NOT HAPPY! TwinZ Rear Bar

Yes and those emails were private and confidential. Very poor.

 

Somebody shoot this dead horse!

 

yes you can, how about a refund and keep the bar.

a refund doesnt help him at all as he stated, he wants the item but not a damaged one. i think to pay 2 thirds of the repair bill is very fair.

 

While a full refund sounds fair. I can't help but believe they have taken the easy ( cheap ) way out. To me the correct way to deal with this would be replace/repair at no charge. It was the supplier who in their wisdom decided to pack only with bubble wrap then post uninsured. My personal opinion is only that but i believe you have well and truly let the potential bad situation turn into a great stuff up. Fix it for him if thats what he wants and keep him happy and remember the customer is always right.

 

Maybe but

Yes within reason, although do you think knowing price might be important? The cheapest quote being $560 from memory. This is unreasonable or over inflated. The other bar damaged is $120.

 

yes but without knowing the extent of the damage i cant say what is an accurate price either. 66%of 560 is 373

I would pay 370 and be done with the whole affair. thats business, sometimes you just have to cop it sweet

 

Posting private emails is not on. They are not private once posted so without the consent of both partys it's really not a good idea. Also the quote for the repair to the bar does that include painting ? as it seem a bit steep for a fibreglass repair. If $500 is true ? Just relooked at damage photos and i would say a minor repair $100-200 for a shop job or $50 max for a home job and it would come out great. I can now see why they would not want to pay $500 to get it repaired in fairness.

 

Give yourself an uppercut Barry

Posting private emails without the consent of both parties is totally inappropriate.
Would you like your e-mails made public?
Poor form indeed.

 

What simplistic garbage.

What's the difference between publishing the posts at Scott's request or having him do it himself? Alternately, if he had summarised it all in his own words, outlining the exact same facts, to the exact same level of detail, would the righteous indignation be different in some way?

Or are we suggesting the member has no right to complain about the facts of his situation?

I made no editorial comment at all on the material, I was just the medium by which it was brought to the Forum at the member's request. I am not, nor was I ever, the issue here, but I am clearly a convenient misdirect for some.

I would never publish a PM without permission. In fact, despite the conspiracy merchants bleating to the contrary, there is no way I can see ANY member's PMs.

However, it was dumb of me not to see this coming from the "let's talk about anything except the damaged bar" brigade. I should have asked Scott to do it himself, then he would have had a nice head kicking to go along with his damaged bar. Nah, I think it is better this way.

 

I'm with Barry on this one.

Far as I'm concerned he is now my favourite moderator. I applaud him for taking such an interest in this and shining the brightest light possible on it, and refusing for it to be swept aside.

Shouldn't matter who put up the PMs as long as it wasn't 'his' decision. If neither party acted dishonestly behind the scenes they too shouldn't care that the messages are posted. Yet only one side seems to be miffed about it, hrm... Course having said all this, this is a highly unusual case, and no, I would not approve otherwise of PMs being posted.

More on topic, that 'offer' to rectify the problem........? :rofl:

MoulaZX

 

For those that are bleating about private messages being made public, if the thread was cut short with no resolution posted, everyone would have been screaming.
Whether Scott published an editorial, or quoted PMs or asked a moderator to do so, it would have all been the same ( you'd all have been given the same information ).

Who posted it up is of neither here, nor there.

So, what do we have as a resolution???

Scott has a claim, UAS have offered restitution, Scott is not happy with the offer.
From here, Scott has to decide what he wants to do.
So, he won't be "out of pocket" for the bar if he accepts the UAS offer, but this is likely not a suitable option for the reasons stated above.

People can form their own opinions based on the commentary throughout the thread, and from that decide if participation in such group buys is worthwhile.
It's worth noting that there are always risks in all of these transactions, including but not limited to financial, freight and design. All sorts of things can go wrong with group buys, and it is a terrible responsibility to take on.
Also, mistakes must be made for lessons to be learned.
All we can ask is that said lessons are indeed learnt, so that there is not a repeat of previous mistakes.
This of course leads us the discovery of new and unforeseen problems in future group buys, so that we can do this all over again next time

 

Thanks Barry for your input, i have given the mods a hard time for allowing cover ups , it's about time UAS positon on problems was made public,
I've heard too many storys from pro and against UAS at tech days and cruises,
So few defend UAS ,
FYI , my car has never been worked on by UAS, my only dealings being a fire sale buy , fourm dyno day, starter GB .
John, UAS ,i'll ring you next week, a public reply to your pm's

ross

 

Ron, PM's would be better described as 'Personal' Messages, rather than 'Private'. We looked at ways to change the label some time back but the software does not permit it.

The label 'Private' can only be applied to the initial contact as what the recipient(s) do beyond that, is no longer, necessarily ' private'. Point in case would be messages to and from *****, which were widely circulated between Members with copies also sent to my inbox.

Also, in this instance there appears to be NO confidential content, if there were AND labelled as such in the header, then it would be a different matter.

 

i do agree 500+ sounds excessive for the damage pictured. If i was John then i would ask for the bar to be taken to a company that he had prior discussion with .

 

After re reading Rob260 GB, i couldn't find " our terms and conditions " that you refer to,

ross