The customer's response to the company's comments:
The term 'factually incorrect' implies that I am lying in some way
- I would be interested to hear exactly what Mr. Brown thinks is 'factually
incorrect'!
But as he has declined to offer a 'right to reply' statement, I guess
we will never know.
I can assure you there has been no 'bending' of the truth on my part.
On the point of the local Trading Standards Office being 'on their
side' - I was not aware that it was Trading Standards duty to take
anyone's side - but more to ensure that traders are adhering to the
Sale of Goods Act.
Prior to their intervention, Online Golf (SW Golf) were insisting
on repairing the bag and sending it back to the manufacturer - as
per their own policy.
However, the intervention of my local Trading Standards office ensured
that I received a full refund and was dealt with promptly by SW Golf
themselves - and not the manufacturer!
Therefore, I will leave it for people to decide for themselves whether
or not Trading Standards was on 'their side'.
(hint: perhaps the fact that I got what the law said I was entitled
to - regardless of Online Golf's policies - might sway your decision).
One final point - I did still have to return the bag myself though
- which was a major inconvenience - and cost £18.50 to do so
(which was reimbursed later). Even the poor woman at the GPO seemed
flustered when I brought such a large box in for delivery!
This was mainly a service issue though... a poor service issue I should
say! - and I still maintain that it would have been cheaper for Online
Golf and far more convenient for myself (i.e. the customer) if they
had used their usual courier to uplift the golf bag.
Hardly a 'customer retaining' policy... 'nuff said.
