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 their removal)

Letter dated 14 May
(In reaction to Editor's message promising 'news on Tecnik' following removal of all references to the Company)

Thursday, 11 April 2002

F.A.O The Editor

Clik2 UK Ltd
P.O. Box 33923

Dear Sirs

Mr A. Irvine

Submit your comments here:

Your name: 

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 and we
look forward to receiving your confirmation by return of letter that the
offending article will be removed from your website immediately.

Yours faithfully
Tecnik Appliances

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 the

"clik2complaints" website. For the avoidance of doubt, our position is as


Your appliance was delivered by us to Huntersbrook on 10th October 2001.

It was inspected by the retailer and signed off as having been received in
perfect condition.

It would appear that the retailer stored the appliance before it was
delivered and installed in your property during November 2001.

The Appliance Care Service Engineer has confirmed that the damage to your
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 not with
the end user.

As I hope you will appreciate, the determining factor here is that the
appliance was delivered to the retailer in perfect condition. What the
retailer has done with it since then is (a) completely outside of our
control and (b) clearly not our responsibility.

One point you did mention is the fact that you regarded Huntersbrook as
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 we must
ask you for your undertaking not to repeat the allegations or the warnings
which appear on the clik2complaints website. If you do repeat those
allegations or anything of a similar nature, we will do whatever is
necessary to protect our rights.

Yours sincerely

David Wilkinson
Tecnik Appliances

Copy of response posted on Website

Mr Irvine purchased a TECNIK dishwasher from a retailer in October 2001.

Mr Irvine contacted the TECNIK office by telephone on 2nd April 2002 to
complain about damage to this appliance.

We advised Mr Irvine that we had delivered the dishwasher to his retailer
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 26th
February 2002 and reported it to be damaged beyond repair. The damage was
(a) severe and (b) consistent with impact damage which we can only assume
occurred either whilst in storage with the retailer or during
transportation to Mr Irvine.

The Appliance Care Service Engineer also advised that the extent of the
damage would have been obvious to anyone unpacking and installing the

In the circumstances, it is clear that TECNIK cannot accept liability for
the damage and Mr Irvine has been advised to pursue the matter directly
with his retailer.