Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc. Reviews (4)
Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc. Rating
Description: IRRIGATION SYSTEMS & EQUIPMENT
Address: 675 Tank Farm Rd, San Luis Obispo, California, United States, 93401
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Web: |
www.ewing1.com
|
Add contact information for Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc.
Add new contacts
When I stated, "read the back of the form" I was referring to the terms and conditions of sale. On the back of every Ewing receipt it describes our return policy (#5). Our policy says, "A restocking charge will be assessed for any Equipment approved for return." 15%
is standard policy on returns where freight was paid to bring the product from another location, also the form itself which the legibility was questioned is standardized as well
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:
The response does not address my complaint, but circumvents the basic issue by justifying the 15% surcharge as being less than his alleged cost to restock the merchandise In my initial letter, I stated that the surcharge was neither verbally nor clearly written on the front of the receipt I further stated that if the owner would not refund all or part of the amount, he should be mandated to post a sign stating this policy of levying the surcharge of 15% for returned merchandise I suggest that the owner visit a local merchant, Wet Pets, to see the proper way to make customers aware of a surcharge by posting a sign at the cash register that clearly states the policy In the case of Wet Pets, the owner not only posts the sign, but he charges half the amount charged by Ewing I will not accept anything less than posting a sign advising public of the surcharge
Regards,
*** ***
In response to the desired outcome/settlement, the fees that were charged for the fixture were only charged to help offset the cost of restocking the returned item. The cost of the transaction itself was much higher than the 15% restocking fee that was incurred. We delivered the product on time as promised and for the agreed upon price. We did not deviate from what was discussed before the customer purchased the product. I feel the $35.00 charged was very reasonable given these circumstances.
Review: On March 27, I ordered an uplight from Ewing Irrigation. The clerk said he would order it and it would arrive on Tuesday, March 31. Yesterday I realized my contractor had already ordered this light from a different vendor. Consequently I didn't need it. I went to Ewing asking for a refund for the uplight that was in transit per the clerk. The clerk was not sure of the policy and asked Chris to step in. Chris adamantly stated that the refund would be issued MINUS a 15% restocking fee. I asked him where this was stated, His response, "Read the back of the form. Any time you receive a receipt like at Home Depot, you have to read the form". His comment was completely irrelevant. I did in fact read the back of the form. As seen in the copy sent via scan, the restocking fee was not clearly stated as 15% and the legibility of the form is poor. The 15% restocking fee of $35 was NOT returned to me.Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of the 15% for a product I never saw or received. If not attainable, the owner should be mandated to put a very visible sign in store stating the policy of charging 15% restocking fee.
Business
Response:
When I stated, "read the back of the form" I was referring to the terms and conditions of sale. On the back of every Ewing receipt it describes our return policy (#5). Our policy says, "A restocking charge will be assessed for any Equipment approved for return." 15% is standard policy on returns where freight was paid to bring the product from another location, also the form itself which the legibility was questioned is standardized as well.
Business
Response:
In response to the desired outcome/settlement, the fees that were charged for the fixture were only charged to help offset the cost of restocking the returned item. The cost of the transaction itself was much higher than the 15% restocking fee that was incurred. We delivered the product on time as promised and for the agreed upon price. We did not deviate from what was discussed before the customer purchased the product. I feel the $35.00 charged was very reasonable given these circumstances.
Consumer
Response:
Review: 10557605
I am rejecting this response because:The response does not address my complaint, but circumvents the basic issue by justifying the 15% surcharge as being less than his alleged cost to restock the merchandise. In my initial letter, I stated that the surcharge was neither verbally nor clearly written on the front of the receipt. I further stated that if the owner would not refund all or part of the amount, he should be mandated to post a sign stating this policy of levying the surcharge of 15% for returned merchandise. I suggest that the owner visit a local merchant, Wet Pets, to see the proper way to make customers aware of a surcharge by posting a sign at the cash register that clearly states the policy. In the case of Wet Pets, the owner not only posts the sign, but he charges half the amount charged by Ewing. I will not accept anything less than posting a sign advising public of the surcharge.
Regards,