Customer Service

[Donte77]

Just a query before I post the entire conversation. Would anybody be interesting in seeing email proof that people are fucking imbeciles and that I am completely justified in my hatred of them?!?!? I have a 5 page email chain (with all emails, company names, etc changed for anonimity) from a guy who basically embodies everything that is wrong with our society. We went back and forth with this guy for about a day and a half before we blocked his email and locked him out of ordering from our company again.

There is no way that I see to do poll yet or I would make a yes no poll.

[silversurfer19]

I want to see it. But I want the original company names and emails. Name and shame the assholes!!

[Donte77]

------Original Message-----
From: b
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:11 PM
To: Info
Subject: Sun Shade
Re: 2091-2989-3385
Late last week I received a [Product]model 320. It does not fit my Garmin Zumo 660. May I return it to you for one that fits, or get credit on my card ?
Thanks,
Bill


On Oct 20, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Info wrote:
>>>>>>
May I ask the dimensions of the unit you received? The reason I ask is that we use a GST-320 on our Garmin Zumo 660 for display purposes and it fits perfectly?
Also it is the largest unit they make. The other size is 1-1/2" shorter and 1/2" narrower.

Warehouse Supervisor



>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: b
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 7:54 PM
>>>>>> To: Info
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sun Shade
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. 3.5 X 10.5. I guess I'm surprised when you say, "perfectly." The outside dimensions are not the problem for me. The distance between the fold points are. That is, where the shade is indented to fold at the each edge of the Zumo and go down the sides does not match the edges of the GPS. Is this a "fits all" product rather than a shield made specifically for the Zumo 660 ?
With my Zumo, while the overall length is fine, the fold points of the [Product] needed on the top of my Zumo are 7/8 inch too short.
It needs to have the fold points 7/8 inch wider. My guess is the sun shade is a one size fits all product, or a small and a large, this one being the large. To me, it just doesn't fit as it should.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill



On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Info wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a two size fits all. The GST-316 and the 320 The creases are merely the optimal length of a GPS for that particular size. Making a shade for a specific model of GPS out of the several hundred available is not practical. The folds have absolutely no bearing on whether the mount "fits" the GPS. The only consideration for a sun visor is that is covers the face of the unit. If this is not satisfactory to you then you may send it back but you will not find a visor made specifically for the Zumo 660. All of the visors on the market are made for a general size of GPS.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warehouse Supervisor

>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: b
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:11 PM
>>>>> To: Info
>>>>> Subject: Re: Sun Shade
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for this information Don.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just not one to use any product that is a one size fits all.

>>>>> How should I return this to you folks ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill


On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Info wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A Return Materials Authorization has been created for your order.
>>>>> Please package the return securely and ship it as follows.
>>>>>
>>>>> RMA #146532-4834 Issued: 21-Oct-2009
>>>>> Qty: 1 SKU: MICS Item: Medical Information Carrier System (free
>>>>> with any purchase)
>>>>> Qty: 1 SKU: GST-320 Item: GlareStomper GPS sun shade model 320
>>>>>
>>>>> Please return the item in unused resellable condition as is stated in our return policy. Any other condition will be subject to a restocking fee.

>>>>> Warehouse Supervisor


----Original Message-----
>>>> From: b
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:39 AM
>>>> To: Info
>>>> Subject: Re: Sun Shade
>>>>
>>>> Whoops.
>>>>
>>>> I've already put the Medical Information Carrier System on my helmet. Will that be a problem for the return of the [Product] ?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Bill

On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Info wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Med Tags are 1.99 when purchased without the sale of another item.
>>>>
>>>> Customer Service
>>>>>

-----Original Message-----
>>> From: b
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:53 AM
>>> To: Info
>>> Subject: Re: Sun Shade
>>>
>>> Thanks for letting me know.
>>>
>>> Will that about cancel the my expense to return the GlareStomper to you ?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Bill

On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Info wrote:
>>
>>> I am not sure what you mean by that question. Returns are always at the customers expense ..you may send by first class mail which should only be about $1.00

