Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
Report: #308357

Complaint Review: Thill Logistics Smart Lids Also Known As SAS Group Inc - Nationwide

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Sparks Nevada
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Thill Logistics Smart Lids Also Known As SAS Group Inc Nationwide U.S.A.

Thill Logistics Smart Lids Also Known As SAS Group Inc Deceptive Business Practices via phone orders for Smart Lids and order fulfillment Internet Phone Nationwide

*UPDATE EX-employee responds: Shipping and handling rip off confirmed

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

On 12-1-07, I called the 800 number to order Smart Lids for my daughter for $10 and $7.95 shipping. I reached an automated service that kept asking if I wanted to add this and that, I'd say no. They'd ask are you sure you mean no? and I'd say yes, I mean no. I finally hung up after 10 minutes of this. I tried to call back and get a person and to cancel this order but couldn't get through the automated service to a live person. I checked my bank account for several times in the next month and no charges showed up so I assumed that it hadn't gone through since I'd hung up before it was completed. On January 1, 2008 a charge for $30.85 was put on the account but I called the bank and it was reversed. The charge returned on Jan 18 and I called the bank again where I spoke to Kevin and had to initiate a dispute. At this time, my account was now overdrawn and I am on a fixed income. I told my daughter what was happening and she went online to find a real number for this company. (My daughter is filing this complaint for me also) She found the 920 phone number online and the next day called. She first spoke with Andrea at the company. After explaining what happened. Andrea said that she would have to do an RMA because the product shipped on the 18th. My daughter explained that I did not want the product and I would not be paying for shipping. Andrea was unwilling to assist in anything except issuing an RMA for an item I did not want and tried to cancel. She asked for a supervisor and was sent to a voicemail with no name and left a message to be called back. She then hung up but called back to get the name of the company. No one was willing to tell her the actual name of the company, she again asked for the supervisor (because she had previously entered 0 and getten an operator from voice mail that had said the name of the company) however instead of a voicemail, she was transferred to Keisha, a supervisor. She again explained the situation to Keisha and Keisha said she would do what she could to resolve the issue but they were a third party company and it would take three days to hear back from someone. My daughter said they would refuse the shipment and Keisha said no you need to open it so we can issue an RMA and prove that we didn't have the product and that all we had to do was take the box to the post office and for a $1 could get a confirmation of delivery from the post office. My daughter called the post office and they said NO, once you open the package, you will need to pay the full price of shipping to return it. So my daughter then called back the company to find out if there was a tracking number for the product, eventually she was given a tracking number 02808259337004680454 but that it was delivered by postal mail and would not require a signature on delivery. My daughter called back the post office with the tracking number and was advised, not to open the package, that it would be scanned as refused and there would be a record with the post office. If we were unable to catch the mail carrier when it was delivered, we could still bring it in (as long as it was unopened) to be refused at the post office. All of this contrary to the tactics used by the women at Thill/Smart Lidz/Samurai Shark to make the product basically unreturnable for a full refund and to not incur further costs by me. I called my bank back and they were unable to reverse anything until the dispute has been filed and settled causing me to further overdraft my account and jeopardizing the outstanding payment still to be posted for a recent doctor's visit (which will incur even further charges to my bank account) as well cost charges for the check to the Doctor.

Updated- The bank temporarily reversed the charges pending the dispute. The Better Business Bureau received a response from Glenda Patterson with SAS Group Inc 914-333-7414 that said the following.
Dear Melinda:
Thank you for taking the time to inform us of the above referenced complaint regarding the Smart Lidz.

Our customer service employees undergo extensive training and make every attempt to satisfy our customers; this is of prime importance to us. We take all incidents and complaints seriously and are always committed to the satisfaction of our customers.

I wanted to let you know that the following customer complaints have been resolved.

On January 04, Ms. Parnell daughter called requesting full credit she stated that she hung-up before order completed. Advise her to call for an RA# before returning merchandise. credit issued less non-refundable processing & shipping upon receipt of mechandise at our warehouse. Ms. Parnell daughter called a second time for ship method.on January 24, she called a third time stating that she refused package as the post office advised her that if she opened the package she would have to pay the return shipping cost. AS of January 29, no package has been returned to warehouse. Once merchandise is received credit will be issued for $10.00.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Glenda Patterson
Customer Service Manager
We have been able to track the package using that tracking number (anyone is free to see it's progress via and it is clearly on it's way back to the company. The BBB of Wisconsin closed the case stating that the business attempted "good faith" in resolving the issue based on their offer to return the $10 of the $30.85 charged.

Again, they got the card number FIRST and then attempted to add multiple items on during the phone call, even after the fact what should have been $17.95 somehow jumped up to $30.85. There was no way for a person who does not use the computer to find a number to cancel the order (which she tried to do immediately after getting off the phone, before the order was even processed) Even after getting the number, they are unwilling to assist and refuse to refund shipping. They advise to open the package which WILL incur an additional shipping charge equal to the product you're trying to return.

At every turn they do everything they can to keep from refunding the money they fraudulently charge.

We have since filed complaints with Consumer Affairs in our state as well as Wisconsin.

Sparks, Nevada

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 02/12/2008 03:35 PM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 UPDATE EX-employee responds

Shipping and handling rip off confirmed

AUTHOR: formerConvergysCSR - (United States of America)

POSTED: Tuesday, June 22, 2010

I used to work for this company, and I can tell you that it is the most deceptive, shady, and disreputable company I have ever worked for.  The shipping and handling charges are separate for each and every item on the order, including and especially on the "free" or "bonus" items which are not optional, meaning if you order the main item, you have to take the bonus item and pay additional S&P.  With smartlids, as well as every other item that was processed and handled, the S&P is outrageous and is not refundable... this is meant to discourage returns.  If you are only going to get back less than half of what you paid for the order, why bother?  So is the practice of advising the customer not to do a RTS,(return to sender), but open the package and thus have to pay to ship it back.  The company has to pay for RTS, but they trick the customer into paying twice, once on the bill, and again when they have to pay to ship it back to get only their product cost refunded.  Another tactic was to make it impossible to cancel an order once it was placed through the automated system. The trick was to hold the orders and not upload them right away, thus when the customer called in to cancel the order, the CSR was unable to find the order and would tell the caller, "sorry, but your order is not in the system can take 3-5 days for orders to upload into the system..." So the caller would call back again and again trying to catch the order before it shipped out because once it was processed and the status changed to "in-warehouse" then it was as good as shipped and thus cannot be cancelled.  So the only option is to wait until it arrives and call for a RMA (return authorization).  In reality, the customer could refuse shipment and do a RTS, but that is not what the company wanted, so we were told to discourage that and advise that if the customer didn't follow our return policy then we would not issue a refund.  We had them over a barrel and the only way for them to get a fraction of their money back was to follow the rules that were stacked against them.  Another benefit to having the caller keep calling back over and over was that SAS paid Thill Logistics per call, so the more calls the more money they made!  Once an employee caught on to the scope of the rip off, they were promply terminated for "performance issues", like I was. 

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now