trade Dollars when I purchased them. After that Baltimore show experience where even these top dealers and experts couldn't agree, I never to this day have bought a raw Trade Dollar. I was still a relative rookie in coins back then, but I learned from that experience and others early on to take statements of authority by experts with a grain of salt. Some areas are pretty cut and dry. Trade Dollars authenticity, no. Big grain of salt when it comes to Trade Dollars.

 

I understand the OP's frustration. It sounds like NGC balked, however, I think as others pointed out, it's just a fancy way of saying "fake".

 

Didn't PCGS used to use "Aritificial Toning" and they got sued on that? That's why they say "Questionable Color" these days.

 

NGC has to use euphemisms because of this sue-happy culture. Don't be angry with NGC. Be angry with lawyers.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The entire area of Trade Dollars in the hobby today illustrates how good the counterfeiters are getting. Bought two raw Trade Dollars on eBay back in 2006 and later took them to a major Baltimore show later that year, my first major national show. Tried selling them to various dealers. Some said both were fake. Some said both were real. Some said one was real and not the other. Spoke with a young man at the ICG table I later found out was Cameron Kiefer. I think he said both were real. I sold them at the show to a dealer who thought they were real. I was only slightly aware of fake Trade Dollars when I purchased them. After that Baltimore show experience where even these top dealers and experts couldn't agree, I never to this day have bought a raw Trade Dollar. I was still a relative rookie in coins back then, but I learned from that experience and others early on to take statements of authority by experts with a grain of salt. Some areas are pretty cut and dry. Trade Dollars authenticity, no. Big grain of salt when it comes to Trade Dollars.

 

I understand the OP's frustration. It sounds like NGC balked, however, I think as others pointed out, it's just a fancy way of saying "fake".

 

Didn't PCGS used to use "Aritificial Toning" and they got sued on that? That's why they say "Questionable Color" these days.

 

NGC has to use euphemisms because of this sue-happy culture. Don't be angry with NGC. Be angry with lawyers.

 

Your opinion and thoughts are as welcome and valid as any other member.

 

There are a few things, though, to discuss.

 

The TPG is not stating the coins were or were not counterfeit. They clearly state they don't know. The TPG is not using a euphemism. They have another designated description for "fake".

 

It is not about the legal aspect or Lawyers, in this particular case. NGC did not balk, in the negative sense, nor was there an intent to deceive or mislead on their part. It is simply a protocol situation, and the Head Shed has taken an interest and responded.

 

It is not a fancy way to say fake. It is an indirect method to state "We don't know".

 

No, the TPG does not have to use fancy euphemisms. They do have to work on clarity of the meaning of 'unverifiable" so that it is not confusing, especially concerning the fee cost for such a designation.

 

A side note: you were fortunate to have made the acquaintance of Cam. He was with us much to briefly in this Life. He is still missed.

[Scott_Schechter]

On another note, has NGC ever considered drafting a form letter outlining this for inclusion with submissions where a coin is deemed "authenticity unverifiable"? I think a letter like this would help eliminate threads like this in the future.

 

Sure, we've considered letters like this, for this situation and others like it. But I'm not sure it's necessary. First, this appears on the back of the NGC Submission Form:

 

Coins that are not encapsulated. Certain examinations result in a coin that is not encapsulated by NGC. For coins that are not encapsulated because they are deemed by NGC as “NOT GENUINE” or ”AUTHENTICITY UNVERIFIABLE” or because they have altered mintmarks, altered dates, altered surfaces, surface residue or PVC, the full NGC grading fee applies. For coins that are not encapsulated because they are deemed by NGC as ”QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY,” or not suitable for certification or have insufficient detail to identify, the NGC grading fee is credited to your account less a $5.00 service fee. All determinations regarding encapsulation are made at the sole discretion of NGC. For more detailed information on grading results, please visit NGCcoin.com

 

Second, if people are curious about "authenticity unverifiable," a quick search on ngccoin.com will direct them to everything that I said in my first post above.

 

We really do go to great lengths to make sure collectors have access to the information they need about NGC certifications. And then we have a fantastic customer service department available. You can talk to a friendly and helpful person during business hours by calling a toll-free number.

 

We believe in a message board and supporting an online community that allows for honest expression. That means that we can never eliminate threads like this. When people are ticked off, it happens. Sometimes they are right. Most times, they are just ticked off.

