On one level, there obviously have been huge problems with this retailer - whether they are over or not, time will tell.
I find the last post or two from the retailer interesting - the easiest thing for him to do is to cease trading, reinvent himself with a new brand name and then open up again like many do. The fact he hasnt makes me wonder what he is up to - is it a genuine attempt to make things right or is it a double bluff...again only time will tell.
I also find the posts from Cathy's husband interesting - I make the point that I was firmly under the impression that it was Cathy and not a third party making those posts.
One can argue that, materially, this makes no difference to the content, but I do find it misleading and disingenuous that he didnt, at least, introduce himself as Cathy's husband using her ID at the outset or, better still, spend the 5 minutes needed to set up his own ID - afterall, walkhigh made the effort.
I think Ross makes the best point - if RAB and Montane are back on board then is it reasonable to presume things are better?
My husband hardly ever posts on OM. I don't think he thinks it worthwhile to set up his own ID. I'm OK with him using mine. On this occasion I wanted to make it clear who was posting as the problems with Walkhigh have all been his. Cathy.
I also find the posts from Cathy's husband interesting - I make the point that I was firmly under the impression that it was Cathy and not a third party making those posts. ....
.....
I do find it misleading and disingenuous that he didnt, at least, introduce himself as Cathy's husband using her ID at the outset
Not sure where (or why)you are going with this avenue
If you read page one, he did introduce himself on this thread - twice. And prior to that Cathy was clear that he was the one having issues with Walkhigh.
Given the evidence, I couldn't disagree with anything that Cathys Hubby said.
OK. To be absolutely clear, this is Cathy's hubby writing now.
Fair play to GOF, I should probably point this out each time I post (about twice a year), although, as Mole has helpfully pointed out, I did introduce myself at the start of this thread.
What worries me though GOF is that you seem to try and draw some sort of moral equivalence between my conduct ( a hasty reply on a thread) and that of Walkhigh, which was lets us recall was:
To take money for goods Not to supply any goods Not to make any refund Not to apologise (ever) Not to answer any correspondence: email, phone call or letter.
To equate these behaviours seems to show a certain lack of discrimination and judgement.
On the subject of judgement, I consider myself pretty fair-minded. I am not one to bear grudges at all. But to me the above conduct is theft, pure and simple and that is something I do not forgive so easily even though the value of the goods was relatively trivial (£45)
It is certainly taking money under false pretences and deception, so with the theft there are potentially 3 criminal charges there, as wells potentially a civil action in the small claims court. But as I say the value is trivial and in the end it is the credit card company that has taken the hit. But for that we all pay again as costs like these add to their charges and their insurers charges. And how many other people have lost money in this way?
In answer to Mike fae Dundee's astute question, no we have not received an apology or indeed any other communication even now 11 months on.
If you are still reading Mr Winsbury, the Order Number was: DH26PQ30011093 Order Date: 24/2/2011 21:03. Unless the dog has eaten all your records you still have a chance to exert yourself and put the matter right. Rest assured I shall be delighted to alert OM-ers to any Damascene conversion.
There are several points raised that I would like to answer so please forgive the length of the reply which meant I have had to post in two parts, here goes and not in any particular order:
PART I ______
>>To take money for goods
Yes of course we take money for goods. The Sagepay system which we subscribe to automatically takes customer payments for orders at the point of placing the order because the version of the Actinic shopping basket system we currently use is only able to operate this way. As both systems are commercial applications we cannot change this behaviour. However this is quite normal card payment practice and only became an issue during the period in question. Normally, when goods ship or refunds are given promptly there is absolutely no issue. Having got things back to normal this problem is no longer a current issue however we do have a new website in development which will do things differently and this will only put a temporary hold on the funds at the point of placing the order and then withdraws the funds at the point of shipment.
