Nicholas W

I have a Zojirushi rice cooker still working well but Yum Asia won't sell spares as I got it from Amazon not them. Unfortunately, it feels like an abuse of monopoly.

Edit: it's not simple to me. First time in my lifetime I've heard of a company not able to sell spares to anyone. Not sure what the "legal obligation" mentioned is: if it is in contract with Zojirushi, I'm not a party to that contract.

Edit: OK so it was nonsense because it's manufacturers that have the duty under right to repair not sellers.

Edit: So it's the "importer that first places the regulated product on the GB/NI market or puts it into service" in the absence of the manufacturer being present or authorised retailer. So it could in fact be Yum Asia who have the legal duty but not the sellers in general.

I don't know why they're complaining about an edit ping-pong. I want to buy parts from them. They have made it clear that they will not sell them. They may, based on their website, be the first importers, so the duty may be with them.

"In the early 2000s we dreamed up the idea of introducing Zojirushi premium rice cooker technologies to the UK"

"Under the EU Right to Repair Directive, non-EU manufacturers must appoint an authorized EU representative; if they do not, the first importer of the product assumes full legal responsibility for repair obligations, spare parts, and consumer rights"

If you say you're not the first importer, who is?

Edit: "angry" seems over the top. They are unsure why I am unhappy that they refuse to sell spares, when, they have perhaps more likely than any other company present here to have that legal duty. I hope it is obvious to any reader.

Edit: Funny how they have not said who the first importer of Zojirushi rice cookers are, if not them, and kept repeating the same thing. ;)

I am another one caught out. I needed PDF files merged in a rush so paid the £1.99 and got the £49.99 charge today. Shockingly expensive! Fortunately, UK law is not bad for disputes and will override their jurisdiction given UK banking is involved.

Our company unfortunately insisted on using Travel Counsellors for simple flight booking. I feel like Travel Counsellors should refuse this business because it was far worse than just searching for flights which I had to do many a time (What about this flight? What about this?). At one point I was even given a premium economy flight when business would have been cheaper. When I eventually got the flight, they did at least enter my meal preference correctly but email was wrong and my middle name was put with my first name.

Based on Helen Holmes's "investigation" it appears that the CEDR ignore all the actual complaint points and give the organisation the the answer they want irrespective of the merits of the complaint: a sad waste of money and preventing any improvement.

Edit: In response to the reply, I complained about a statutory body so there is no "commercial practices". Also sadly there's no way I can point out information not considered so not sure how the "must look at all of the information that has been provided" can be guaranteed.

I have been with DirectLine for some years now, still for car. I called up to ask for a discount renewing the house insurance as they always have done in the past. However, they refused to go below £1,000. I therefore went with LV for under £700. I then checked to see if I could get a Direct Line online quote of interest, and it was just over £700. Neither the agent in the online chat nor his colleague he asked could see any significant reason for the £300 drop. I thought the FCA had banned price-walking.

Unfortunately it seems that if anything goes wrong with the hotel and the hotel refuses to refund, it is too bad. Navan will happily take money and refuse to help. Sadly, my employer insists on using Navan.

The flowers were fine except that half the individual strands were the wrong way round. Seranata refused to do anything as my other half had not taken a photo before rectifying it.

Everything at the Taiwan side and on board is great, as is usual for Taiwanese customer service. Unfortunately, my baggage was damaged and China Airlines outsource the claims to K2 Global who are refusing to co-operate with my concern that they have incorrect detail.

I reported a solicitor who was clerk of a Police and Crime Panel for failing to record a complaint. The first investigator, confused the Police and Crime Panel and Police and Crime Commissioner and said "Her actions in relation to your complaint are within policies set down by the council and PCC." mistaking the fact that the Police and Crime Panel is separate from the other two.

After I complained, the complaint handler in a phone call, even googled and found the correct policy (he was probably expecting it to show I had complained to the wrong person) but doubled down when he found that I had followed the correct policy. He later refused to accept that investigation officer had erred, ignored most of my detailed points sent by email which he invited me to send, and did not follow up his offer of another phone call.

In the final email, he contradicted the initial findings by saying by saying "That she may or may not have applied her organisations own Rules and Procedures is not for the SRA to determine." completely contradicting what the first investigation.

It is worrying that the SRA apparently do not care if solicitors do not follow legislation or the policy of the public bodies which they chair.

I wonder if there is an internal policy to simply reject a certain percentage of complaints with invented reasons. They would, of course, never admit to targets or have official ones but I wonder if those with integrity get reprimanded for accepting too many complaints.

I have been a Vision Express customers since I got glasses. However, it turns out the "eyecare plan"is actually a loan and signing up hits credit score as they leave a hard search (despite the FAQ online saying it won't affect score unless you don't make payments in time). The only alternative to signing up to the loan is to pay for eyes tests and 25% more on glasses! Why does Vision Express care whether the money comes from a loan or customer paying upfront and why penalise those who do not want a loan?

