John Wood Audio, a tale of woe

[Mr.Ian]

The big advantage of buying from a OMB is price. From memory Moorgate Acoustics used to sell the pre amp at £1500 and the Power amp at £4000. God knows what these would have cost if a distributor had been involved too.

[sq225917]

Stepping back a little.

Here's what's likely.

John took the order, typically assumed the buyer understood that it was a re-manufactured amp, new clean case etc on old guts but with new tubes. Shipped it, complete, with one package strapped to the other which would be considered as 'one of one' by the courier. The small package fell off, John thought the buyer an overly aggressive ass-clown and treated him as such fearing that he'd never see the amp back if he refunded him and we end up down the line where we are in this thread. It perfectly explains John's willingness to openly state to the court that it was not a brand new unit.

I don't think he's trying to pull a fast one. I think Geoff is a demanding and aggressive customer who got the wrong end of the stick re John 'building him a new amp' and has worked forward from that lack of communication into an entrenched position. There may be other mitigating factors on both sides. The simple solution would have been for John to arrange for a trusted party to inspect and collect the amp and hand over the cash back to Geoff. Instead he chose the suicidal move of ignoring a valued customer and compounded this stupidity by ignoring the courts.

The only recovery for John is to inspect and collect the amp, issue a refund and work with the buyer to deal with the issue of court costs. With a bit of luck he could come out of this with as little as £250 out of pocket- which I might add is a fine price for saving your credibility. Any attempt to do otherwise has to be seen as a bad move.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong you just have to suck it up and move on. Hopefully John can see this and make the right call.

[anthonyTD]

Sounds very plausible, And as you say, it could have been sorted all to easily compared with what has now become a nightmare for all involved. Reading this as someone in the trade, i really feel for both parties.

Stepping back a little.

Here's what's likely.

John took the order, typically assumed the buyer understood that it was a re-manufactured amp, new clean case etc on old guts but with new tubes. Shipped it, complete, with one package strapped to the other which would be considered as 'one of one' by the courier. The small package fell off, John thought the buyer an overly aggressive ass-clown and treated him as such fearing that he'd never see the amp back if he refunded him and we end up down the line where we are in this thread. It perfectly explains John's willingness to openly state to the court that it was not a brand new unit.

I don't think he's trying to pull a fast one. I think Geoff is a demanding and aggressive customer who got the wrong end of the stick re John 'building him a new amp' and has worked forward from that lack of communication into an entrenched position. There may be other mitigating factors on both sides. The simple solution would have been for John to arrange for a trusted party to inspect and collect the amp and hand over the cash back to Geoff. Instead he chose the suicidal move of ignoring a valued customer and compounded this stupidity by ignoring the courts.

The only recovery for John is to inspect and collect the amp, issue a refund and work with the buyer to deal with the issue of court costs. With a bit of luck he could come out of this with as little as £250 out of pocket- which I might add is a fine price for saving your credibility. Any attempt to do otherwise has to be seen as a bad move.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong you just have to suck it up and move on. Hopefully John can see this and make the right call.

[Marco]

Hi Simon,

I think you make some valid points. However...

John took the order, typically assumed the buyer understood that it was a re-manufactured amp, new clean case etc on old guts but with new tubes.

There’s your BIG problem right there, and it’s encapsulated by the word “assumed”. It seems to me that unfortunately John’s done lots of ‘assuming’ and precious little informing. Moreover, why would Geoff ‘assume’ the above unless John had made that fact crystal clear?

In terms of incorrect assumptions, John assumed that Geoff would know that when the amp was ready it would be collection only (instead of outlining that fact clearly when the order was taken), and now it appears he’s assumed that Geoff understood that he would be getting a “re-manufactured amp" (which, if that’s the case now explains why he can produce them for as little £1300), neither of which is stated on his website: http://jwoodaudio.com/

…in fact, there’s precious little explained there at all! And what’s all this about hand-winding transformers, if he’s supplying a “re-manufactured” amp???

If you’re going to go to the trouble of having a website, then at least ensure that it serves the purpose of telling potential customers what it is you do. Further compounding that lack of information, I can at no point see where John has clearly stated to Geoff *exactly* what he was getting for his money, and that includes the email correspondence to date they’ve conducted between them, which Geoff has forwarded to me. You can’t just expect people to ‘assume’ this or that. The facts should be made crystal clear!

In short, John’s biggest problem in this whole sorry mess is that he’s been guilty of not communicating adequately with his customers. Quite simply, it’s the catalyst that has caused the situation he’s currently in, and unfortunately typical of many (but not all) sole-traders in the audio industry who, whilst having the ability to design equipment, don’t possess an equal ability to properly manage and market their business, and most of all, deal effectively with customer service. That’s a totally different skill set, and you need it all in order to run a successful business with the likelihood of a prolonged longevity.

