The Consumer Complaints Blog

Fighting the trained monkey in modern society.

June 13, 2011

Avoid EOS Modern furniture store Toronto

Filed under: Retail — Editor @ 9:49 pm


On February 12, 2011 we ordered a couch from this store with delivery promised in 4-6 weeks. We paid in full, I know big mistake. The couch has yet to arrive. In a mid-March email they had asked us to give them until April 20 to produce the couch, we agreed and asked for full credit if it did not arrive, they agreed. Needless to say April 20 passed, the couch did not arrive, nor was the credit processed. Telephone calls and emails have not been answered, the manager was ‘on vacation’ when we dropped into the store.

Based on our experience, I would advise against dealing with EOS Modern, they have a strong web and Facebook presence, and a store at 9000 Keele St. in Concord.


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.

April 20, 2011

Pillar to Post

Filed under: Service Based — Editor @ 10:26 pm

When I bought my house four years ago, I hired Pillar to Post to do the home inspection.

This is a very critical part of the home buying process. Not only do the buyers rely on this report, but to some degree the banks do too.

To make a long story short. The Pillar to Post inspection stated plainly that there was no visible evidence of wood destroying insects. These creatures are better known as termites! The report from Pillar to Post further stated that there was no visibile evidence that the structure or a portion thereof (my house) was treated for termites. I bought the house.

Ok, so here is where the fun begins! It’s now time to sell my house and the buyer’s inspector shows my realtor and the buyers evidence of past termite damage in plain view.

On top of that he shows them drill marks where the termite treatment was applied. That too, is in plain sight, just as you enter the house. Are you kidding me?
Any inspector with basic training should have seen this. The evidence was in plain sight, to the trained eye that is (hint, it should have been to the Pillar to Post inspector).

I contacted Pillar to Post and apprised them of this information. I requested that they re-imburse me for the fees I paid to them. Reasonable enough request.
Not to Mr. Dave Moore, the current owner of the franchise. He basically stated that Pillar to Post is not responsible because they are not required to affirm that there is no evidence of damage or treatment, in spite of the fact that their report affirmatively checked “No” to whether or not “it appears that the structure(s) or a portion thereof may have been previously treated.”

And their report also checked off the following: “No visible evidence of wood destroying insects were observed. When I read this report back to him, his response was well, they are only responsible for 6 months! Can you believe that? How is the average buyer supposed to know what termite damage or termite treatment looks like when the “professional” doesn’t know. If you can’t rely on the home inspection company, who can you rely on?

Not only was Pillar to Post incompetent in doing the inspection, but I believe they are thieves too, because they did not earn my fees. And on top of that they cost me negotiating power (which translates into $). If I would have bought the house, you can be sure I would have demanded from the Sellers a concession($$$$), treatment and a warranty. Which is exactly what the current buyers of my house demanded.
So I had to give the buyers a concession ($$$), pay for an inspection, and treatment for the next 3 years (long after the sell of the house).

Signed,
Telling everyone via blog, email, and word of mouth about how incompetent Pillar to Post is…. aka

BUYERS BEWARE:So remember Pillar to Post is responsible for giving you a report, not for whether or not it is an accurate one.

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.

Primmum Auto Insurance

Filed under: Service Based — Editor @ 10:24 pm


Resolving unfair stolen vehicle insurance offers:

We had our Honda Odyssey stolen in Nov. 2009. I was extremely disappointed by Primmum Auto Insurance, (TD Insurance), totally unfair offer. They started at $30,500. Replacement for a similar used vehicle was $40k. Why must the consumer battle it out just to get paid fair replacement cost. Hopefully this bad press will make them think twice.

After many calls to them, they raised their offer to $33k. They wouldn’t budge.

Finally I called the Insurance ombudsmen, who referred me to the Primmum Auto Insurance, (TD Insurance) ombudsmen. I thought here we go again, but was pleasantly surprised by their response. I e-mailed them my fair value comparison spreadsheet. 24 hours later they agreed to $40k, and sent me a chq.