>>>
>>> Customer Service

From: b
>> Sent: Thu 10/22/2009 11:31 AM
>> To: Info
>> Subject: Re: Sun Shade
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Laurene,
>>
>> Specifically, is [COMPANY NAME] going to charge me for the Medical Carrier Information System even though the [Product} does not fit my Garmin Zumo 660 and I'm returning it for that reason ?
Is [COMPANY NAME], in addition, expecting me to pay for return shipping even though the [Product}, sold as fitting the 660 perfectly (see Warehouse Supervisor comments below), does not, like one size fits all socks, or shirts, or hats, which actually fit nothing perfectly ? I expected and was told, this product was specifically for a Garmin Zumo 660.

>> It is not, and we both know that.
>>
>> Best,
>> Bill


> On Oct 22, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Info wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill. Specifically, yes, we are going to deduct the cost of the med tag, and you must pay the return shipping if you wish to return the [Product}. Your refund amount will be $16.96 on your Mastercard once the GlareStomper is received.
On the page of our Web site where you ordered the GlareStomper, you can see the very long list of GPS models that the GlareStomper model 320 fits, which is certainly a good indicator that it is not specifically designed for one model and is a multi-fit item. The GlareStomper works quite will on a Zumo 660 as designed, it was not misrepresented in any way on our Web site, and as such our normal return policies will apply as described above.
>>
>> Ride safe,
>>
>>
>> Customer Service



> -----Original Message-----
> From: b
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:05 PM
> To: Info
> Subject: Re: Sun Shade
>
>,
>
> Thanks for this feedback.
>
> I appreciate you allowing me to document this transaction.
>
> To be accurate, the [COMPANY NAME] Warehouse Supervisor stated below that the product "fits perfectly." It does not. Since the product does not perform as advertised, I have asked for a full refund, including shipping costs. Someone by the name of Laurene pointed out that first class mail costs would be $l.00. As with the comment that it "fits perfectly," all the facts are not being appropriately identified by [COMPANY NAME].
> First Class postage in only part of the return expense. Also included is my time and the cost to take the envelope to the post office. I think I am being more than generous in billing [COMPANY NAME] only $6.00 for shipping and handling. The offer of a "free" Medical Carrier Information System says nothing about a charge if the purchased product is faulty because of poor design (to reduce manufacturing costs).
Worse, the Warehouse Supervisor niggled this transaction by including it as a charge and as part of the return.
>
> In sum, rather than cheerfully refunding my money, [COMPANY NAME] has first argued that the product fits perfectly. Then, when shown that that is not true, now is charging me for the "free with purchase" Carrier System. Then, [COMPANY NAME] claimed that return costs would only be approximately $1.00. This is also not true. Even with my offer to barter shipping costs for the cost of the carrier, [COMPANY NAME] refused. And, to be specific, I offered to exchange a real cost to me of approximately $6 for the Carrier System. You know what that costs you. Perhaps 1/10 of $6 ?
>
> My my.
>
> I will expect a credit of $24.95 on my Master Card account when you receive this product. {insert; customer's total purchase price was 18.95 with free shipping}

> Again, thanks for all your help with this documentation.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill


On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Info wrote:

> Bill, I am Laurene and Sean and I are the owners of the company. The product does perform as you say "as advertised"... We have sold several hundred with no complaints. When Don says it fits perfectly it does do to his estimation and his definition of perfectly. This appears to be a semantics issue. Not as you say the facts. The facts.. are being appropriately identified by [COMPANY NAME]. We never say the product is made specifically for the 660. If you re read the description on the web page regarding the item it specifically says it fits a multiple number of GPS units in a variety of sizes. You have wasted far more of your time in this email discussion than it would have taken to drop the item in an envelope and put it in the mail.
> The product is NOT FAULTY. The offer of the free medical tag specifically says with purchase. IF everyone ordered something and returned the purchase and kept the Info tag then it would simply be FREE not Free with purchase.
>
> You may return the item if you do not want it. We will refund the cost of the item. Items that are not returned will not be refunded.
>
> These are standard business policies.
>
>
> Customer Service
>

Again Laurene, thank your for clearly stating your position.

