Just a note

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Nicole. I'm just wondering something tho. What if a florist receives an incoming order thru Teleflora say and then relays/forwards it to another florist thru FTD or TF (by phone), and the next receiving florist has no idea what the original amount of the order is/was, but suspects something's up? What is the procedure for the actual filling florist for dealing with suspicions such as this example?

I'm hopeful that most florists DON'T do this, but I still have suspicions (for good reason).

That is a question that I don't have an answer to right now, but I will certainly look it up and come back with what I find.
 
I'm getting thanks before even doing much! lol Thanks, Mark.

Okay, so just for those who are curious, I've taken the liberty of looking up the rules about this sort of thing (though I'm sure most of you already know):
In the guide, under Rules & Regs, Section 8D - Fulfillment (2):
The sending member must transmit 100% of the amount received from the consumer, less only applicable taxes and senders' service fees as permitted by Section 8(E). Transmitting less than the full amount of the order, minus applicable taxes and permitted sender's service charges, as applicable, ("order skimming") may result in termination of membership.

If DeeDee wanted to pursue having this other shop terminated, a call to Florist Customer Service (800.421.2815) would be in order. She would tell the agent her suspicion and then an investigation through Teleflora would begin.

Hope that's helpful in some way!


Unless the offending shop is a big sender, then you get the run around like I did reporting best floral years ago....it all depends on how much they send and if any proff can be had...
 
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with TF being on this forum. Nothing against you personally Nicole.

So far in this regard, as Lori suggested, they (TF)have been no help, and probably will not be.

Forget TF, I think this issue should be first dealt with between the shops and the sender.

Let the other shoe drop on the bad shop later, if TF decides they want to Ha!, but again I think the bad shops name (if all is proven true) should be made public. I think a couple others suggested this as well.
 
Unless the offending shop is a big sender, then you get the run around like I did reporting best floral years ago....it all depends on how much they send and if any proff can be had...
I concur, to a point... but different times call for different measures...

Once the facts come in, I would highly doubt, in today's techno-connected world that Teleflora would want this made public on thousands of florist websites, along with Florist Detective and have the *supposed* security of their network questioned, if they choose to do nothing about it.

Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with TF being on this forum. Nothing against you personally Nicole.
No, not really. The wire services have been here since FlowerChat launched Halloween night in 2002. Personally I would rather they be public about it as Nicole is, and not *try* to hide behind false names...

So far in this regard, as Lori suggested, they (TF)have been no help, and probably will not be.
In this instance, I personally asked Nicole to hold the information she has until this plays itself out between Dee Dee, the sender and the other shop. As always, there is more to this story than what has been posted. All I ask is patience...trust me, I'm not going to let this one die, if the facts bear out a deceptive rip-off....

And Dorothy, to answer your question...at this point it appears to me it would fall under the Federal laws regarding Interstate wire transfers, basically mail fraud...that carries pretty hefty fines and prison time. As to TF, they, with proof could discharge the member and impose a fine, but I doubt they would have as good a chance of recovery as the Feds would...
 
Dorothy-
According to my friend Amas in Service:
"I'm afraid there is no short way to answer this one because of its specificity -- If the order originates from another TF florist then there is an electronic trail if the order is sent via the network, (even phone transactions are reported) and since we serve as a clearing house for both parties (since they are both TF shops) we play arbitrator when necessary. However the FTD scenario would be a different transaction all together as we obviously wouldn’t be the clearing house."

This excludes a credit card swap, is my understanding. I hope that offers some insight.

Mark makes some good points about inter-state fraud law, as well, so there's much to be wary of in these situations. That's why questions like this are so hard to answer as Amas noted - I expect given the specifics of any situation, the way each of the parties chooses to handle it will be somewhat different.
 
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with TF being on this forum. Nothing against you personally Nicole.

So far in this regard, as Lori suggested, they (TF)have been no help, and probably will not be.

Forget TF, I think this issue should be first dealt with between the shops and the sender.

Let the other shoe drop on the bad shop later, if TF decides they want to Ha!, but again I think the bad shops name (if all is proven true) should be made public. I think a couple others suggested this as well.
No offense taken, I know it can be touchy to feel like someone is 'watching'. Please rest assured that I'm not here as a tattler; I prefer to think of myself as an emissary. ;)
 
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with TF being on this forum. Nothing against you personally Nicole.

So far in this regard, as Lori suggested, they (TF)have been no help, and probably will not be.

