319-887-3076

Just now called. Didn't recognize the number. No message left.
Growth Promotio was on the CALLER ID.

Just now called. Didn't recognize the number. No message left.
Growth Promotio was on the CALLER ID.

D T FACTORY PRO on Caller ID this time...
No message left.

D T FACTORY PRO on Caller ID...
No message left.

Number traces to Growth Promotions in Coralville, IA. They are involved with Vacuum Cleaners & Supplies. No message was left.

Interestingly, Kirby Co. has my number and they have a headquarters in the same town. Coincidence?

Sales model

New Kirby home care systems are only sold through independent, authorized Kirby distributors through in-home (door-to-door) demonstrations.
From time to time, Kirby Sentria 2 systems are inaccurately advertised for sale as "new" on the Internet and in authorized retail stores. Systems sold through other sources are not covered by The Kirby Company's warranty and rebuild plans.[11]
The Kirby Company manufacturers the unit and sells it to a group of authorized distributors. Each distributor is an independent business, and as such sets their own price for the unit and conducts their own business operations.
Independent distributors recruit dealers who are also independent contractors. The dealers sell the unit door-to-door. Dealers are typically compensated through commission only.
[edit]Criticism of marketing and sales practices

The practices of some of Kirby's independent distributors have been subject to criticism. The Kirby is included by Lon Fuller and Melvin Eisenberg, Professors of Contract Law at Harvard Law School and UC Berkeley School of Law/Columbia Law School, as a textbook example of unconscionability.[12] Kirby has been subject to relentless criticism by consumer protection agencies.[2] As of 1999, of the 22 state consumer protection agencies, 15 had received a total of more than 600 complaints in just a few years.[2] Between 1996 and 1999, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection received 50 complaints regarding Kirby dealers, and concluded from its investigation that Kirby, through its distributors, engaged in a "statewide pattern of trade practices" violation of state consumer-protection laws.[2]
Many of the complaints involve "older customers who lack the will to stand up to grueling sales pitches."[2] The Wall Street Journal records examples where an elderly couple was unable to remove three Kirby salesmen from their home for over five hours; in another example, a disabled woman who had been living alone in a mobile home on $1000/month in Social Security payments and suffering from Alzheimers was discovered to own two Kirby vacuum cleaners, having paid $1,700 for the second one.[2] In 2002, the Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner obtained $13,000 in refunds for 13 senior citizens.[13]
According to the Wall Street Journal, the device "costs more than four times what other top-of-the-line vacuum cleaners do."[2] Kirby compares the price difference to that between luxury and economy cars, yet "luxury-car dealers don't make house calls in trailer parks. But Kirby dealers do."[2] The Kirby vacuum cleaner is "marketed exclusively door-to-door—often to people who can ill afford a $1,500 gadget, but succumb to the sales pitch nonetheless."[2]
In 2001, the West Virginia Attorney General obtained more than $26,000 in refunds and credits for dissatisfied Kirby buyers.[13] In 2002, ABC's Primetime conducted a hidden-camera investigation in response to more than a thousand complaints regarding Kirby's salespeople.[13] In June 2004, the Arizona Attorney General filed suit against Kirby distributors for violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, seeking an injunction against any other home sales.[13] Public authorities flooded with complaints about Kirby vacuum cleaners is not a recent phenomenon; even in the 1960s and 1970s, Kirby had been "cited by various agencies a number of times" and the Detroit Better Business bureau had received so many complaints that it decided to turn the matter over to the Wayne County prosecutor.[14]
Kirby attempts to disclaim liability for its sales force, whom it holds out as independent contractors.[2] Its "Distributor Code of Ethics" enumerates 12 principles, including "observe the highest standards of character, honesty and integrity in dealings with my customers, fellow Distributors and other members of the Kirby profession."[2] Kirby also teaches its distributors direct-sales laws, and requires them to resolve complaints within 24 hours under threat of termination.[2]
[edit]Litigation

