PDA

View Full Version : Cissbury Leathers... Warning



Haselsh1
12-06-2009, 13:34
On April 16th 2009 I ordered from Cissbury Leathers via their website a Heritage Vintage M65 jacket in black. It is today 12th June 2009 and I have never received a thing from them. I have now contacted my credit card company only to be told it could take up to 90 days to resolve the problem.

All I can do is warn people against using such shops and dealers over the internet. My guess is that once again we have a dealer advertising something they simply do not have for sale. Stoneaudio is a typical example of this.

Marco
12-06-2009, 17:12
Sorry to hear of your problems, Shaun.

Arsebags... I can't stand people like that! :steam:

Marco.

REM
13-06-2009, 07:33
You can add this joker to the list of dick head shysters to avoid like the plague.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/startingout/2791415/Audio-Affair-woos-with-good-sound.html

This guy runs a website that claims to stock over 50 brands of audio gear and just about every lp in print, what a load of bollox. I don't think they carry any stock at all but they are quick enough to debit your c/c and when you try to call you just get an answer machine, they take their time replying to emails as well.
Avoid, you have been warned!!:steam:

Seems like it's not just me that's had a bad rap from them

http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/199143.aspx

Regards

Mr. C
13-06-2009, 08:16
Alex does seem to polarise opinions :eyebrows:

Haselsh1
13-06-2009, 08:18
Firstly, Marco, thanks for your concerns. I'm sure it will get sorted eventually but of course the fact is it shouldn't need to. All I wanted was the bloody jacket...!

Secondly, as this is a hi-fi forum, be very cautious of Stoneaudio. I ordered a Creek OBH-22 passive preamp from them a few months ago and was told by their website it would be dispatched within three days. After just over a week I decided to phone them to find out what the hell was going on. The response was that they would get one sent out by Creek immediately. Now I don't know about you but to me that immediately means they carry no stocks and deal only with the manufacturers or importers.

I was under the impression that here in the UK it is an offence under trading standard laws to advertise something you do not have. I run a shop and believe me, I cannot advertise items and products I do not have.

DSJR
13-06-2009, 19:31
Styli NZ could be added. I paid by paypal a low price (£17.50 - I should have known) for an AT30e stylus and waited and waited and waited.....

I left it a few months and when I finally got a reply to my emails I was told that it had been despatched three weeks after I ordered it. Because they finally replied after three months, it was too late to claim back apparently. I haven't tackled the credit card company, as they are jointly responsible and have now got some far better cartridges to play with, but it still niggles..

Dave Cawley
13-06-2009, 21:43
Guys

I was under the impression that here in the UK it is an offence under trading standard laws to advertise something you do not have. This isn't remotely true at all! And never has been.

However with a very fast growing business cash flow is always a problem and suppliers will often not ship product until the last payment has been made and cleared. I'm not suggesting that this is Alex's problem though.

Regards

:bag:

Dave

REM
14-06-2009, 09:56
Guys

I was under the impression that here in the UK it is an offence under trading standard laws to advertise something you do not have. This isn't remotely true at all! And never has been.



Dave

That may very well be the case but debiting a credit card before the goods are shipped is doubtful practice at best and depending on the circumstances could be fraudulent.
:(:(:(

Dave Cawley
14-06-2009, 10:41
Hi Ralph

I'm only correcting what you said. depending on the circumstances could be fraudulent. Err, yes! but that applies to everything!

Dave

Steve Toy
14-06-2009, 12:15
I am not happy about members slagging off dealers without having a specific unresolved complaint. This applies to comments about Audio Affair

REM
14-06-2009, 12:31
Hi Dave

I think it was Shaun's original post about not having stuff in stock but my grumble is about people "hiding" behind websites, not answering phone calls or replying to emails while happily pocketing other peoples cash for weeks/months on end, hardly what you would call an ethical business model.
There are many worse people out there I'm sure but I for one am not going to use AA again and judging by the postings of those on the WTF forum my experience is not unusual. In my case it was a couple of lps which his website showed as 'in stock' and one of which was still listed as 'in stock' weeks after I had finally got a refund off him.
The newspaper article says he was a supermarket management trainee which is, I think, management speak for a glorified under payed shelf stacker, pity he didn't seem to learn the basics and keep his own shelves if not full at least with the occasional item on view.