>>Not to supply any goods
In virtually all cases we supplied the goods or a refund and in a tiny fraction of cases customers resorted to claims via credit cards where there had been a breakdown both in the communications and delivery. As explained earlier there were some delivery problems isolated to the cold weather period and shortly thereafter but there were also a lot of email and telephone messages that got lost in the technology changeover.
>>Not to make any refund
As far as we are able to tell all customers that did not receive goods whether our fault or that of the carrier have received either replacement goods, refund, claim payment from the carrier or made a claim via their card company. Admittedly some of these were not as prompt as they should have been for which I have already provided explanation and apology.
>>Not to apologise (ever)
Thats patently not true - I have made several personal apologies and apologised here and on other major forums and via our blog, facebook etc. It is true that quite possibly I have not written personally to each person affected, but with the problems outlined already I was simply not aware of all cases so it was impractical hence highlighting the issues here.
>>Not to answer any correspondence: email, phone call or letter.
Many many many communications were dealt with correctly. However in some cases we were very slow responding at the time and consequently if a matter had already been settled by refund or delivery by the time we got round to dealing with a given email or letter etc then the matter was deemed closed. It did get especially complicated as the initial delay caused some people to send floods of messages that only served to bog things down more. Again in hindsight perhaps I should have still responded if only to acknowledge the delay in process however this seemed superfluous at the time and would have diverted resource from solving current matters and dispatching orders.
Dear Mr **** [name removed - ed] , thankfully our dog has no such apetite so I was able to check your order details and these show that it was settled by claim via your credit card company and you therefore have received a full refund albeit quite late. If this is not correct, please email me at sales@walkhigh.co.uk so that I can investigate further.
Indeed I did not write to you after the chargeback for the reasons I have explained in the previous point, however I accept this must have seemed unforgivable and for this I apologise to you now, publically and unreservedly.
As to the charge of theft, I can only reiterate that due to the circumstances which I have already documented in this thread and which I would not wish on my worst enemy I was not able to do any better at the time and at no time before, during or since have I acted with anything other than honourable intentions. I genuinely hope and believe that I have communicated this adequately, if I have not then sadly it is beyond me to convince you.
>>It is the credit card company that has taken the hit
This is absolutely not the case: when one makes a purchase on a card from any legitimate retailer ALL the risk of the transaction is bourne by the retailer. ie, A successful chargeback claim results in the consumer receiving the amount back but it is the retailer who pays that amount in full plus a percentage fee for the original transaction plus a substantial fine for the chargeback to the card company. If the retailer decides to defend a chargeback there is time and cost in providing adequate proofs to the card company which they often chose to contest and hence even in cases where the retailer is not at fault can often find themselves loosing out. Card companies have this situation sewn up and in almost all online fraud carry virtually none of the risk burden themselves. In conclusion; any customer raising a chargeback takes up a considerable amount of time and money from the retailer, the card company bears no risk whatsoever and nor does the consumer - ie the basis of trust for online trading is that the retailer bears all risk.
>>RAB and Montane are back on board ?
We had an extremely close relationship with Montane from their earliest days when the idea of lightweight clothing was in its infancy and it saddens me greatly these events caused such upset all-round. Our relationship with RAB was much newer and it transpired that the rivalry created other tensions with us in the middle that may not be so apparent to the casual observer.
At the time, both companies took the view which I fully supported that we were not able to provide the level of dedication their customers and brands deserved. Since we have a massive amount of stock from both these companies it was agreed that we would continue to market this with full manufacturer warranty etc however we would not purchase additional stock from either brand.
This situation may change in the future however for the moment this is still the case and we have no immediate plans to change it. Bear in mind we have over 50 brands on our site this decision should be viewed in context; we still have more than enough products to offer and some extremely good brands in the mix.
>>easiest thing for him to do is to cease trading, reinvent himself with a new brand name and then open up again like many do
This has been suggested as a quick fix and indeed some of my contemporaries think I am daft for not doing so, after all it is very easy to do. There are a well documented cases of some companies/directors doing this regularly and keeping the proceeds particularly when sums are owed to suppliers with no intention to pay. However I have never approved of this and feel it is completely dishonest.