Furthermore, having read the emails Geoff sent to John, during the time from him ordering the amp and paying a £500 deposit, up until the fallout happened between them, there is no evidence at any stage of Geoff being aggressive, quite the opposite in fact, as he quite clearly showed patience and understanding, and gave John plenty of leeway. He certainly didn’t do anything I wouldn’t have done in similar circumstances (in fact he showed a damn sight more patience than I’d have given), so in that respect, I think you’re wrong.

The bottom line here is that John has made an arse it, to put it quite bluntly, and so he needs to hold his hands up and accept that he got it wrong, in terms of the way the whole transaction was handled (we’re all human and therefore fallible), sort it out toute-suite to the satisfaction of Geoff, and most importantly of all, use the experience as a learning curve and ensure that it doesn’t happen again. To do that, he will need to significantly increase his overall levels of professionalism, especially in relation to communicating properly with his customers.

If he can excel in that area to the same degree as he does when building his amplifiers, then he might just have a chance of saving his business now and ensuring that it has a future.

Marco.

[Eagle owl]

Stepping back a little.

Here's what's likely.

John took the order, typically assumed the buyer understood that it was a re-manufactured amp, new clean case etc on old guts but with new tubes. Shipped it, complete, with one package strapped to the other which would be considered as 'one of one' by the courier. The small package fell off, John thought the buyer an overly aggressive ass-clown and treated him as such fearing that he'd never see the amp back if he refunded him and we end up down the line where we are in this thread. It perfectly explains John's willingness to openly state to the court that it was not a brand new unit.

I don't think he's trying to pull a fast one. I think Geoff is a demanding and aggressive customer who got the wrong end of the stick re John 'building him a new amp' and has worked forward from that lack of communication into an entrenched position. There may be other mitigating factors on both sides. The simple solution would have been for John to arrange for a trusted party to inspect and collect the amp and hand over the cash back to Geoff. Instead he chose the suicidal move of ignoring a valued customer and compounded this stupidity by ignoring the courts.

The only recovery for John is to inspect and collect the amp, issue a refund and work with the buyer to deal with the issue of court costs. With a bit of luck he could come out of this with as little as £250 out of pocket- which I might add is a fine price for saving your credibility. Any attempt to do otherwise has to be seen as a bad move.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong you just have to suck it up and move on. Hopefully John can see this and make the right call.

Simon, I certainly am not a demanding and aggressive customer who got the wrong end of the stick, I don't know why you would say this, we've never met and you don't know me at all. I ordered and paid for a brand new amplifier with a remote volume control, the amplifier I received was second hand and had no remote volume control. Mr Wood refused to repair the amplifier unless I paid the courier cost to send it back to him and then return it to me, in view of that I then requested him to refund the money I'd paid him and arrange collection of the amplifier, he again refused. To be honest, at this stage I no longer had trust in Mr Wood. I took him to court and won the case, Marco, the owner of this forum has seen copies of documents relating to the case and is satisfied I'm telling the truth. Mr Wood, should now do the honourable thing by answering the door to the bailiff when he next visits his premises and pay what he owes.

[Marco]

Indeed - that’s it in a nutshell.

Why on earth should you have to pay for the return of an amp that was not produced to the standard or specification agreed (or at least assumed by you, through not be told clearly otherwise by John)? Any costs relating to solving that matter should’ve been borne by him, as at the end of the day, he’s the one that’s taken your money, and you are the customer!

Anyway, see my post above

Marco.

[Eagle owl]

Indeed - that’s it in a nutshell.

See my post above

Marco.

Yes, thanks Marco, you must have posted it while I was in the process of writing my reply.

[Marco]

Just in from John:

if you ring me or give me a number where I can ring you I think that would be best
J.wood

I’ve asked John to ring me tomorrow, so hopefully we can now get to the bottom of this and arrive at an agreeable solution for all parties. I will report on the outcome of our chat.

Marco.

[Andrei]

Simon, I certainly am not a demanding and aggressive customer who got the wrong end of the stick, I don't know why you would say this, we've never met and you don't know me at all. I ordered and paid for a brand new amplifier with a remote volume control, the amplifier I received was second hand and had no remote volume control. Mr Wood refused to repair the amplifier unless I paid the courier cost to send it back to him and then return it to me, in view of that I then requested him to refund the money I'd paid him and arrange collection of the amplifier, he again refused. To be honest, at this stage I no longer had trust in Mr Wood. I took him to court and won the case, Marco, the owner of this forum has seen copies of documents relating to the case and is satisfied I'm telling the truth. Mr Wood, should now do the honourable thing by answering the door to the bailiff when he next visits his premises and pay what he owes.

You may wish to add: 'I undertake to return the amplifier if refunded in full'. (You may have said this already but I am not going to re-read the thread)

[Rick E]

You may wish to add: 'I undertake to return the amplifier if refunded in full'. (You may have said this already but I am not going to re-read the thread)

Id say that is the only safe assumption I'd make in this whole unfortunate thread.

Marco, big thumbs up to you for taking it upon yourself to get involved as mediator. That's a brilliant thing you're doing.