 

If we can improve our policies and communications because of them, great. As it stands, we already do a pretty good job of these things. We always appreciate suggestions about how we can improve our services...although we prefer when they come in the form of a friendly email.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

On another note, has NGC ever considered drafting a form letter outlining this for inclusion with submissions where a coin is deemed "authenticity unverifiable"? I think a letter like this would help eliminate threads like this in the future.

 

Sure, we've considered letters like this, for this situation and others like it. But I'm not sure it's necessary. First, this appears on the back of the NGC Submission Form:

 

Coins that are not encapsulated. Certain examinations result in a coin that is not encapsulated by NGC. For coins that are not encapsulated because they are deemed by NGC as “NOT GENUINE” or ”AUTHENTICITY UNVERIFIABLE” or because they have altered mintmarks, altered dates, altered surfaces, surface residue or PVC, the full NGC grading fee applies. For coins that are not encapsulated because they are deemed by NGC as ”QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY,” or not suitable for certification or have insufficient detail to identify, the NGC grading fee is credited to your account less a $5.00 service fee. All determinations regarding encapsulation are made at the sole discretion of NGC. For more detailed information on grading results, please visit NGCcoin.com

 

Second, if people are curious about "authenticity unverifiable," a quick search on ngccoin.com will direct them to everything that I said in my first post above.

 

We really do go to great lengths to make sure collectors have access to the information they need about NGC certifications. And then we have a fantastic customer service department available. You can talk to a friendly and helpful person during business hours by calling a toll-free number.

 

We believe in a message board and supporting an online community that allows for honest expression. That means that we can never eliminate threads like this. When people are ticked off, it happens. Sometimes they are right. Most times, they are just ticked off.

 

If we can improve our policies and communications because of them, great. As it stands, we already do a pretty good job of these things. We always appreciate suggestions about how we can improve our services...although we prefer when they come in the form of a friendly email.

 

All valid and helpful information.

 

But, I am sure you understand the issue is one of confusion, when using " unverifiable". As an example, the language you have referred to is not clear concerning the fee disposition for such a designation. It can easily be confused with "questionable authenticity", triggering a question of why a fee was retained, and not credited, yet coins that are "questionable" receive benediction.

 

This is such an easy fix.

 

Refer to the wording, and for just a moment, consider what is stated:

 

"....because they are deemed by NGC as "QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY" (and now I will add caps), OR NOT SUITABLE FOR CERTIFICATION OR HAVE INSUFFICIENT DETAIL TO IDENTIFY, The NGC grading fee is CREDITED...."

 

Honestly, that is a confusion loophole, that would serve well to fill up.

Sometimes, we read something and are so used to interpreting what it means in the protocol of a business, and don't ever realize there is a 2nd or 3rd perfectly valid alternative interpretation, that lends to the situation the OP finds himself in.

 

It is reasonable for the submitter to question why payment should not be credited when the language is subject to more than none interpretation. My opinion, of course.

 

Thank you for a continuing response. It is helpful.

 

[coinman_23885]

We believe in a message board and supporting an online community that allows for honest expression. That means that we can never eliminate threads like this. When people are ticked off, it happens. Sometimes they are right. Most times, they are just ticked off.

 

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to reply to my message; it is very much appreciated. Also, I thank you (and NGC) for not censoring the message boards as occurs with other services. It is truly appreciated and definitely noticed in the collecting community. We are lucky to have such a generous host.

[gmarguli]

I want to thank you gentlemen for an interesting discussion. Unless NGC pulls it's head out of a dark space, I suspect I learned an expensive lesson and know not to send trade dollars to them for grading.

 

The expensive lesson you should have learned was to not buy counterfeit Trade dollars.

[cpm9ball]

I want to thank you gentlemen for an interesting discussion. Unless NGC pulls it's head out of a dark space, I suspect I learned an expensive lesson and know not to send trade dollars to them for grading.

 

The expensive lesson you should have learned was to not buy counterfeit Trade dollars.

 

It's good to know that you are still alive and well, Greg!

 

Chris

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I want to thank you gentlemen for an interesting discussion. Unless NGC pulls it's head out of a dark space, I suspect I learned an expensive lesson and know not to send trade dollars to them for grading.

 

The expensive lesson you should have learned was to not buy counterfeit Trade dollars.

