ShoeSurfing.com

Complaint: I am rejecting this response for a number of reasons [redacted] seem to have lost her memory unfortunately for just last friday (April 10, 2015) [redacted] decided to answer the phone and when she did she apologized to me on the behalf of ***'s leadership skills with not getting back to me while also providing me with what was said to be his boss email address because she stated that she also disagreed with how this situation was handledThis was the email provided to me for me to report [redacted] to his superior (email address provided [redacted] @gmail.com and [redacted] stated that ***'s superior name was ***) The response submitted from this business is definitely lies and apparently coerced since what [redacted] is stating in her response doesn't seem like anything she herself could speak directly or definitively to since I didn't have this alleged conversation with herIn any event, February 24th was not my first time calling there office and she knows this instead this was the first time [redacted] answered the phone; they provide horrible customer services! [redacted] 's point to mentioning all orders outside of my order of complaint is irrelevant since all orders have nothing to do with thisThe third order was cancelled because of my experience with the boots this claim is regarding and regarding [redacted] 's understanding as to what snow is out of my controlAs it relates to the mentioning of fees that was supposed to be associated with the cancellation of my third order, I knew nothing about so please don't make it seem as though you did me a favor [redacted] said she would interrupt the shipment and refund me and that was the concluding to that matterAs it relates to my damaged boots, [redacted] expressed that she could not assist me and at that point I was wanting to speak to someone in leadership who could assist meWhen speaking with [redacted] on February 26, 2015, he mentioned that the boots could have been stitched improperly which would had caused the substance to sink inside my boots and this was the reason he told me to take a lot of pictures [redacted] said he would contact the manufacture (EMU) and he didn't feel like it was a good idea for him to mention the "water resistant" debate because he has seen this manufacture not replace boots for other customers due to this same reason (boots not resisting water and becoming damaged) so this was the reason he told me he wanted to have his conversation with the manufacture be focused on the stitching of the boots rather then them being marketed as being "water resistant"He mentioned nothing about this taking a couple weeks or months to resolveIn any case, the proper customer service would have prompted him to communicate something since I had been leaving there office messages since January and leaving him messages since after we spoke in February and now we're in the month of April [redacted] stating that them not having nothing to report to me was the reason they didn't return any of my calls is unprofessional and irresponsible on them as a company and for her to put some mess like that in her response when she's supposed to be representing the company says a lot Also, [redacted] took the liberty in reading up on the term "water resistant" Per her provided definitions: Water Resistant: designed to resist

CF-As stated by the business.      We received the first call from the Consumer on February 24, 2015 to let us know that she had separately ordered three pairs of Emu...

boots from us (Sheepskinshoes.com) and wanted to cancel the order that she made February 20, 2015(third pair) due to one of the other pairs being damaged when she walked through snow. At that point, we redirected the parcel for her third order through UPS, costing us $20.95. We also waved the restocking and processing fee that could have resulted in a charge of up to $25, which is stated in our Ordering and Policy page. We refunded 100% of her order for that pair of boots immediately.   [redacted] called her back February 26th, 2015 and spoke with her about the difference between waterproof, and water resistant, which was the subject matter of her claim towards the boots being defective. He explained that Emu makes water proof boots at a much higher cost, and that their site, as well as ours, states that the boots the Consumer purchased are  “water resistant”. She said, she only stepped in some snow as she was walking across the street and claimed that snow was not water. Her new statement claims she stepped in a “puddle of snow”. Thereby shortening her claim as to the amount of time she was wearing the boots. If you Google water resistance, or use the second link, (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/water-resistant) it is for a free dictionary and it reads:
water-resistant adj
1.       (Textiles) (esp of fabrics) designed to resist but not entirely prevent the penetration of water
waterproof  adj
1. not penetrable by water. Compare water-repellent, water-resistant n 2. (Clothing & Fashion) Brit a waterproof garment, esp a raincoat vb (tr) 3. (Textiles) to make (a fabric, item of clothing, etc) waterproof     [redacted] also told her that he did not expect that Emu would qualify this as defective and would not give us a credit or a return authorization. He told her that he would send in the pictures and contact her when they got back to him and that it might take a while. It states on our Ordering and Policy page that items are not considered defective if there is discoloration of the sheepskin, discolorations/damage due to improper cleaning, damage due to wear, etc. Also, due to the policies of different manufactures, the Exchange/Refund process associated with defective merchandise can take from a few days to a few months. The photos were sent February 26th, so it has only been a month and a half. She was not deliberately ignored. We try to stay in contact with all of our customers and keep them updated with any information, but if we are not receiving any then we cannot relay it. We do not believe the item to be defective, and if Emu does not authorize the return of her boots then we will not receive a credit from them and she will not be receiving a new pair of boots.     We have now made a call to the manufacturer of the boots, since we had not received a reply.  It has been deemed that the damage to the boots is not due to manufacturer defect or false representation of the product. Therefore, a return authorization, nor a credit will be issued by the manufacturer.  If clarification is or further assistance is required of us, please feel free to give us a call or send us a message to the contact information provided in the signature of the email to which this letter is attached. Thank you for your time and consideration, [redacted]

