Re: BBB Losing Credibility From Biased Ratings

[Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now this is an interesting response from the BBB in LA.

Jim Rojas



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: BBB Rating Scheme
Date: 	Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:05:38 -0700
From: 	Bill Mitchell <bmitchell@xxxxxxxxx>
To: 	Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: 	<4A607E4F.2050708@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


Jim,

The truth is that there are inconsistencies in our policies as applied to
businesses with a lot of branches.  Generally speaking though, if a company
like this wants all complaints processed at a their headquarters or some
other location, we would deem that location to be the headquarters for
rating
purposes.  On the other hand, if they want each office to handle their own
complaints, then each one would have its own report.  Because our system is
driven primarily by complaint experience, this makes sense, at least to me.
Believe it or not, there is no nefarious motive involving membership.

I'm not familiar with your company or report, but most likely your rating is
caused by some failure in the complaint process, like not answering
complaints.  If that's the case, by resolving the complaint issues, you
should get a high rating whether or not you elect to join the BBB.

William G. Mitchell | President/CEO

Tel: 909-835-6100
Fax: 909-835-6092
Email: bill@xxxxxxxxx
www.labbb.org | Start With Trust

Better Business Bureau of the Southland
315 N. La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA  92324


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Rojas [mailto:jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:36 AM
To: Bill Mitchell
Subject: BBB Rating Scheme

Why is a company like Brinks Home Security AKA Broadview Security,
allowed to separate all its branches like they were independently owned
franchises in order to cover up huge increases in consumer complaints?
While another competing company like ADT shows their overall rating for
all to see? These kind of questionable behavior by the BBB is
disturbing. It basically gives paying members card blanche to screw over
the American public.

I have a couple of compliants against my company in the 13 years I have
operated online, yet I get an F rating...pathetic on the part of the
BBB. I will never become a member of an agency that basically resorts to
extortion  towards small businesses.

Thank you

Jim Rojas





Anonymous wrote:
> There are many reasons to think the current business model of the BBB is not sustainable.   There is too much negative press, too much business backlash, too much internal strife, too many lawsuits active and pending, and too much Attorney General interest to think otherwise.  This is not to say that the BBB is doomed, but it is even money that they are at a crossroads.
>
> http://www.bbbroundup.com/LosAngelesBBB.html
>
> Editor's note:  Neither I or this website have a problem with the Better Business Bureau.  Indeed, there is a need for a consumer advocacy group that the public can turn to, and in most cases, the Better Business Bureau fulfills this role adequately.  What we do have a problem with is the BBB's "A-F" grading system.  It is demonstratively biased, based on hearsay, weighted in favor of dues paying members and offers no recourse when the BBB makes an error.  It is obvious the Better Business Bureau does not now, nor ever will have, the resources to fully investigate the four million businesses in their database, much less grade them with any sense of accuracy.  It's an impossible job, and to think otherwise is a mistake that the BBB should acknowledge so they can get back to their reason for existence--protecting the consumer.  There's an old saying, "who will watch the watchers" and it applies here as the BBB has set themselves up to be above the law.  We are simply here to

help the Better Business Bureau do a better job so that they may
properly serve the consumer, the business community and themselves.
>