Together Dating Service ... Has Anyone Ever Actually Received Their "Money Back" Guarantee?

[a...@cupidnet.com]

Re: Together Dating Service ... Has Anyone Ever Actually Received
Their "Money Back" Guarantee?

Since the mid 1980s, the Together Dating Service chain has sold
introduction programs with a "money back" guarantee, if a customer
is not able to meet someone to marry or with whom to establish a
so-called "long term," "lifelong" or "permanent" relationship.

Has anyone ever actually received their money back, or known of
anyone who did receive a full refund based on this guarantee?

This posting results from (1) a recent inquiry to the Association
of Ethical Matchmakers received from a retired gentleman in Georgia
whose contract clearly calls for a "money back" guarantee (but who
is having difficulty in actually getting his money back); (2) AEM's
inability to locate any former or current employee of Together who
can identify a single customer who ever received a complete refund
based upon this "money back" guarantee (which has been made for at
least a full decade in all parts of the United States and Canada);
and (3) numerous administrative, investigative and legal actions
that have previously been undertaken by state Attorneys General and
consumer protection agencies for frauds and for related wrongdoing
against the Together chain (as well as against the two self-styled
"principals," personally, who devised its methods), since the New
York Attorney General filed the first fraud litigation more than a
full decade ago (during September, 1986), followed by similar cases
by Attorneys General in Arkansas, New Mexico, California, Florida
and Oregon, as well as by Connecticut's Commissioner for Consumer
Protection (to list only those actions for which AEM has an actual
consent order, assurance of compliance or the like in its
files).TOGETHER DATING SERVICE SLAPPED HARD FOR IGNORING CUSTOMER'S
PLEAS

Behind the slurred speech, occasional jerking of the head and tilt
in his walk is Alan Morrison, a man with a good soul, an incredible
sense of humor and a mind that doesn't quit.

And, until Friday, he also was a man who was bitter, bitter as
hell.

The resentment was aimed at a Toronto-based dating company called
Together. It's a company that took him for one giant roller-coaster
ride that left him emotionally bankrupt.

* His story was so compelling that before awarding Morrison all he
asked for and more on Friday, an Ottawa small claims court judge had
to adjourn his court for 20 minutes to compose himself. "To take a
careful account to suppress my anger. So I can write a reasonable
judgment," said Judge George House.

House's voice cracked and his eyes watered as he spoke. Then he
took the extraordinary step of awarding punitive damages, something
not often done in small claims court.

* Ten years ago, when Morrison was 25, the bottom of his life fell
... away. He came close to death. He lay in a Vancouver hospital for
weeks, the victim of a horrendous motorcycle accident.

* His vegetable state -- "that's what you could say I was," Morrison
told the court -- was followed by years of rehabilitation. Healing was
gradual but will never be complete.

* After the accident, after the rehabilitation, Morrison went back to

school. His mind was working again. He became a geologist. He got a
job with Environment Canada.

But he lost his girlfriend because of the accident. "She stayed
around for several months, but left," Morrison said. He feels no
bitterness toward her.

While a great deal of the physical damage repaired itself,
emotional scars left him with a huge void to fill.

"I have trouble meeting girls. I am very, very handicapped that
way," he says. "The emotional scars are such that I am afraid, scared
of women. It's the way I walk, the way I talk."

That's when Together -- a company that bills itself as The Personal

Dating Service with at least 80 offices across North America and
England -- came into the picture. Its Ottawa manager made promises.
There were commitments.

All he had to do was put up $2,400 and the dating company would
take his fear of woman away. It would arrange the dates and screen
women for him.

* "The referrals sounded good to me, just what I needed," Morrison
said. "I prayed, and this seemed to be the answer. I was sold on the
idea that through one of these meetings I would be able to find a
special female. That someone would see inside me and see a good soul,
a pretty good guy."

Together did next to nothing.

Instead of the 36 guaranteed referrals, the company sent two. The
first wasn't received until three months after the money was paid and
until Morrison complained to the company's Mississauga head office.

.... The first referral was a woman who bore an "on hold" label; she
was already dating a man and wasn't interested when Morrison called.

* The second heard the slur in Morrison's speech and apparently
figured she had a loser. She said thanks, but no.

* Morrison complained to Together. After a lot of fighting, letter
writing and threatening, the company agreed to refund $1,757 of the
original fee. The rest the company kept to cover the cost of its
paperwork, testing, evaluation and the two referrals.

"We are firm in retaining the $650," the company's administrative
director, Mariette Rose, said in April.

* That wasn't good enough, Morrison said. He wanted all of his money
back.

"The emotional pain and suffering they inflicted on me couldn't be
ignored," Morrison said. "They took my money and ran, slammed the door
on me.

"The anxiety they caused me was terrible. I couldn't let it stand
while deciding what steps to take next, Morrison had another roadblock
thrown at him. He was transferred to Saskatoon. Fighting Together from
3,000 kilometers away was going to be difficult and costly. But he was
going ahead.

He decided to sue. The suit was filed at the end of April. It asked
for $6,000, nearly 10 times what the company claimed it had a right to
keep.

Together didn't respond to the suit. It didn't file a defense. It
didn't show up in the Ottawa court.

* Morrison, on the other hand, showed up twice. It cost him seven
days of lost time from his job. It cost him two round-trip airline
tickets. It cost him hotel room charges.

* To Morrison, those costs meant very little. He had hold of a
principle and he couldn't let go.

Judge House was shocked at what he heard..

"It is very rare when I get this angry," House said in court.

"I have been a judge for 20 years and, quite frankly, I can't
remember a case that cried out for more justice to an individual.
Together's conduct is reprehensible.

"In my opinion the defendant was a predator."

That predator, House said, was going to have to pay for what it had
done to a "very special person."

* House awarded Morrison $650, the money Together kept for itself. He
then gave Morrison $3,000 for breach of contract. Another $2,350 was
tacked on as punitive damages. Court costs were awarded, as was
another $1,000 to cover Morrison's airline tickets.

It didn't stop. A $300 inconvenience penalty was thrown in and,
added to all of that was interest. The clock started ticking in March
1992 and without the interest accrued, the penalty is $7,300.

After outlining what it was going to cost Together in dollars,
House ordered a transcript of the proceedings sent to the federal
Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Ontario Ministry of
Consumer and Commercial Relations, the government departments that
license and watch over business practices.

* The gavel banged. Morrison turned. He pumped his right arm. It was
over and he had won.

The Ottawa Citizen
A1/FRONT
* Tony Cote