ex-webby

messiah

Your thread has been deleted due to it's content being potentially libellous. Please do not post this kind of thing again.

Contact us if you wish to understand how you are able to post messages concerning disputes / dissapointments with suppliers, as otherwise you could cause significant legal difficulties for scoobynet.

regards

webmaster

messiah

sorry, but I was rather dissapointed by the lack of communication, which has left me frustrated - I ordered a product labelled as "in stock" to save me a 60 mile round trip to the nearest stockist. over 3 weeks later and still not available, although the phone call I received earlier has set my mind at ease somewhat - my goods will now be dispatched (less the missing item to be sent seperately) and the next day delivery charge is to be refunded.

I apologise for how I approached my problem, however - the outcome could not have been more favourable - I receive a phone call within a couple of hours to tell me my order will be with me tomorrow.

Thank you to the gent that rang, I just wished that my last call to you had been returned.

messiah

Guess what - It didn't arrive...

oh what a surprise...

warning to webmaster - possible libellous posting this afternoon if still no sign of it when I've been home for lunch...

messiah

...and still no sign...

4 weeks for next day delivery? Is this a record?

Just goes to show that promises are worthless.

ex-webby

messiah

This is your final warning.

Regards

webmaster

nom

It seems to me a little odd that those of us out here who (try to) use the "Dealer and 3rd Party Supply" area to see whether a dealer/supplier is worth using or not can't actually do this as the threads are usually deleted, unless there's simply something gushy about how some new sparkly lights are sparkly and isn't that nice as they were 3p cheaper than someone's mate.
It sort of defeats the object of the whole thing.
If real discussions (or information) can't be placed on here, then why is it here?
On top of that, the whole system appears to those of us out here (your clients?) as very biased - I have seen threads be allowed to continue - despite having obviously potentially libelleous material in them - presumably because the supplier is known to be not of the type to 'get legal'. Why are these suppliers penalised for actually being open with us, whilest others (the legally demanding type) are heavily protected? For your own interests, obviously, but I'd have also thought this opens you to other problems. For example, if the 'nice suppliers' decide to get together & start a legal battle over unfair representation, or similar.

Just some thoughts
Obviously nothing to do with the original post, as I have no idea what the problem was, only that I'd like to know what company it is so I can add it to my 'companies probably worth avoiding' little book, hence my drivel...

Abbylad

iTrader: (4)

Well said nom, unfortunately it`s the norm for this site

I`ll probably get a 'warning' for that. lol

Sith

How can something be libellous if true.

If the facts are stated factually it can't be libellous surely?

scooby-tc

iTrader: (2)

i think theres a lot of ar$e kissing on here with regards to sn and the banner advertisers

i'll get warned too now

mrklaw

surely these are personal comments anyway, and the terms and conditions probably state that they are not necessarily the views of the scoobynet management?

messiah

Final Warning?

So it's ok to praise companies with good services, but you're not allowed to mention ones who give poor service?

Also - nowhere in this thread is the offending company's name mentioned.

2 of the 3 goods now received - although 1 was cracked and had leaked everywhere.

Thanks to everyone else who's posted, seems like I have backup.

Webmaster - I can understand that SN depends on advert banners, which is why I have not repeated any names - but giving a final warning seems very harsh - makes me wonder why i bother to be honest...

maybe this thread would be better placed in Scoobynet Policy.

[rant mode on]

messiah

Addendum -

just had a phone call from the supplier who was very friendly and apologetic - admitting that they had given me poor service, and offered me a full refund, which I have said is not necessary - I have 2 parts of my order which I am satisfied with, and the gent has informed me that the 3rd item may take another week or 2 to come in, and he will phone me when it arrives to see if i still want it (although I'll probably go to shop at weekend for it), and i'll get a discount on any future orders. A very gracious offer.

I am quite happy this - thank you to the chap who rang.

ex-webby

OK

I'm going to *yet again* try to explain this to you.

There is no problem with telling us facts good or bad. The problem is when they are presented in a non-factual / potentially libellous way. ScoobyNet does not make the law, we do however have to abide by it, the same as anyone else.

I'll give you some examples.

"I took my car to company X and I was unsatisfied with the speed in which they resolved my problem." Is absolutely fine.

"Company X are *******" is NOT ok.

Another complication is this (although unrelated to this specific situation). Let's say you post...

"I rang 23 times and never got a response, and yet I rang again from a different number and it was answered straight away". You have to appreciate that whilst this particular example may well be true.. scoobynet does not have any evidence to back this up. The difficulty is that scoobynet could well be taken to court for this, and the company may well be able to prove that you only called twice, or that the times you called were "out of hours", etc, etc. In which case, if we hadn't acted on it, scoobynet could potentially be held liable for damages.

--

messiah

How can you post "I apologise for how I approached my problem", then post "warning to webmaster - possible libellous posting this afternoon if still no sign of it when I've been home for lunch...", then give me a rant about how it's not possible to post negatively about a company?

You are not permitted to post libellous comments on scoobynet FULL STOP. If you actually warn me that you are going to do just that, you are going to get a final warning.

Finally, whether the company name is mentioned in this thread or not is irelevant. You mentioned the name in the previous thread, so some people will have remembered.

This has NOTHING to do with banner adverts.

Regards

Simon

messiah

Webmaster,

Firsty let me apologise for the "possible libelous posting this afternoon" message - this was meant as joke - and I regret that I didn't make that clear (by adding a smiley or something), so I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

As for the banner adverts being irrelevant - well it was a banner that I had clicked on, on SN to get to the companies website, which I had never heard of before - without the banner, I would have never made an order at all - To me, a banner advert on SN comes as a recommendation.

I'm sure you'll agree that this issue should be put to rest - I have no wish to damage the reputation of anyone, for what is clearly an isolated incident. However, the tone of your replies will be what leaves a bad taste in my mouth over this, rather than my initial problem. I felt your responses were very patronising.

Regards

ex-webby

messiah

Thank you for the apology, accepted (genuinely).

What I meant by banner adverts being irrelevant was a reponse to your suggestion that we are trying to protect a banner advertiser by not allowing you to post libellous comments about them. As stated, it is irelevant whether someone has a banner or not in this situation.

regards

Simon