Complaint: 10536412
I am rejecting this response for a number of reasons. [redacted] seem to have lost her memory unfortunately for just last friday (April 10, 2015) [redacted] decided to answer the phone and when she did she apologized to me on the behalf of [redacted]'s leadership skills with not getting back to me while also providing me with what was said to be his boss email address because she stated that she also disagreed with how this situation was handled. This was the email provided to me for me to report [redacted] to his superior (email address provided [redacted]@gmail.com and [redacted] stated that [redacted]'s superior name was [redacted]) 
The response submitted from this business is definitely lies and apparently coerced since what [redacted] is stating in her response doesn't seem like anything she herself could speak directly or definitively to since I didn't have this alleged conversation with her. In any event, February 24th was not my first time calling there office and she knows this instead this was the first time [redacted] answered the phone; they provide horrible customer services! [redacted]'s point to mentioning all orders outside of my order of complaint is irrelevant since all orders have nothing to do with this. The third order was cancelled because of my experience with the boots this claim is regarding and regarding [redacted]'s understanding as to what snow is out of my control. As it relates to the mentioning of fees that was supposed to be associated with the cancellation of my third order, I knew nothing about so please don't make it seem as though you did me a favor. [redacted] said she would interrupt the shipment and refund me and that was the concluding to that matter. As it relates to my damaged boots, [redacted] expressed that she could not assist me and at that point I was wanting to speak to someone in leadership who could assist me. When speaking with [redacted] on February 26, 2015, he mentioned that the boots could have been stitched improperly which would had caused the substance to sink inside my boots and this was the reason he told me to take a lot of pictures. [redacted] said he would contact the manufacture (EMU) and he didn't feel like it was a good idea for him to mention the "water resistant" debate because he has seen this manufacture not replace boots for other customers due to this same reason (boots not resisting water and becoming damaged) so this was the reason he told me he wanted to have his conversation with the manufacture be focused on the stitching of the boots rather then them being marketed as being "water resistant". He mentioned nothing about this taking a couple weeks or months to resolve. In any case, the proper customer service would have prompted him to communicate something since I had been leaving there office messages since January and leaving him messages since after we spoke in February and now we're in the month of April. [redacted] stating that them not having nothing to report to me was the reason they didn't return any of my calls is unprofessional and irresponsible on them as a company and for her to put some mess like that in her response when she's supposed to be representing the company says a lot. 
Also, [redacted] took the liberty in reading up on the term "water resistant"
Per her provided definitions:
Water Resistant:
1. designed to resist <but not entirely prevent the penetration of water waterproof (didn't need them to function as waterproof boots, I have rain boots) 
1. not penetrable by water. < This is your provided definition and I agree!
Now, I took the liberty in providing you with a link explaining to you what snow is. Here's the link and believe it or not, snow is made from water! Who would have thought! 
 
http://www.kidsplayandcreate.com/what-is-snow-made-of-snowflake-facts-for-kids/<...⇄ /> Here's there first listed definition:
"Snow is a form of precipitation like rain and sleet" What's rain? Water! 
There seems to be some kind of shady business going on and when you need to tell lies and scam to rob me out of one hundred and fifty nine dollars and change then perhaps your company really needed to keep my money! I think in the end, it speaks poorly of you and your integrity. 
Revdex.com- your company should be very familiar with the dysfunction of this company since you've also made several attempts with contacting them and got no response back until now and here you are the ones who provide their accreditation so you would think they would behave differently. Not at all! Very Sad! 
Regards,
[redacted]