In terms of buying a test, getting it shipped out, sending it to the lab with next day delivery all went well.

Unfortunately, I never got a reply to my two emails to them when I sent a pack to the wrong address and wanted to ship it pack. In the end, I drove out to collect it and used it for another test so this was fine.

In addition, one problem is that you cannot buy fast track for a specific order. I guess when a sample comes in, they just remove one fast track credit from your email address record etc. In my case, a next day delivery set of samples overtook a 1st class post, and so I ended up paying for two fast track services in the hope that the one I wanted fast would come back fast.

In addition, while it could be Royal Mail being slow, the fact 1st class has a 90% next day target makes me feel that they probably prioritise next day postage and put 1st class postage to one side and then blame Royal Mail for delays. 20% chance says I'm wrong here, as Royal Mail figures are about 80% rather than the 90% target.

All in all, I would use it again and hope I never have to email them for customer service. Plus of course I'd pay for next day delivery (one post office even deducted the 1st class cost of it). I would also hope to see the issues addressed to make this a 5 star service.

While speaking to Zeeshan Khan on behalf of my wife, I was cut off from the phone. He had threatened to terminate when I asked about the stages and process in Lifetime ISA withdrawal and did not call back despite asking for the phone number in case of it. We had a threat from house seller that if the house did not complete by 31st May, the seller would pull out.

He also seemed to differ between stating whether he was was processing the withdrawal "as soon as possible" or refusing to change its positions in the queue under FCA rules about fairness. We had made the argument about fairness considering the 23rd May date as the start given an earlier communication on the 16th May. This sounds dishonest: "as soon as possible" is not the same as "once we had processed customers ahead of you". If he meant he could expedite us but was refusing to as not convinced by fairness, he should be honest about this under FCA rules.

I used them five years ago and no problem. Recently, I ordered a component and they took so long to dispatch that I asked for the order to be cancelled. They were willing to do so and I got it sent out the very next day from another supplier. But I am curious as to why the dispatch is taking longer than other suppliers.

Everything has been good except for the "agreed value". Unfortunately, there appears to be no "agreement" involved. Instead, on payment of £18, you are given a pre-calculated market value. In addition, the value was given way after the cooling off period.

Sadly, as I just had my car restored, the cost of getting a like-for-like car would far exceed the "market" value (no market exists). But I am trapped in a policy which is not fit for my purpose.

I last used TalkTalk's service in August 2019, when they caused me to miss an appointment for designing an engagement ring and could not remove the "Scam Protection" by phone.

Having agreed to a resolution via CISAS, for which sadly my complaint only partially succeeded, in April 2021, TalkTalk put a "disputed" mark on my Equifax credit record on 23rd June 2021. This appears to be in revenge for making a complaint but has reduced my credit score. I have paid all the bills and they even sent a cheque following CISAS, so how can TalkTalk say my account is disputed and not settled/closed on my credit record, just because we did not see eye to eye on the scam protection and customer service matters?

I tried to cancel the day after obtaining insurance, and a few weeks before it was due to start and found it to be very difficult. Moreover, they retained a £30 fee despite the fact that I did not see the paperwork until handing over money.

I ordered a mobile phone fix but then asked for refund (allowed under terms and conditions) after seeing how bad the reviews were. This was back in December 2020 and I still have no refund (8th March 2021). I filed a complaint with my bank for the debit card and informed Quick Mobile Fix to let the bank know if they refund. Quick Mobile Fix did not seem to read the email trail as they set a deadline for refund of 5th April despite already saying 25th February 2021. I can easily see why people call it a scam.

Another reviewer wrote the following ways that it can be reported as a suspected fraud, which I followed and copied them here:
* Action Fraud: this is the National Fraud and Cyber Crime Reporting Centre. Google 'Action Fraud'. File a report there.
* Shopify's fraud team. QuickMobileFix uses the Shopify platform to host their e-shop. Google 'shopify Report an Issue with a Merchant'. Report your incident there.
* Citizen's Advice: Google 'Citizen's Advice Report a scam'. Report your incident there.

I cannot recommend the Quick Mobile Fix-Customer Experiences Facebook group. Unfortunately, this running it spread misleading information and do not take well to it being corrected.

I originally posted a review since it was claimed that that they would allow an additional driver for free. There were three issues:
1. I never received a reply after giving the link to this review.
2. There was no expiry date on the offer, so the offer might have finished with no one monitoring the email.
3. The offer asked for a UK driving licence. Though I have one, the additional driver had an international one.

In the end, I cancelled the booking and used Sixt. Though it costed more, they seem to be able to deal with basic things like replying to emails, expiry dates for offers and avoiding discrimination.