June 22, 20*To Revdex.com of Metropolitan Houston:
"">This letter is in response to Revdex.com Case# ***
In summary, Mr*** called ScienceBased Health on 5/26/*to order bottles of *** *** *** He stated he wanted to take it to ***He was informed by the customer service representative that the company has a policy to sell a maximum of *bottles of this product within a one year periodMr*** ordered the *bottles, but stated that he would “get the bottles one way or another, just so we know”The order of *bottles was shipped and delivered in person to a man residing at Mr***’s address on 6/4/*5, according to *** records (attached)Mr*** subsequently called the company, stating that he did not receive the order and demanded the company send out a replacement of *additional bottles of the productMr***’s claim that *** told him they mistakenly delivered the package elsewhere is untrue, according to ***In fact, *** also provided to ScienceBased Health documentation confirming that Mr*** acknowledged receiving the package (also attached)The following details the history of this issue:
On May 26, Mr. *** ordered *bottles of *** *** *** He wanted to order bottles to take them to ***; however, the customer service representative explained that the company has a policy of selling only *bottles within a one year periodThe order for *bottles was processed and shippedOn June 4, 20*5, *** delivered the *bottles of *** *** *** to Mr***’s address*** records (attached) show that the bottles were delivered to Mr***’s address and handed delivered to a man at this residence.
Mr*** subsequently called ScienceBased Health and stated that he did not receive the packageMr*** stated that he contacted *** and they told him that they mistakenly delivered the package to unit #*** and not to his unit, #***, but that he would need to contact ScienceBased Health to fix the problemScienceBased Health subsequently contacted *** and *** stated that their records indicate that the package was correctly delivered to Mr***’s address at unit #*** and handed to the resident at that locationThey stated that they would not be in a position to tell Mr*** that the package was mistakenly delivered to a different unit (#***) because their records show only that the package was delivered to the right address, unit #***On June 6, 20*5, Mr*** called ScienceBased Health againDuring this conversation, the customer service representative asked him if someone else living in the household could have received themMr*** said that would not be possible because he lives aloneOn June 7, 20*5, Mr*** called and stated he checked with his father and brother, who live with him, and neither received the packageHe demanded the company send a replacement of *additional bottles, stating that he would get the additional *bottles “one way or another”On 6/9/*5, *** called again, screaming that he wanted the bottles of the product and demanding the company send a replacement of *bottles.
On 6/*3/*5, *** provided to ScienceBased Health documentation confirming that Mr*** not only received the package, but also acknowledged receipt of the package (see attached)
Mr***’s claim that the customer representative hung up on him twice is and witnesses can corroborate the polite handling of all of Mr***’s phone callsScienceBased Health has been in business for *years and prides itself on exceptional customer serviceThe company has no known complaints on file with the Revdex.com or any other such organizationScienceBased Health always gives customers the benefit of the doubt to ensure satisfactionHowever, in this instance, the evidence clearly shows that Mr*** was being deceptive in his claim he did not receive the package in order to obtain the bottles of productSincerely,
Alain M***
President & CEO
We sincerely apologize to Mr. [redacted] for the delay in processing his refund. The delay was the result of a clerical error. Mr. [redacted] will receive his refund in full this week.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. I have reviewed the documents that Science Based Health provided as proof from [redacted] and I reject those based on the following observations;
The first attachment "[redacted] Proof of Delivery" only shows tracking #; Service as [redacted] Ground; Weight; Shipped/Billed on; Delivered on; and Left at (met customer man).
This attachment does not indicate or name who package was delivered to. All it says is "met Customer man". Well, who is customer man? Is it John? is it Joseph? Paul? Daniel? James? who actually is customer man?
The attachment does not indicate the apartment # that package was delivered to.
The second attachment "[redacted] Delivery Notification" indicates shipment was made to "[redacted]". Well, I would like to point out that it is not me and that is not my name either. My name is [redacted]. So this "[redacted]" must be a different individual. It is not possible that I will spell, write, or pronounce my name wrongly. Secondly, this attachment does not show my signature or my initials as proof that I signed or received anything. Thirdly, this attachment shows pickup date as 26 May, however, Delivery Notification is dated *3 June. So, my conclusion is that Science Based Health made up (fabricated) these two attachments. The fact that the [redacted] Delivery Notification attachment shows my phone number and apartment # is not proof enough that I received any package. Like I stated in my earlier responses, Science Based Health has my phone number already because that is the number I used to place my order and also the number I used to call them to correct my apartment # in their records since they recorded a different apartment # when I placed my order initially. So, I believe Science Based Health fabricated and/or altered these two attachment documents in order to show my phone number and a corrected apartment #, and now presenting it as proof.
