The Consumer Complaints Blog

Fighting the trained monkey in modern society.

March 12, 2010

OfficeMax: they sold me a used empty toner

Filed under: Retail — Editor @ 9:27 am


I purchased a printer and backup toner from OfficeMax. Since they didn’t have the larger toner size, I was given two smaller toners at the same price. Over a year later, I ran out of toner so I opened the second toner to find the toner had been used and repackaged for sale. A closer look showed the package was carefully re-taped as not to appear to have been opened. Apparently, a previous customer decided to ‘return’ an item, and made the switch at that time. I took the toner back to OfficeMax with the packaging and receipt to let them know what happened and asked for an exchange as the toner I purchased had been previously used. I was told no returns after 14 days. What!! Even if I had been able to purchase the larger toner and therefore open it sooner, who goes through toner that comes with a new printer so quickly the backup toner would be needed within 14 days! I was told the customer is expected to open the package and inspect it within 14 days.

Obviously OfficeMax is not expected to inspect the returned merchandise they accept prior to placing it back on the shelf for resale. No hint at customer service… no “sorry this happened to you, let me sell you one at half-price”, or “I apologize let me remind my staff to inspect all returned merchandise”. The Manager, Steve, in Flower Mound, Texas, just asked if there was anything else he could help me with. Sorry to say I got the same response with the corporate office.. Too bad, so sad…they lost a customer and I am doing my best to spread the word. There happens to be an Office Depot across the street that will get my business. Adios OfficeMax!!!

My original email to OfficeMax corporate and their response follow..
————————————————————————————-
Mary,

We do apologize, but the product(s) that have been requested for a return/exchange are past our return/exchange policy. Please read our terms and conditions for the sale. Please note that the policy provides our customers with 30 days to inspect and either accept or reject our merchandise. I am sorry but it is passed the return/exchange time frame and a return/exchange authorization cannot be issued for this item.

If you are not satisfied with your OfficeMax purchase, simply return it to us in the complete and original packaging (together with all accessories and manuals) with your original sales receipt within 30 days of the date of purchase. We will gladly replace or repair the item, or return your money.

Technology

OfficeMax will only accept the return of technology products in the original packaging (including all accessories and manuals) with the original sales receipt within 14 days of the original purchase date. Opened technology returned within the 14-day period with the original sales receipt will be subject to a 15% restocking fee. Defective technology items with the original sales receipt may be exchanged for the same item within 14 days of the original purchase date. Technology items consist of, but may not be limited to, computers (desktop, laptop or netbook), monitors, digital cameras, hard drives, business machines, networking equipment, projectors, cash registers, digital picture frames, shredders, telephones, computer peripherals and accessories.

Furniture

Furniture may be returned in the original packaging (including all components and manuals) with the original sales receipt within 14 days of the original purchase date. Special order, manufacturer-direct, custom and preassembled furniture is not eligible for return.

If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for choosing OfficeMax!

Connie Edwards
OfficeMax
Customer Service
—————————————————————————————-
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 2:05 PM
To: Online Customer Service
Subject: Customer Support Request: Product Inquiry/ Other

I am interested in : Other
Name of item : Brother TN-330 Toner Cartridge
Item description : Toner Cartridge
Manufacturer : Brother
Manufacturer number : HL-2140
OfficeMax item number : 019-149-A-4

Additional Details : I purchased a Brother HL-2170W printer on 8/31/08 from OfficeMax #1288. At that time, I wanted to purchase an additional toner as I know the toners the printers come with are not intended to last very long. The store did not have the higher capacity toner I wanted in stock so the clerk suggested I purchase two of the lesser capacity toners and he would honor the price of the higher capacity toner, so I made the purchase. It wasn’t until just this past week that I needed to open the second toner. Imagine my surprise when I cut open the box and found the toner bag inside had already been opened. Further investigation showed the toner’s protective cover was gone as well. A closer look at the box showed that someone had done a very good job of taping over the original tape – I am guessing a customer brought the merchandise back and received credit for the return. Yesterday, March 6, 2010, I took the toner back to the store I purchased it from and I explained my situation to Steve, the Store Manager. I had in my possession the toner, the box, the bag the toner was ‘sealed’ in, and the receipt. Unfortunately, the manager told me there was nothing he could do as the policy states 14 days for all returns. I explained to Steve that I did not want to return the item; I wanted to exchange the toner for one that was actually full since that is what I paid for. Steve only stated “I am sorry that is our policy; there is nothing I can do.” Steve did not even suggest an alternative such discounting a toner purchase, or writing to corporate to see if there was anything that could be done at that level. He suggested absolutely NOTHING! He asked me if there was anything else he could help me with that day. Nice way to save a customer. I am quite frustrated that I am the one that is taking the loss on the transaction. I am sure this type of return is out of the norm and the situation should have been given additional consideration when determining if the standard policy applied. For starters, anyone would be hard pressed to find a home user that would easily use up a toner that was included with a new printer in the allotted 14 days, set by OfficeMax, as the amount of time allowed to return an item. Granted, the time frame in my situation is 18 months, however had the stolen toner box been opened first instead of second, or if a larger capacity toner been available for purchase as I originally set out to purchase, the problem would have been discovered at least a couple of months after the purchase, not 14 days. Secondly, I am quite sure this criminal is not the first to steal toner from an office supply store. Surely, OfficeMax has a policy to look at the merchandise that is returned to ensure it is suitable to put back on the shelf for resale. Obviously, this was not done with this item. So, here I am holding a used toner with no recourse at the store. Hopefully, there is something that can be done at the corporate level to make right on the situation. Maybe you can save a customer. I can be contacted at xxx-xxx-xxxx if you have any questions or would like to further discuss this situation. Thank you, xxxxxx

Disclaimer
This article was submitted by one of our readers. Penciltrick cannot make any claims as to its authenticity but the article was accepted on a good faith belief that it is an accurate and truthful account of the events listed.

