BBB Business Review
This Business is not BBB accredited
BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
This business is not BBB accredited.
Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.
To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.
Reason for Rating
BBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.
Based on BBB files, this business has a BBB Rating of No Rating. The reason is as follows:
- This business has no rating because it is out of business.
Customer Complaints Summary
|Complaint Type||Total Closed Complaints|
|Problems with Product/Service||0|
|Total Closed Complaints||0|
Business ManagementSunday Levine, Owner
MAIL ORDER & CATALOG SHOPPING
The subject firm has closed its dorr and is now out of business following a complaint filed bye the Federal Trade commission in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on August 15, 2002 (Civil Action No. 02-4174-CV-C-NKL; FTC File NO. 022 3201. The closing resulted from an action by the FTC against Grant Search, Inc., of Ashland, Oregon: Steven G Levine and Scott Stettnichs; Grant Pack, Inc., and Sunday R. Levine. FTC stated: The defendants allegedly told consumers that the defendants would match consumers with a suitable foundation "most likely to aprove (their) your grant, "regardless of the purpose of the grant. The defendants offered the purported grants as substitutes for traditional credit to consumers who have bad credit histories. The FTC alleges that although consumers could buy the program at two different prices, they received the same outdated list of foundations regardless of which program they purchased. Consumers learned that individuals were not eligible for the vast majority of the grants. The defendants offered a 100 percent money-back guarantee of the application fee, but when consumers requested a refund, the defendants denied the refund based on certain conditions or restrictions that the defendants did not previously disclose.