Perhaps I am naive but I genuinely want to try to put this issue behind us as a deeply regrettable chapter in our history that had real and for the most part totally unavoidable causes. I have spent almost 10 years building up Walkhigh and it is therefore more than a business to me ; its a very personal thing and therefore deserves my best effort.
A wise man once told me only to worry about what you can fix and not to worry about what you cant. I know that I can put right some of these past issues but I also know that I wont be able to convince everyone, so if its an issue I can fix I will be delighted to do so.
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply at length, and for the very, very belated apology.
I am less grateful for you blurting my name out on an open forum thereby breaching my confidentiality and in the process that of my wife (and in the process breaking the law (data protection act)). Had I wanted to disclose either of our identities I would have done so and I believe that would have been self-evident to most people.
I indicated that if you replied to me (off line), I would alert OM-ers and indeed I would have done.
If you had the records, it seems to me that you could have at least made half the effort I made to contact you last year, to contact me directly within the intervening 11 months.
Perhaps I am a touch old-fashioned, but I don;t consider it an acceptable attitude to say (I paraphrase) the credit card refunded him so my responsibility is discharged without any further obligation, explanation or apology.
I have worked in customer service, I know customer service. Mr Winsbury, this is not customer service.
Don't take this the wrong way, but is this conversation not better off being held in private, which would therefore prevent any breach of confidentiality?
Cathy's Hubby to Explorer - exactly! That was the point. I gave DW the details so he could quickly investigate and respond appropriately and personally.
My better half has since pointed out that you can have private chats on OM, which is fair enough, and as an irregular blogger I hadn't realised. But my previous point was, in any case, to all readers. That WalkHigh had not taken the trouble to personally apologise in 11 months. My view (I understand some others may not share it) is this is indicative of standards of service, probity and trust. As, I might add, is the care with which you handle someone's confidential data.
Had it been my business, I would have wanted to identify every "rogue" transaction and write personally to everyone affected as soon as I could. Clearly he had the information to do so. He chose not to. He is now trying to "whiten his sepulchre". And while he may well have sorted his processes out. I would argue that his latest posting shows he has not sorted his judgement or attitude to service out.
come on... any retailer who thinks that a customer having to make a chargeback claim via their credit card is the same as issuing a refund is simply living in cloud cuckoo land.
you may as well claim that a customer employing a bailiff to seize goods has also 'received a refund'
I am less grateful for you blurting my name out on an open forum ...
Then, it might be argued, this open forum was not the ideal place to launch then conduct - and, with respect, perpetuate at great length - your dispute?
..any retailer who thinks that a customer having to make a chargeback claim via their credit card is the same as issuing a refund is simply living in cloud cuckoo land...
Exactly so. Advancing spurious arguments like that (not to mention over-playing the sympathy angle) will do nothing for Walkhigh's credibilty - the reverse in fact.
I do accept that a refund is not the same as receiving your money back via a claim, however once a claim has been made the funds came from us and not the credit card company hence the net (financial) effect is the same. There is therefore no legitimate reason for a refund in addition once a claim have been settled, this is the point I was trying to make.
There is no method to edit a post that I can find so I have requested the moderator changes the entry to Mr X.
Personally I have no problem with my name being used in this forum or using my own login to make posts, I have also offered everyone the opportunity to contact me privately via sales@walkhigh.co.uk in which case the contents of the conversation would remain entirely confidential unless the customer wished to post it in a public forum.
Cathy's hubby again, briefly, for he is tired. Would have been happy to correspond via sales@walkhigh.co.uk but having spent weeks previously trying to do same and being ignored hardly engenders confidence. And, in my humble estimation, the onus lies with Walkhigh, who had the information to get in touch anyway.
.JPG)