Cheers

Dave Cawley
14-06-2009, 14:12
Hi Ralph

"hiding" behind websites, not answering phone calls or replying to emails Yes I totally agree here! But I'm always a bit touchy when people misquote trading standards, but that is probably me being over sensitive..............

Regards

Dave

twelvebears
14-06-2009, 15:50
The fact is Dave that you are an exemplary example of good conduct and excellent customer service, however not everyone follows your example.

While the interweb has allowed many businesses, both small and large, to flourish, it also provides the means for some to give the impression of being something they are not. By which I mean, to give the impression of being far larger better established than is actually the case, in order to give people the confidence to do business with them and part with their cash.

I don't mean for one second that these companies necessarily mean to do any harm or rip anyone off, but it does set an expecation of service quality which they are just unable to meet.

Having read the original article in the paper and numerous posts about AA, it seems to me that this may be one of those situations, most likely because they don't have sufficient credit facilities to either hold stock or place immediate orders.

One company I did business with (HiFi related but not equipment) had me thinking they were quite a big operation from their website (not that they ever said anything to make me think this, just my impression), but when I turned up to pick stuff up, they operated out of a unit hidden in a corner of a set of farm buildings. In this case it didn't matter because they were great guys with wonderful customer service and a good product, but it just shows how the internet face and the reality of a company can differ greatly.

Haselsh1
14-06-2009, 21:38
Guys

I was under the impression that here in the UK it is an offence under trading standard laws to advertise something you do not have. This isn't remotely true at all! And never has been.

However with a very fast growing business cash flow is always a problem and suppliers will often not ship product until the last payment has been made and cleared. I'm not suggesting that this is Alex's problem though.

Regards

:bag:

Dave


If it's not true then how come a rather famous high street photographic chain was sued by trading standards for exactly that very thing in 2004...??? It appeared they were deliberately misleading the public...!!!

Dave Cawley
14-06-2009, 21:47
You tell me? I can't be more clear again ? It is not an offence to advertise something you do not have. It appeared they were deliberately misleading the public but were they? what did trading standards "actually" find?

Dave

Haselsh1
14-06-2009, 21:50
At that time I was living in Lincolnshire and the case made the local papers. As I said and I shall repeat, they were successfully sued for deliberately misleading the public.

Dave Cawley
14-06-2009, 22:08
Not the same thing though!! As I said, now several times...........

Dave

Haselsh1
14-06-2009, 22:13
Then I shall clarify, they were deliberately misleading the public by advertising items they did not have and did not stock. And they were successfully sued for it.

Dave Cawley
15-06-2009, 07:10
Regardless, it is not a crime! DFS for instance do not have the Sofa's in stock that they relentlessly advertise on the TV, and it's no problem. Whatever happened, whatever the papers say, it is not against any law to advertise something you do not have in stock. I speak from over 25 years in Mail Order. I'm not going to continue this anymore, there seem to be hidden agendas, and I'm not into that!

Dave

Mr. C
15-06-2009, 07:58
Hi Ralph

"hiding" behind websites, not answering phone calls or replying to emails Yes I totally agree here! But I'm always a bit touchy when people misquote trading standards, but that is probably me being over sensitive..............

Regards

Dave

I completely agree with Dave here, the number of businesses which have no contact details other than the phone number (and just quoting a mobile in my is very bad also) of basic email is quite high.
All business should have to state their full trading address, company number, Vat number, land-line, mobile and email details as a minimum.

Haselsh1
15-06-2009, 07:58
There may well be hidden agendas on someone's part but certainly not on mine. I'm merely stating what was reported in the local press.

Beechwoods
15-06-2009, 09:36
It sounds like we're all on the same page here, just focussing on slightly different angles of the same issue. Dave, we agree that some companies may have supply chain logistics that ensure stock is carefully matched to orders and items may be ordered from suppliers on demand... Shaun, we understand that some places have been caught out and sucessfully sued for misrepresentation...

How's about we all take a breather and not worry too much about it all?! I think everyone can see where you're both coming from, no sense in coming to blows over it :)