Regards,
June 22, 20*To Revdex.com of Metropolitan Houston:
"">This letter is in response to Revdex.com Case# ***
In summary, Mr*** called ScienceBased Health on 5/26/*to order bottles of *** *** *** He stated he wanted to take it to ***He was informed by the customer service representative that the company has a policy to sell a maximum of *bottles of this product within a one year periodMr*** ordered the *bottles, but stated that he would “get the bottles one way or another, just so we know”The order of *bottles was shipped and delivered in person to a man residing at Mr***’s address on 6/4/*5, according to *** records (attached)Mr*** subsequently called the company, stating that he did not receive the order and demanded the company send out a replacement of *additional bottles of the productMr***’s claim that *** told him they mistakenly delivered the package elsewhere is untrue, according to ***In fact, *** also provided to ScienceBased Health documentation confirming that Mr*** acknowledged receiving the package (also attached)The following details the history of this issue:
On May 26, Mr. *** ordered *bottles of *** *** *** He wanted to order bottles to take them to ***; however, the customer service representative explained that the company has a policy of selling only *bottles within a one year periodThe order for *bottles was processed and shippedOn June 4, 20*5, *** delivered the *bottles of *** *** *** to Mr***’s address*** records (attached) show that the bottles were delivered to Mr***’s address and handed delivered to a man at this residence.
Mr*** subsequently called ScienceBased Health and stated that he did not receive the packageMr*** stated that he contacted *** and they told him that they mistakenly delivered the package to unit #*** and not to his unit, #***, but that he would need to contact ScienceBased Health to fix the problemScienceBased Health subsequently contacted *** and *** stated that their records indicate that the package was correctly delivered to Mr***’s address at unit #*** and handed to the resident at that locationThey stated that they would not be in a position to tell Mr*** that the package was mistakenly delivered to a different unit (#***) because their records show only that the package was delivered to the right address, unit #***On June 6, 20*5, Mr*** called ScienceBased Health againDuring this conversation, the customer service representative asked him if someone else living in the household could have received themMr*** said that would not be possible because he lives aloneOn June 7, 20*5, Mr*** called and stated he checked with his father and brother, who live with him, and neither received the packageHe demanded the company send a replacement of *additional bottles, stating that he would get the additional *bottles “one way or another”On 6/9/*5, *** called again, screaming that he wanted the bottles of the product and demanding the company send a replacement of *bottles.
On 6/*3/*5, *** provided to ScienceBased Health documentation confirming that Mr*** not only received the package, but also acknowledged receipt of the package (see attached)
Mr***’s claim that the customer representative hung up on him twice is and witnesses can corroborate the polite handling of all of Mr***’s phone callsScienceBased Health has been in business for *years and prides itself on exceptional customer serviceThe company has no known complaints on file with the Revdex.com or any other such organizationScienceBased Health always gives customers the benefit of the doubt to ensure satisfactionHowever, in this instance, the evidence clearly shows that Mr*** was being deceptive in his claim he did not receive the package in order to obtain the bottles of productSincerely,
Alain M***
President & CEO
We sincerely apologize to Mr. [redacted] for the delay in processing his refund. The delay was the result of a clerical error. Mr. [redacted] will receive his refund in full this week.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. I have reviewed the documents that Science Based Health provided as proof from [redacted] and I reject those based on the following observations;
The first attachment "[redacted] Proof of Delivery" only shows tracking #; Service as [redacted] Ground; Weight; Shipped/Billed on; Delivered on; and Left at (met customer man).
This attachment does not indicate or name who package was delivered to. All it says is "met Customer man". Well, who is customer man? Is it John? is it Joseph? Paul? Daniel? James? who actually is customer man?
The attachment does not indicate the apartment # that package was delivered to.
The second attachment "[redacted] Delivery Notification" indicates shipment was made to "[redacted]". Well, I would like to point out that it is not me and that is not my name either. My name is [redacted]. So this "[redacted]" must be a different individual. It is not possible that I will spell, write, or pronounce my name wrongly. Secondly, this attachment does not show my signature or my initials as proof that I signed or received anything. Thirdly, this attachment shows pickup date as 26 May, however, Delivery Notification is dated *3 June. So, my conclusion is that Science Based Health made up (fabricated) these two attachments. The fact that the [redacted] Delivery Notification attachment shows my phone number and apartment # is not proof enough that I received any package. Like I stated in my earlier responses, Science Based Health has my phone number already because that is the number I used to place my order and also the number I used to call them to correct my apartment # in their records since they recorded a different apartment # when I placed my order initially. So, I believe Science Based Health fabricated and/or altered these two attachment documents in order to show my phone number and a corrected apartment #, and now presenting it as proof.
Regards,