BRANCH SAW SAGA - UPDATE ON PREVIOUS REVIEW Some weeks ago I reported on difficulties I was having in securing a refund from Eckman for a Branch saw which had been delivered minus parts, and which to me, looked like a poorly repacked returned item. Eventually, I received a long overdue refund, so matters have now been concluded. My difficulties started when this defective item was received on 28 August 2015. This is a summary of the most recent events from 18 September, up to the conclusion on 16 October: Friday 18 September: I spoke to a member of staff at 10.25am to enquire why I had not received a refund. He said that a refund of £69.98 had been authorised and should be in my Paypal account by 23 September. Friday 25 September: I spoke to a member of staff, stating that as a refund had not yet been received, I wished to speak to the manager in the refund department. That request was refused and I was told that a refund of £64.95 had definitely been authorised. I reiterated that I was seeking £77.97 to include £7.99 return postage for the defective item. Thursday 1st October 13.00Hrs: As no refund had been made, it was my view that not only was Eckman in breach of its own terms of contract; it was in breach of consumer protection legislation. Spoke to a member of staff who said she would look into matters with the lady who deals with Paypal refunds and would call me back. No-one called back. (No surprises there then). Friday 2 October, 9am: As no-one rang back on 1 October I spoke to yet another member of staff who assured me that all amounts had been authorised and actioned for refund, namely, £64.99, plus £4.99 original P&P, plus £7.99 My Hermes return postage, a total of £77.97. I asked to be put through to the department that deals with refunds to speak directly to them. Was told “we can’t put you through - we only deal with the refund section via e-mail”. Tuesday 13 October: Received notification from paypal of a full refund. (Refund of return postage of £7.99 still outstanding. Friday 16 October: Received a cheque for the outstanding £7.99 through the post. Hence, for me, this drawn out saga is now at an end. Despite Eckman’s own terms of contract stating that they will refund within seven days of the defective goods having been received by them – which in my case was 7 September, it took six weeks, six phone calls and an unanswered e-mail (what’s the point?), for this matter to be concluded. Had I not been persistent and assertive, I can’t imagine how much longer it might have taken. Each phone call entails being placed in a queue. Front line staff - who are clearly under pressure to make sales - serve as an impenetrable ‘firewall’ to keep customers away from supervisors and management. There is only a ‘sales’ department, only a ‘sales’ e-mail address and when things go wrong, no mechanism to resolve the problem speedily and without fuss. It’s ludicrous for Eckman to spend so much effort in spraying sales literature around like confetti, and bombarding people with e-mail sales spam, if they seriously hack off existing customers who are the ones most likely to place future orders if they’re looked after properly. To dissipate customer goodwill in this way makes no sense at all. In the end, I got my full refund after a lot of hassle, and had I got it within the time promised by Eckman, I might have been favourably impressed. As it is, Eckman have lost a customer for good, and I lose no opportunity to warn others off dealing with Eckman, relating my tale of woe. So, the bottom line is that if you deal with Eckman, you ride at your own risk - I've parted with them for good. First impressions count, and no-one gets a second change to make a first impression. Bye bye Eckman. David.