I have been in contact with {Product] concerning this transaction.

[COMPANY NAME] would be well served to see their guarantee.

My offer to you now is that when I return the [Product} to you, I expect you to credit my account for $30.00.

Thanks,


Bill

[Donte77]

The name of the company is pretty obvious since I am posting this. I have the dudes email and I suppose it could be posted later for spamming purposes. LOL

[silversurfer19]

Dear God, that guy is an idiot. Charging for his time to take an envelope to a post office!! Asshole. And he kept upping his charges too. In the end he expects $30 for something that cost his $18. What a joke. If you can get his email to me I will do my best to spam him with as much porn as possible.

[undeadmonkey]

haha, funny shit, that 30 dollars just came out of nowhere. It's like he expects everyone to run to his calling

[silversurfer19]

I think he charged an extra $6 on top of the $24 he was already claiming for his time used writing the emails....

[becs]

I for one, would like to know how you get perfectly sized socks. Can you have socks tailored?

Oh and I'm dealing with a similar situation. Customer reports a problem with MICROSECOND level update rates from my server... based on someone eyeballing it. Myself and multiple levels of people over me have been over the servers with a fine tooth comb and proven that every possible point was working properly without having an actual record of the data as it was sent down.
My company owns the server and the software, the client owns the networks, but wholly refuses to look at the network because for some reason a report of latency/missing updates, COULD ONLY POSSIBLY be the server and never the network. Yet because they are a major company (who received billions of my personal tax dollars mmhmmm) and are bitching about it, the people who write the checks but have no actual skills are flipping out at me.

So at least the people with the money/power in your case were on your side.

[Geezer]

That was wonderful Donte. Thank you for sharing. God I hate people.

[Donte77]

You are all very welcome for the comedic talents of this asshole. BTW all of the bold emails from Warehouse Supervisor are me and the Customer Service sig is my boss and the owner of the company.
I am just shocked at the idiocy of people. EVEN IF I was going to give him his money back for the purchase, it is IMPOSSIBLE to credit more than the purchase price. That is a function of the credit card companies. You cannot run a credit for more than the original purchase price. A Credit card is not a bank account, you can't simply add money to it. This guy is an imbecile. And since yours truly is in charge of returns, the guy is getting the 16.87 or whatever back and not a penny more. If he doesn't like it I won't know about it unless he calls since he cannot email us any longer. And if he calls, I hope I answer the phone and I am in a bad mood that day. A phone call is unlikely to be recorded (like an email can be saved) so I can call him a stupid asshole. LOL

[Buscemi]

I for one, would like to know how you get perfectly sized socks. Can you have socks tailored?

Oh and I'm dealing with a similar situation. Customer reports a problem with MICROSECOND level update rates from my server... based on someone eyeballing it. Myself and multiple levels of people over me have been over the servers with a fine tooth comb and proven that every possible point was working properly without having an actual record of the data as it was sent down.
My company owns the server and the software, the client owns the networks, but wholly refuses to look at the network because for some reason a report of latency/missing updates, COULD ONLY POSSIBLY be the server and never the network. Yet because they are a major company (who received billions of my personal tax dollars mmhmmm) and are bitching about it, the people who write the checks but have no actual skills are flipping out at me.

So at least the people with the money/power in your case were on your side.

What are you, a size 4?

[becs]

Blah I mean I know you can get them for shoe size, but I mean shoe size isn't exact its still extremely general, as opposed to a perfect fit. personally I generally wear a 9 but depending on designer it could be + or - a half size.

[Buscemi]

I never figured you to be a tall girl, Becs.

[NSpan]

is height usually conveyed through message board posts?

[Buscemi]

Actually, taller people often have bigger feet. It's a scientific fact.