This week I'm featuring cases and letters exchanged between consumers and traders which thanks to the latter's co-operation, are positively concluded:
1. Consumer: David Falzon; Trader: Mark Spiteri, manager, United Parcel Service;
Dr Falzon sent this letter to Mr Spiteri, and copied me in:
Following previous correspondence, which I sent last November to 'The Manager, UPS', to which I received no reply, I would like to bring to your attention a number of issues regarding services offered by UPS once again.
'Last September, I sent a package to Cardiff via UPS.
It was brought to my attention that there might be a problem with the delivery, since the address was a PO Box and not a 'physical' one.
I was not told at any time that the package would definitely not be delivered.
I was told that should a problem arise, I would have to supply a new address or else the package would have to be returned to sender.
Under these conditions I consented, since I would have been able to supply a new address after verification with the intended recipient.
There was a problem with the delivery and, while I was retrieving the new address to direct UPS, I received an e-mail saying the package was delivered.
UPS did not inform me where the package was delivered, nor did it wait for me to supply the new address, which was something I acquired in the meantime.
Since I thought something was wrong and nobody on your part contacted me, I thought it best to check about the package.
Inexplicably and without my consent it was sent to Exeter, to a complete stranger, with nobody at UPS having the decency to inform me.
I do not know this person in Exeter, nor do I have any idea how or why the package was sent to Exeter without my consent.
I think it highly unacceptable and unprofessional that personal documents of a certain importance to me were sent to complete strangers.
To add insult to injury, I needed this package to be delivered by October 12, and had I not sent another package with other couriers, I would have missed the deadline and lost an opportunity to further my career and professional training.
Since my initial correspondence, the package has been returned to me. However I still insist on having my money refunded.
After paying €34.94 (Lm15) to have documents delivered in 24 to 48 hours, I don't expect to have it sent to the wrong address, to a complete stranger and still have to deal with the issue after putting up with over a month of bureaucracy to rectify someone else's blunder.
While I'm glad that you traced the package and returned it to me, I insist on being fully refunded.' (Dr Falzon)
On my part, I asked for Mr Spiteri's comments, which were:
Referring to correspondence sent to us by Dr Falzon, we have referred the matter to our legal adviser, who will be replying to Dr Falzon shortly. (Mr Spiteri for Airswift Couriers Ltd, authorised service partners for UPS)
On a positive note, I received this from a satisfied customer:
'I would like to thank you for your assistance in resolving this case. UPS has sent me full re-imbursement last month.' (Dr Falzon)
2. Consumer: John Sciberras; Trader: Tiles Marble Centre;
I will start by featuring Tiles Marble Centre's reply to John Sciberras' letter of complaint:
With reference to your letter dated January 14, here are my comments.
'It was agreed that on October 4, 2006, you placed an order for the supply and installation of a kitchen top in quartz material for €1,863.50 (Lm800), plus €302.82 (Lm130) installation. On this agreement, a deposit of €465.87 (Lm200) was paid.
The material was not in stock, so we had to wait for a consignment. The container was damaged and some sheets were broken. The material available was enough for the kitchen surface but not your tables. I had called you and informed you about the situation, whereby I offered you two options:
• To refund the deposit and cancel the order;
• To deliver the kitchen top surface only, and as soon as the new material arrives, to deliver the tables.
You opted for Option 2 on condition that on delivery you will only pay €31.75 (Lm400) and the remaining €465.87 (Lm200) as soon as I deliver the tables. The €302.82 (Lm130) installation charge will also be settled once the tables are delivered. Attached is a copy of the agreement and delivery note confirming this.
On January 25, I also sent you a letter informing you that there were further delays and shipment would be due around February. I also attached a copy of the e-mail sent by my shippers confirming this.
I apologise for any inconvenience, but I assure you all was out of my control.' (Victor Galea, managing director)
Here is the letter sent to Mr Sciberras:
'As you know, our company was waiting for a container full of quartz slabs, including yours.
Today (January 25) we received an e-mail from our shipping agency Gollcher Co. Ltd, informing us that, due to bad weather, the vessel full of containers had to change route. Consequently, due to an alternative schedule, the vessel will arrive in Malta on February 9. Attached is the e-mail from our shipping agency.' (Mr Galea)
Here is a short and sweet letter from a satisfied customer:
'We can therefore consider the case closed. The table and island top were delivered and the case resolved amicably'. (Mr Sciberras)
3. Consumer: Patricia Meilak; Trader: Steve Petroni, Phoenix Group
Mrs Meilak wrote: 'Regarding my February complaint about a washing machine I bought from Phoenix Domestic Appliances, I have received it and been given an extra two months' guarantee on parts and labour. This I accept, but for other consumer rights, I still believe that we should be told exactly where our products are manufactured and given the right to choose.
Regarding customer care, I believe that Phoenix should adopt a policy whereby, if parts are not available, they should send them by courier and also not take the appliance to their workshop until the parts arrive, thus avoiding the appliance getting damaged or soiled during the wait.
The technician who calls at the client's home to check the fault should know what is needed and put things in order as soon as he returns to the workshop, avoiding delays. This applies to all retailers.' (Patricia Meilak)
Mr Petroni wrote: 'In brief, Mrs Meilak's machine broke down just before the Christmas shutdown. However, our technician visited her premises before he left on holiday and an order for parts was placed with our suppliers for delivery via air courier. The washing machine was collected and brought to our workshop as soon as we returned to work and delivered another washing machine as a temporary replacement. Our suppliers took it upon themselves to consolidate this parts order along with others, thus delaying its consignment to the couriers. The delay is regretted, but we had no control over what happened. I explained to Mrs Meilak in two letters and offered her compensation in the form of an extension to her warranty, which represents double the time it took to sort out this issue.
Mrs Meilak raised another issue about the product's country of manufacture. It appears from her earlier correspondence that the clear distinction between a brand name's origin and its countries of origin or manufacture is not so clear to her. I did explain this in my correspondence. Notwithstanding, having noted that some doubts linger in Mrs Meilak's mind, I need to clarify them, both for her benefit as well as for your readers.
In today's globalised world, brand name owners will seek to set up their manufacturing plants in strategic, cost-effective locations, wherever they may happen to be.
In conclusion, I wish to assure Mrs Meilak and the rest of your readers that our sales staff endeavour to give customers the full and correct picture when discussing products and related services. Moreover, what is said is always in consonance with what is stated in our advertising.' (Mr Petroni)