 

In fairness and equity to the OP and NGC, no determination of counterfeit was declared or implied. In fact, quite the opposite was stated: the TPG can not determine the status of the coin. The coin is not verified either way. It I'd incorrect to assume that means the TPG is using hidden language for "counterfeit".

 

It should also be noted that one of the coins submitted was returned graded.

 

I suspect it would have been an easier and less expensive task to have declared the coin as "questionable". The TPG went the extra mile: they expended the time and cost to come to a conclusion. They could not. The only real issue is one of cost for the inconclusive determination and clarifying a designation of "unverifiable" vs. "questionable".

[Nutmeg Coin]

If the issue were filed with a state attorney general, consumer protection department or a court of law I would think that the law would side with the customer. The same thing would apply if you paid someone to appraise your antiques and authenticate them, though some appraisers would do it for free those who charge would never take your money after calling them fakes. As usual clarity should come as you compare similar situations in other fields, numismatics is not a world unto itself as much as some people would want it to be so.

 

Why are you talking about a court of law? Are you lawsuit-happy? The NGC language almost certainly protects them legally.

 

I was just speaking to the chain of legal rights available to customers if a business entity proves to be unresponsive, and I have dealt with quite a few over the years. Not saying they would be unresponsive here. But many businesses just ignore complaints until it becomes a PR problem for them.

[carnyman2]

These coins were submitted through an NGC dealer who has called more than once to get answers that have not been forthcoming.

 

I PAID NGC TO KNOW, not guess or avoid making a decision. A no decision can be made by anyone, that is why I submitted them to you in good faith that you could do the job you were paid to do. Non-answers are the domain of political liars.

 

If you will not make the call on authenticity, you should not accept Trade Dollars. With all of the non-answers you have given over the years, how many possible counterfeits have continued in circulation due to your unwillingness to provide definitive answers?

 

 

[carnyman2]

"authenticity unverifiable", "questionable authenticity", "questionable authenticity","no decision" or "no decision - questionable authenticity" are all non-answers.

 

Customers are entitled to definitive decisions. If they cannot provide a decision, the money should be refunded along with an explanation of why they could not do what they were paid to do.

 

 

[carnyman2]

If as a few people have expressed that "authenticity unverifiable" is synonymous with fake, why can't/won't/don't they provide any reasons for why they believe it might be fake?

 

The weight is correct and the die pairings are correct. Those are the two main indicators available to us. They should explain other indicators that they saw in the coins!

 

 

We spend a lot of money on the coins and pay a substantial fee to get them graded; we should get definite answers. They are not the highest grades, but the only reason I sent them in was for authentication.

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

These coins were submitted through an NGC dealer who has called more than once to get answers that have not been forthcoming.

 

I PAID NGC TO KNOW, not guess or avoid making a decision. A no decision can be made by anyone, that is why I submitted them to you in good faith that you could do the job you were paid to do. Non-answers are the domain of political liars.

 

If you will not make the call on authenticity, you should not accept Trade Dollars. With all of the non-answers you have given over the years, how many possible counterfeits have continued in circulation due to your unwillingness to provide definitive answers?

 

 

I am sure your point is understood by now. It is being taken seriously, or the Gentleman representing the TPG would not be openly addressing the subject. Try to set aside your disappointment and anger and work toward a resolution. I am surprised that the Dealer did not receive any answers at all. Something doesn't sound correct, and that is not the manner that business is conducted by the TPG. I think it is possible there is a communication failure that has not been shared with you, or an answer was given that was not shared with you.

 

I have a question: did the Dealer that submitted on your behalf review the back of the submittal form with you, and explain the terms, possible outcomes, and fees, or maybe you were familiar with these same things when you joined NGC? Did the Dealer sign the form on your behalf or did you sign it? I am asking your level of awareness of what could happen, because if the Dealer didn't explain the terms, this situation is not caused by the TPG. It is also a separate issue from the fee for a non-decision.

[Scott_Schechter]

carnyman ,

 

The work and value of services performed by NGC were certainly equal to or greater than the fee assessed. At the same time, I understand your position and why you are upset.

 

NGC can only talk to the submitter of record regarding a submission. Please have the submitting dealer call me personally during the week about this submission on your behalf.

 

This thread is locked.

 

Regards,

Scott