Read other letters from Tecnik:
Letter dated 16 April
(in response to postings on the Sounding Board)
Letter dated 17 April
(in reaction to Editor's message on the sounding board about
Letter dated 14 May
(In reaction to Editor's message promising 'news on Tecnik'
following removal of all references to the Company)
11 April 2002
F.A.O The Editor
Clik2 UK Ltd
P.O. Box 33923
Mr A. Irvine
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of 5th April 2002.
We attach the following:-
Our letter to Mr Irvine dated today's date.
The response which we have posted on your website.
Mr Irvine's allegations against the company are completely without
foundation. You will, of course, be aware of your potential liability
arising from participating in the publication of libellous material
look forward to receiving your confirmation by return of letter
offending article will be removed from your website immediately.
Copy of letter posted to Mr Irvine:
Thursday, 11 April 2002
Mr A. Irvine
Dear Mr Irvine
Complaint against TECNIK
I am writing in respect of the complaint that you have posted on
"clik2complaints" website. For the avoidance of doubt,
our position is as
Your appliance was delivered by us to Huntersbrook on 10th October
It was inspected by the retailer and signed off as having been received
It would appear that the retailer stored the appliance before it
delivered and installed in your property during November 2001.
The Appliance Care Service Engineer has confirmed that the damage
appliance is (a) extremely obvious and certainly noticeable on cursory
inspection and (b) consistent with a heavy impact.
Our contractual arrangements are of course with the retailer and
the end user.
As I hope you will appreciate, the determining factor here is that
appliance was delivered to the retailer in perfect condition. What
retailer has done with it since then is (a) completely outside of
control and (b) clearly not our responsibility.
One point you did mention is the fact that you regarded Huntersbrook
acting as our agent. That is not the case at all. There is no agency
relationship in place.
Your remedies must lie against the retailer. In the circumstances
ask you for your undertaking not to repeat the allegations or the
which appear on the clik2complaints website. If you do repeat those
allegations or anything of a similar nature, we will do whatever
necessary to protect our rights.
Copy of response posted on Website
Mr Irvine purchased a TECNIK dishwasher from a retailer in October
Mr Irvine contacted the TECNIK office by telephone on 2nd April
complain about damage to this appliance.
We advised Mr Irvine that we had delivered the dishwasher to his
on 10th October 2001. The retailer had signed for the dishwasher
confirming that it had been received in perfect condition.
The Appliance Care Service Engineer inspected the dishwasher on
February 2002 and reported it to be damaged beyond repair. The damage
(a) severe and (b) consistent with impact damage which we can only
occurred either whilst in storage with the retailer or during
transportation to Mr Irvine.
The Appliance Care Service Engineer also advised that the extent
damage would have been obvious to anyone unpacking and installing
In the circumstances, it is clear that TECNIK cannot accept liability
the damage and Mr Irvine has been advised to pursue the matter directly
with his retailer.