One of many underhanded strategies employed by the ins. co’s third party fair value evaluator was comparing my car to recent similar sales and offers that were mostly US imports. Honda Cda doesn’t honour warranties on US imports. One can buy a third party warranty for between $1,500- $2,500 extra. This extra cost wasn’t being calculated in the “fair value”.

When I pointed this out to the Primmum Auto Insurance, (TD Insurance) I was told they “don’t insure warranties”. What a scam! All I wanted was a bruised apple for my stolen “bruised apple”.

We were fortunate to have two vehicles and didn’t have to rush to settle. The insurance company was in no rush to resolve this. They said my only other avenue was to get a lawyer. If it happens to you, give them your final offer and if it’s not accepted, call the insurance ombudsmen.


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 23, 2011

Rogers

Filed under: Service Based — Editor @ 9:54 pm


I am a customer of Rogers cell company since 2003. During this time I may have had few late payments, however, I have always paid my bills ( otherwise I wouldn’t have a cell phone with them).

Rogers has the wrothest customer service in caring for their loyal clients. on January 17 2011 I received a message on my cell that I am behind for my phone bill payment. At the time I check and I realized that I never received my Rogers phone bill for the month of December and therefore I have not pay. I made the payment on line on Jan 20th in 3 days after their 1st message. Now the problem is that after a message being left on my cell in Jan 17th, from Jan 17th –Jan 23rd, they have called me 16 times on my cell and 8-10 times on my house phone. I received one call on January 21st at 1:14 am when I was sleeping. On Saturday Jan 22nd I told the lady stop calling I have paid but I still received a call on Sunday when I told her I have already spoken to someone, she was so rude and still would not let me off the phone and I just hang up on her.

I would like to know who gives them the right to call after midnight re. a phone bill? Who gives them the right to harass civilians continuously? What are my legal rights as a consumer? Could I take legal actions for harassment? They call from these 2 numbers 1-800-300-4000 and 1-866-349-4596. When I searched I could not find the subscriber, however, people from these 2 numbers told me they are calling from Rogers. I am very angry and upset with this situation. What would you do on behalf of me as a consumer?


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.

Spinelli Honda Dealer, Montreal

Filed under: Automotive — Editor @ 9:52 pm


I had a really bad experience recently with spinelli honda dealer in lachine(montreal), quebec.

I signed a lease contract in rush(within 1 hour) after I was told my deal is the best. because it’s already the off work time, so there is no time for me to start the financing procedure yet, we plan to do it next day.

after cooling off and talking with friend, I was convinced that my deal is not that good, so I decided to cancel it. I called both sales person and sales manager, and they became so rude that time. the sales person yelled at me, saying I cannot get my depost back if I want to cancel it, the sales manager threaten me of a fine of $1500 dollars, but my colleague help me to find the rule of cancelling the lease contract, the client has the right to cancel it within 24 hours without penalty, not to mention that I haven’t started financing procedure yet.

so I sent them offical fax with 24 hours and I received the email from sales person, saying he received my fax, but he still try to pursuade me to take the lease, I refused and asked the depost back($500). after that, I can not reach them anymore. they didn’t return my email, didn’t answer my call, didn’t call back after I left the message.

I wrote sales person another email, telling him I found the rule that “the client has the right to cancel the lease contract within 24 hours without penalty”, the sale person finally wrote me an email back, but what he wrote is just a crap. he tried to deny the truth. he seems very forgetful by stating that there is no writing demand to cancel the contract, so it’s not canceled.

I wrote him back stating that I have proof that the fax was properly delivered and I had received his email saying he received my fax, then he disappeared again.

I just wanted my money back, the OPC wanted to help me but it may take time.

what I wrote is 100% true and I have the email proof.
I am so angry about their behaviour and I don’t think they deserve the name of Honda Dealer.


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 »