Between 1998 and 2001, in Alabama alone, more than 100 lawsuits were filed against Kirby and its affiliates and subsidiaries, resulting in nearly $2 million in judgements and settlements.[15]
Twelve distributors of Kirby vacuums in Massachusetts were cited for violations of the Commonwealth's wage and hour laws by the MA Attorney General's Office in July 2010. The 12 distributors were cited for a variety of different wage and hour violations including nonpayment of wage, nonpayment of minimum wage, misclassification, child labor, retaliation and record-keeping violations. The distributors were fined a total of $199,300 for the violations and also ordered to pay restitution.[16]
[edit]Fraud and RICO
A federal class-action lawsuit is pending against Kirby under the civil action provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for allegedly selling used vacuums as new; the complaint alleges that "Not only is Kirby aware of this practice, it "participates in the scheme by, among other things, selling to its distributors duplicate or replacement 'Original Purchaser's Registration' cards to be given to secondhand purchasers.""[17] The complaint also alleges that "Kirby commonly sells distributors new empty boxes and packaging material for the obvious purpose of repackaging units that the distributor previously sold to a prior customer."[18] Kirby's motion to dismiss was rejected.[17] After Kirby refused discovery requests for its sales contracts and other documents, Judge Clay D. Land compelled Kirby to disclose the requested documents.[19]
A class-action law suit was also filed against Kirby in Bullock County Court in Alabama over its sales practices, specifically its use of credit cards issued expressly to fund Kirby purchases, under truth in lending laws.[2] Kirby succeeded in persuading a trial judge to recuse himself.[20]
[edit]Sexual assault
The Texas Supreme Court held Kirby liable for a rape committed by one of its door-to-door salesmen, finding that the manufacturer maintained control of its distributors and their salespeople, by requiring its distributors to make sales via in-home visits, and that the risk was foreseeable.[21] In that case, the court found that—had the employees references been checked—Kirby would have discovered complaints of inappropriate sexual behavior at his previous employer and an arrest and deferred adjudication for indecency with a child.[22]
The Supreme Court of North Dakota also held Kirby liable in a similar rape incident, where the salesman was hired after being convicted of assault and with charges of criminal sexual misconduct in the third degree pending against him.[23][24]
[edit]Actions against unauthorized dealers
Kirby home care systems are only sold through authorized, independent distributors through in-home demonstrations.http://www.kirby.com In an effort to protect consumers from purchasing used, damaged, or stolen products, Kirby has successfully prevented unauthorized retailers from selling or reselling its vacuum cleaners under misleading circumstances.
Kirby has sued unauthorized dealers who sell Kirby vacuums for, inter alia, trademark infringement where the vacuums are identified by the Kirby name and logo. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that such use does not constitute trademark infringement.[25][26] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated an injunction granted in Kirby's favor by a lower court in that Circuit based on similar trademark claims against an unauthorized distributor.[27]
Kirby also did not prevail in a similar action against an unauthorized dealer in Minnesota—where it asserted trademark infringement, false and unfair competition, and trade disparagement; the authorized dealer prevailed on a $90,000 counterclaim against Kirby for defamation and then in a suit against an insurer who refused to defend the suit when the dealer refused Kirby's settlement offer.[28][29] Kirby's parent lost another such suit in Minnesota based on trademark infringement and other related state law claims.[30]
Nor did Kirby prevail in a tortious interference with contractual relations claim in Washington against an unauthorized retailer; the Supreme Court of Washington awarded attorney's fees to the retailer.[31] However, Kirby has prevailed in cases where unauthorized retailers went farther than using the name and logo to identify the vacuum cleaner, misrepresenting themselves as the manufacturer and claiming the existence of factory warranty.[32]

http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/vacuum ... idents_1_758978

Vacuum salesmen tried to ‘con’ residents

Report By James Franklin , Reporter
Thursday, December 23, 2010
11:00 AM

ANGRY residents have told how vacuum cleaner salesmen tried to ‘con’ them in their own homes.

Gwendolin Worboys, a 75-year-old widow from Yatton, said two salesmen stayed in her home for over five hours before she finally agreed to buy a vacuum cleaner – even though she said she did not need one.

And Teresa Harding, aged 47, from Clevedon, said she had to physically throw one of the salesmen out of her home after he refused to leave.

The company, Premier Systems GB Limited, and its director have been found guilty of 11 consumer protection offences relating to three separate incidents, and fined £15,000.

Both Ms Worboys and Mrs Harding received cards through their letterboxes saying they had a free carpet cleaning voucher which they could exchange.

Ms Worboys said: “I accepted the free trial, thinking that it would just be one person coming round to do one of my rooms, but when my doorbell rang it was two salesmen, one aged around 20 and the other around 25.

“They turned up at 2.30pm, which was half an hour late, but I couldn’t get rid of them until eight in the evening.”

She added that, having cleaned the carpet in one of her rooms, the pair then went into her bedroom, stripped her bed and told her that the mattress was ‘dirty’ and would need cleaning.

Ms Worboys said the pair did not leave her property until she had agreed to buy an industrial Kirby vacuum cleaner for £1,400 – much more than it is worth. She added: “I feel conned. All they were doing was trying to pressure vulnerable people into buying things they didn’t want.”

Mrs Harding, of Braikenridge Close, said: “A salesman came to my house after I claimed the voucher, but I cottoned on quite quickly that he wasn’t really there to do the carpet cleaning.

“He started trying to push a vacuum cleaner, and was saying he had gotten it down to a really good price.

“Even though I said I wasn’t interested, he started to become a bit aggressive about it, and I literally had to physically remove him from the house as he wouldn’t stop.

At a hearing at Hereford Magistrates Court on December 10, the company was found guilty on one misleading commercial practice relating to Ms Worboys and Mrs Harding each, and its director, Kenvyn Pobjoy, was convicted on three director offences relating to Ms Worboys and one relating to Mrs Harding.

Had a huge number of missed calls from this number, answered last one - Kirby salesman.  Told him I was not interested, preferred not to receive solicitation calls, and wanted to be on their do not call list.  He began to argue and I hung up and blocked the number.  I suspect, I will begin received calls from another of their numbers shortly as I have previously blocked a number of different numbers that are traceable back to DT Promotions.