| |
|
| |
| VIRAL BAD-WORD-OF-MOUTH ADVERTISING |
|
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 |
| |
This email has been circulating around the web for a few weeks now - and has been sent to nocustomerservice.com by 3 different people. Beware those who provide bad service - hte advertising potential is HUGE:
Subject: WARNING> Buyer Beware Of Ranger Outdoors Dismal Non-Refund Policy (12 April 2008)
Buyer Beware Of Ranger Outdoors Rigid No Money Refund Policy Before You Buy Anything From Them !!!
To Ranger Outdoors and Cc. hundreds of consumers that will read this email.
I am writing about my conversations with staff and then the manager of Ranger Outdoors O'Connor in WA on the 11th April 2008 in regards to obtaining a refund on a generator I had bought a day earlier. The unit was not suitable for the purpose for which it was bought and is in 100% unused, untouched, still in box condition. The information below is further to our conversations regarding a refund to which you flatly refused to do.
The law in W.A. as I have found out from D.O.C.E.P say's, 'you as a business have legal right to remedy when:
· The item has a fault the customer didn't notice when they bought it'
· The item isn't the same as described by the sales staff or in advertising' ; or
· *The item is not suitable for the purpose in which it was bought'.
The law then says, 'what settlement you receive when you take the goods back depends on what consumer law describes as 'Fair and Reasonable'
Ranger Outdoors do you think that when a customer (me) has made an honest mistake and purchased a product that is not suitable for what I bought it for (and you do not stock an appropriate replacement) that the most 'fair and reasonable' remedy is to tell me you will not refund one single cent of my $1399 that I gave you only 1 day earlier?
Instead, after much conversation and 2 calls to the store owner from the manager the best you would finally offer was a $1399 voucher to purchase other goods from your shop that as I tried so, so hard to explain I SIMPLY DON'T NEED ! And after seeing 1st hand the way Ranger Outdoors deals with attempted refunds I would not want to spend it at your shop anyway. The manager did say a couple of times that he could see my point but 'hey it is not worth losing my job over $1400 bucks'
Coincidently at the same time I was talking with staff another man was trying (banging his head up against a brick wall) to also obtain a refund on some jerry cans that he had purchased that did not fit into his jerry can holders when he got them home. He was told by a female staff member NO REFUNDS. He was very flustered and interrupted my conversation with the manager and demanded that he have the owners direct phone number, to which he was refused as I was.
Ranger Outdoors rule makers ask yourself how would you feel if you paid $1400 for an item at a shop and when you got it home you found out it was not suitable for your needs and you returned it? The staff then tell you that they do not have an appropriate replacement and you can't have ANY of your money back but here's a voucher for $1400 to buy some stuff you simply don't need.
SECONDLY. Why hide your refund policy from the consumer? Is it because of the utter unfairness in it? Your refund policy is not displayed clearly in your shop. I did not see anything on the doors, nothing in the isles, on the walls etc. (for good reason I suspect) When it was bought to your attention that your refund policy was not clearly displayed in your shop you pointed out that your refund policy is 'clearly written on the bottom of my docket' and this is just stupidity as the money changes hands before the warning is given on the receipt. Do you see my point ? If I did notice that your shops have such a backwards non-refund policy I may not have purchased the product in the first place (just in case) as maybe the man with the jerry cans and many other people would not have either.
THIRDLY AND LASTLY. As Ranger Outdoors is clearly having troubles displaying and t |
| |
| |
| |
| Eye Spy Systems |
|
Wednesday, March 12, 2003 |
| |
Did you see the one about ATM’s having the capability to identify a customer by using ‘iris scanning’ technology within five years as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (28 February 2003). This type of technology is being touted as safe, cheap and accurate and is already in use in Australia by some companies and government agencies.
In the meantime, until this type of eye-dentifying becomes mainstream, a major bank is advising customers to take extra care of items such as bank statements, bills or receipts that may contain information that makes robbing you easier.
|
| |
| |
| |
| Who Will Follow Fels’ Footsteps? |
|
Wednesday, March 12, 2003 |
| |
The West Australian Newspaper’s article (28 Feb 2003) reports the Treasurers from three states and the ACT oppose the Federal Treasurer’s nomination of Graeme Samuel to chair the ACCC after the retirement of Professor Allan Fels.
This opposition deadlocks the nomination process and rules Mr Samuel out. The State Treasurers are seeking a person who balances the needs of business and the consumer, someone who will take up issues without fear of just whose toes had to be trod on!
|
| |
| |
| |
| Which Bank Breaks The Rules Of Good Customer Service? |
|
Wednesday, March 12, 2003 |
| |
Another article in the West Australian Newspaper (12 February 2003 by Gay McNamara) tells of a story of a bank that invested a woman’s superannuation funds in a scheme with much higher risks than she had requested. The women stated that she had relied on the adviser to follow her instructions, and her losses went from $4500 in the first year to $32,000 in the next 12 months. After contacting the bank and having to wait for an appointment this loss turned to a whopping $63,000. The articles also states the bank takes all complaints seriously and they will investigate the woman’s claims.
Had the standard of Openness and Honesty as described in Rule One of Good Customer Service been applied by the bank then maybe the woman’s loses may have been drastically reduced or even avoided in the first place.
|
| |
| |
| |
| Financial Planners Get Another Black Mark! |
|
Wednesday, March 12, 2003 |
| |
In a recent article in the West Australian Newspaper (12 February 2003 by Gay McNamara) consumers are warned about financial planners who rely on kickbacks and commissions for getting direct investors into some investments schemes. The article also cites a recent damming report by ASIC and the Consumers Association which states over half the financial plans analysed were of a poor standard. Meanwhile the State Government will continue to apply pressure to the Federal Government for tighter regulations of the industry. Not surprisingly the Financial Planning Association discounted the report.
For the confused consumer it is worth knowing that a Financial Planner must now disclose the value of any gifts or incentive schemes he might receive from directing your business into a certain institution.
We expect this means your financial planner will apply the standards of Openness & Honesty from Good Customer Service Rule One and tell you exactly about any commissions or incentives they will get should you follow their advice.
|
| |
| |