CF- As stated by the Business.     It states on our Ordering and Policy page that items are not considered defective if there is discoloration of the sheepskin, discolorations/damage due to improper cleaning, damage due to wear, etc. Also, due to the policies of different manufactures, the Exchange/Refund process associated with defective merchandise can take from a few days to a few months. Included in the shipment of every package is a Return and Exchange Policy sheet that states all products purchased through our websites may be returned for exchange or online credit only, and the product must be returned in new condition within 30 days of shipment.     Per our statement on the back side of the packing slip included with each order, we also recommend that all sheepskin products are sprayed with a sheepskin stain and water repellant before being worn, especially if the particular product is twin-face sheepskin. Also, there is a tag that is attached by the manufacture on their boots that reads, “There may be some color transfer when wearing this product or when product is wet”.     We have made a call to the manufacturer of the boots, since we had not received a reply to our Return Authorization request.  It has been deemed that the damage to the boots is not due to manufacturer defect or false representation of the product. Therefore, neither a return authorization, nor a credit will be issued by the manufacturer. We are currently attempting to acquire the denial for this Return Authorization in an email so a copy of it may be forwarded to the customer.

Review: On 11/13/13 I placed an order with KlogsBeach.com which is a division of ShoeSurfing.com. I paid a total of $ 109.95 with my credit card. I received this order on 11/20/13. I am EXTREMELY unsatified with this order. The shoes are not the style I thought and the fit is uncomfortable. On the same day that I received this order which was 11/20/13, I attempted to call this company at (877) 756-2475. I wanted to know what the steps were in receiving a refund back on my credit card I used when I placed this order. I was told that NO refunds are given, only exchanges or store credits. I tried to explain that these shoes are BRAND NEW and NEVER WORN and I should be able to receive a refund. What kind of company refuses to give money back to a customer who is extremely unhappy with their order. I DO NOT want an exchange or store credit. I do not plan on using this company ever again. I spoke to Kathy at Klogsbeach.com customer service. She was completely unprofessional. She laughed at me while I was talking and was very rude and nasty, then she hung up while I was speaking. This company needs to be HIGHLY INVESTIGATED for the kind of business they conduct. They take consumers money and could careless about customer satisfaction by refusing to issue refunds. I feel returns should be a case by case basis, and since I just received this order today 11/20/13 and NEVER worn these shoes, I should be able to receive my money back, even if their policy is NOT to issue refunds, which is questionable in itself!Desired Settlement: I would like a FULL refund in the amount of $ 109.95 issued back on my Mastercard. This company's customer service is horrible and should be HIGHLY INVESTIGATED. They treat customers with no respect, all they do is take the money and run. These shoes are BRAND NEW AND NEVER WORN. I do not understand why in this situation, a refund can not be issued? Again, I would like a FULL refund issued back on my Mastercard in the amount of $ 109.95. My order # with [redacted].com is 244.111313.2.

Review: On January 23, 2015, I placed an order with Sheepskinshoes.com for a pair of Emus Alba Black Womens Boots. Per the website advertisement, the text states under the Product Details that the boots are water resistant Australian double faced sheepskin; this is the first thing thats mentioned under the product details yet through my experience being the most unreliable and unrealistic. Shortly after receiving the boots, I wore them and as I was crossing the street, I stepped into a puddle of snow in which I immediately shook off my boot. Seconds later I noticed that my feet were becoming colder and I noticed that the substance had sinked into my boot causing my feet to become wet. My boots became discolored and now has a permanent stain. Ive reached out to Sheepskinshoes.com so many times that Ive lost count! Theyve provided the contact number of ###-###-#### however no one ever answers the phone and its horrible! After spending countless time calling and leaving messages, I received a call from someone by the name of [redacted] on February 26, 2015 stating that he was a manager. I explained to him the situation and expressed my feeling towards their poor customer services. He challenged me regarding their posted text of the boots that states that the boots are water resistant. He explained that the boots are water resistant and not water proof and that was a difference. I explained to [redacted] that the word resistant implies that the product is capable of being unaffected by water and when considering I never wore the boots as rain boots, Im expecting them to perform at the level that their web site advertises which is that they are water resistant. [redacted] told me to email him pictures of my boots and that he would contact Emu directly to see if they would be willing to replace the boots. To date, I have not heard anything back from him and this is ridiculous and unprofessional! Where in the month of March now and still here I am continuing to reach out to a company who seems to have totally abandoned their responsibility and who continues to conduct them in an unprofessional manner by continuing to mishandle and disregard this situation. Its been 3 months; this matter should have been effectively resolved back when it was first reported. Im not asking for money back nor was that something I ever conveyed; Im simply asking for Sheepskinshoes.com to honor their advertisement and fix this problem! My boots are damaged and I would like them to be exchanged for a brand new pair.Desired Settlement: My intent is to have this problem resolved by receiving a brand new pair of the same boots. If this request is considered unreasonable, I will be forced to request that Sheepskinshoes.com submit me a full refund of the money paid for this product.