Forget TF, I think this issue should be first dealt with between the shops and the sender.

Let the other shoe drop on the bad shop later, if TF decides they want to Ha!, but again I think the bad shops name (if all is proven true) should be made public. I think a couple others suggested this as well.

I would be tempted to show the customer how I had only ever received $60 on all the orders and let him deal with the sending florist. Not sure if that's the right thing but it's what comes to mind.
 
DeeDee - please, when you are able, let us know the name of this shop.

thank you
 
No offense taken, I know it can be touchy to feel like someone is 'watching'. Please rest assured that I'm not here as a tattler; I prefer to think of myself as an emissary. ;)

Nicole I don't use TF or any of the big ws for a variety of reasons but you are a class act. I am not just basing it on this thread but other observations too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NicoleAtTF
lets see $140 a week x 52 weeks =$7,280 x 2 years=$14,560..
Holy crap is right.......if it turns out to be skimming......I believe that this qualifies for felony theft......oh baby they's be in some deep doody!
 
Unbelievable. This is just my two cents, but I'd also inform the sender that there is absolutely no need to spend *that* much money on a nice arrangement every month, especially if they deal with you direct. Whichever florist did this and continued to get away with for so long should be kicked out of TF. I wonder if they do this with other dove orders going to OTHER FLORISTS.....?
If someone wants to spend $800/ mo in the shop I'm certainly not going to talk them out of it!



I too think there HAS to be more to this story. There has to be. I know there are some bad shops, and I get flack for saying that, but man oh man, this just CAN'T be right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandytf
I'm been thinking as I have been reading this thread.

Before everyone cries wolf on the sending shop, could there be a simple misunderstanding of what the actual sender/sending shop transaction is........possibly a mis-statement to Dee-Dee by the actual sender?

Could it be a flat $200./MONTH for flowers, ans opposed to $200/WEEK order???

Just wondering........I know that the sender (from what I gathered in the posts) has not seen the flowers. However, if I was the sender of a $200/week order, I would expect some really over the top gushing from my Sweetie....at least once in a while in 2 years!

I'm just saying.......
I know as well as you all do that skimming does go on. does not make it legal...or right. I would hope that in all honesty, it is not this blatant or outrageous!

Just my Humble Opinion.

Cheryl
 
We use to receive an order from a Texas shop that use to send us a $50.00 a week order. One day he tried to call the florist and was too late for delivery and called us direct. He place the order with us as $100.00 of vased roses. When we filled it with 2 dozen he called to thank us for the great job and wondered why we gave him 2x as many.

We talked and found out the same thing as this was happening.

He told us that he would take it from here... Little did the Texas florist know that the recipient was the assistant to the DA. Never got the story on how it went down but the shop was closed down 3 months later.

Joan
 
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a teleflora.com order. Do you know if it was an actual florist or an OG? Why would someone trust such a big order to a third party OG anyway? Unbelievable how unethical some businesses can be and also how naive the consumer can be. I hope all the wire services go under and the sooner the better!
 
As I tried to say in my earlier post, we do not have ALL the details on this one. We have the Filler's side, we have part of the Original purchaser's side. We are lacking the Sending shop's side.

I don't know if that shop or owner is a member here.

I prefer to allow someone to be innocent until proven guilty. It's the American way.

When Dee-Dee or Tf has all the facts, and this is all sorted out, I only hope that someone will tell us the entire story, with all the numbers laid out, including shop name and code #, city & state....if they are guilty.

Let's all take a deep breath......and allow the system to work it's way thru, before we speculate any more.

I'm just sayin.......

cheryl
 
Any updates about this? I am more than curious!!!
Shocked actually. But waiting for more info as requested.

Bump

Jennifer
 
In the UK we had a famous highway man called Dick Turpin. He would robe coaches steeling their riches from the wealthy. He would wear a mask to conceal his identity. We have abit of a saying at home. At least Dick Turpin had the decency to to wear a mask. Enough said this is stealing a daylight robbery. Shop the shop. They are the lowest of the low. The person has spent an aweful lot of money for not alot. It is actually quite upsetting to hear things like this.
 
This will be the final post in this thread!

At this point there has been no resolution to this glaring issue.

All I am going to say, is that this is being handled by "people" outside the floral industry and there will be no further comment made at this time.

Dee Dee has been removed from this situation, and will be making no further comment on it.

Anyone that has a problem with this, can contact me directly next week, upon my return. I thank you in advance for your cooperation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.