February 25, 2010

3-Day Blinds

Filed under: Retail — Editor @ 2:50 pm

3-Day Blinds does not honor their lifetime warranty. Here is an illogical quote from 3-Day Blinds re my request for warranty service.

“You have a limited lifetime warranty on your blinds. The warranty is for the lifetime of (t)he blinds and not the lifetime of the consumer. Chipping, discoloration, warping and peeling of the paint is considered normal wear and tear.”

The warranty on my invoice specifically states that “There is no time limit to this warranty.”

There is no mention of lifetime of the blinds, which presumably ends when a defect occurrs.

Also, I was verbally told that chipping and peeling and cracking of paint was covered.

Disclaimer
This article was submitted by one of our readers. Penciltrick cannot make any claims as to its authenticity but the article was accepted on a good faith belief that it is an accurate and truthful account of the events listed.

If you’re not bored of Sears Repair Complaint Stories…here’s another one.

Filed under: Retail — Editor @ 2:41 pm


On December 17th, a large tree fell and pulled the mast for the electrical wires off of the side of our house. 240 volts of electricity was supplied to all of our electrical devices. Our new Electrolux wall oven was one of the appliances that was damaged.

I found repair information on the Electrolux website that directed us to contact Sears for repairs if that is where we purchased our oven. We called the Sears Call Centre, gave them the model and serial number of the oven and explained the trouble. They said a repairman would contact us.

Several days went by and it was getting closer to Christmas so I called the Sears number again. They were surprised that a repairman hadn’t contacted us and told us they would make sure someone called.

We got a call that day and Repairman 1 informed that no-one could come out before Christmas. He said someone would call to set up an appointment for after Christmas. So we were without an oven for the entire holiday season.

When we didn’t hear from anyone by Thursday afternoon, January 7th, we called again. Someone called back and set up an appointment for the following week. Repairman 1 came out, looked the oven over and said that the oven needed two parts, a controller and touch panel and they would have to be ordered in before he could fix it.

The parts took until the middle of February to arrive.

Repairman 2 called to say he was coming to install the part on February 12th. My husband noticed that he said part, singular. He warned Repairman 2 that there were supposed to be two parts. Repairman 2 argued and said there was only one part needed and that he knew what was the problem was and how to fix it.

Repairman 2 arrived and installed the controller. My husband had to point out to him that the oven touch panel was still not lighting up. Also, an error message was showing on the display. Repairman 2 then realized he needed a second part. He called in to Sears and the control panel had been too large to put into his parts bin. It was sitting on the floor, near his bin. He wouldn’t go back to Sears to fetch the part. He said he would come back next week.

Repairman 1 showed up the next Friday, February 19th. He had a small, opened part box with him. My husband told him it didn’t look like he had the right part with him. Repairman 1 said that Repairman 2 had given the box to him, saying it was what was needed to be installed. It turned out that it was the damaged controller that Repairman 2 had removed the week before. Repairman 1 called into Sears and found out the touch panel had been returned to the parts supplier. We were told there would be a delay while the part was ordered in again.

My husband also told Repairman 1 that the oven didn’t seem to be calibrated properly anymore. Repairman 1 said that was another issue and he would deal with it later. We had a dinner party the next day where we weren’t sure what temperature we were cooking things at and we had to stare intently at the touch panel to try to see the unlit buttons.

So, we still have a broken oven that gives random error messages and random oven temperatures, after two months. I’ve never waited more than a week to have any major appliance fully repaired, until now.


Disclaimer
This article was submitted by one of our readers. Penciltrick cannot make any claims as to its authenticity but the article was accepted on a good faith belief that it is an accurate and truthful account of the events listed.

February 14, 2010

Guthy-Renker Proactiv Skin

Filed under: Retail — Editor @ 10:25 pm

There has been an email message already sent to Guthy-Renker to follow up on the status of the order that was placed since Jan 10, 2010. To date, I have not received any reply emails nor any products from the order that has been placed.

We are still waiting for the products and it has been more than a month now since the order. From my credit card bill, I know that the products has already been charged to my credit card but no products delivered.

Initially, I thought ordering online would save me more time and trouble but now this has cost me more time and effort than going to the store to purchase the product.

I thought I should remind whomever this may concern, there have been reports on the internet that Guthy Renker crm does not have a good reputation in customer service especially addressing issues of this nature. Please do not prolong this reputation, it is bad for business especially at this time and age.

We would like to know the status on product delivery. Otherwise, I would have to cancel the order and order the Proactive products from a local distributor instead.

Disclaimer
This article was submitted by one of our readers. Penciltrick cannot make any claims as to its authenticity but the article was accepted on a good faith belief that it is an accurate and truthful account of the events listed.

January 5, 2010

Global Closeouts-Hudson, FL

Filed under: Retail — Editor @ 5:10 pm


I bought a TV. I paid for a warranty. It has been four months and I still do not have a warranty. They say it’s in the mail. The company doing the warranty, Bankers Trust Group of Florida says they have not been paid. Global Closeouts also seems to be doing business has Close Out City, Enable Holding and/or Ubid. In the store Bob and Jason say they can do nothing. A long distance call on my dime to Jim Potts has had no effect. These people do not seem to care about the customer once the customer is out the door. I fear they will move/close before I get my warranty.

Disclaimer
This article was submitted by one of our readers. Penciltrick cannot make any claims as to its authenticity but the article was accepted on a good faith belief that it is an accurate and truthful account of the events listed.

« Previous PageNext Page »