Business

Response:

CF-As stated by the business. We received the first call from the Consumer on February 24, 2015 to let us know that she had separately ordered three pairs of Emu boots from us (Sheepskinshoes.com) and wanted to cancel the order that she made February 20, 2015(third pair) due to one of the other pairs being damaged when she walked through snow. At that point, we redirected the parcel for her third order through UPS, costing us $20.95. We also waved the restocking and processing fee that could have resulted in a charge of up to $25, which is stated in our Ordering and Policy page. We refunded 100% of her order for that pair of boots immediately. [redacted] called her back February 26th, 2015 and spoke with her about the difference between waterproof, and water resistant, which was the subject matter of her claim towards the boots being defective. He explained that Emu makes water proof boots at a much higher cost, and that their site, as well as ours, states that the boots the Consumer purchased are “water resistant”. She said, she only stepped in some snow as she was walking across the street and claimed that snow was not water. Her new statement claims she stepped in a “puddle of snow”. Thereby shortening her claim as to the amount of time she was wearing the boots. If you Google water resistance, or use the second link, (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/water-resistant) it is for a free dictionary and it reads: water-resistant adj 1. (Textiles) (esp of fabrics) designed to resist but not entirely prevent the penetration of water waterproof adj 1. not penetrable by water. Compare water-repellent, water-resistant n 2. (Clothing & Fashion) Brit a waterproof garment, esp a raincoat vb (tr) 3. (Textiles) to make (a fabric, item of clothing, etc) waterproof [redacted] also told her that he did not expect that Emu would qualify this as defective and would not give us a credit or a return authorization. He told her that he would send in the pictures and contact her when they got back to him and that it might take a while. It states on our Ordering and Policy page that items are not considered defective if there is discoloration of the sheepskin, discolorations/damage due to improper cleaning, damage due to wear, etc. Also, due to the policies of different manufactures, the Exchange/Refund process associated with defective merchandise can take from a few days to a few months. The photos were sent February 26th, so it has only been a month and a half. She was not deliberately ignored. We try to stay in contact with all of our customers and keep them updated with any information, but if we are not receiving any then we cannot relay it. We do not believe the item to be defective, and if Emu does not authorize the return of her boots then we will not receive a credit from them and she will not be receiving a new pair of boots. We have now made a call to the manufacturer of the boots, since we had not received a reply. It has been deemed that the damage to the boots is not due to manufacturer defect or false representation of the product. Therefore, a return authorization, nor a credit will be issued by the manufacturer. If clarification is or further assistance is required of us, please feel free to give us a call or send us a message to the contact information provided in the signature of the email to which this letter is attached. Thank you for your time and consideration, [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: 10536412

I am rejecting this response for a number of reasons. [redacted] seem to have lost her memory unfortunately for just last friday (April 10, 2015) [redacted] decided to answer the phone and when she did she apologized to me on the behalf of [redacted]'s leadership skills with not getting back to me while also providing me with what was said to be his boss email address because she stated that she also disagreed with how this situation was handled. This was the email provided to me for me to report [redacted] to his superior (email address provided [redacted]@gmail.com and [redacted] stated that [redacted]'s superior name was [redacted])

Review: Hello - Feb/2014 I ordered a pair of shoes from Birkenstock Beach. The shoes I were for work. I am a school teacher and am on my feet all day. I was trying to order some comfortable shoes that looked professional. I had already searched the entire site for any shoes that would work before I placed the order; so I knew there was nothing else that would suit my purpose. They cost $174.95. When I received the shoes I realized I needed another size. I called the company and spoke with Stephanie. She informed me that the shoes were discontinued and would not get my money back. I was sent a store credit. I wasn't happy with this as the company was unable to provide me with the product I wanted to order; but I took the attitude that I should have read their policy. I have since tried to place another order to use the store credit. I called today (2 1/2 weeks after I placed the order)to follow up and was told that one shoe was in-stock and the other was out of stock. I then asked for a refund for the remainder of the credit and was still told, "sorry we cannot due to policy and I don't have the authority". I asked to speak with a supervisor and was told they are unavailable. At that point I told them that I guess they are determined to keep my money no matter what I do.Desired Settlement: At this point I would like my original request of a "full refund" to be given. This company takes absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for being able to provide the customer with a suitable product. Their inability to stock items should not give them the power to keep money from consumers that are trying in good faith to do business with them. My total refund amount would be $174.95.Kind Regards, [redacted] I have multiple order numbers: 6.2114.2 (original order), 244.62314.1, 6.62314.3.