Turnpike Appliance Service Center, Inc.

Review: On December **, 2015, I ordered a Krups replacement coffee carafe from the merchant. The cost was $17.99 plus $7.99 shipping, for a total of $25.98.

On December **, I received it. That day, within fifteen seconds of starting to wash it out with a sponge in my kitchen sink, using no unusual pressure, the glass broke in my hands in two places. The carafe was obviously defective.

On December **, I called the merchant. Maria told me that she didn't think they could offer a refund but asked me to e-mail Renata. I have e-mailed Renata three times. She has not had the courtesy of ever responding.

Under Section 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code, in force in New York and Pennsylvania, goods must be of "fair average quality" and "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." This carafe was neither. The merchant did not disclaim the U.C.C. warranty and under the U.C.C. is therefore bound by the U.C.C.'s implied warranty. I am entitled to a refund. I never even had one cup of coffee from the carafe.Desired Settlement: Under New York and Pennsylvania law I am entitled to a refund.

Business

Response:

Glass carafes for coffee maker in general is very fragile and is not an item that is covered under any warranty. If the damage occurred during the shipping process, we would've replaced the product and filed a claim with the carrier it was shipped through. Unfortunately for this consumer the damaged happened during the cleaning of it and not during the shipping process. While we certainly understand the frustration the customer is going through it sounds that the damage happened while cleaning the pot and not in the pots journey to them. These pots are not made in the U.S. They travel a very long distance to get to us and then to the end user. If it was a defect, damage should have occurred somewhere along the thousands or miles the carafe has traveled and not during a cleaning process unless it was mishandled.Sincerely,[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

The merchant's position seems to be that their product is subject to shock and weakening while in transit to them from the manufacturer and is therefore susceptible to breakage as soon as the purchaser touches it. The law doesn't recognize such vulnerability as a defense under the Uniform Commercial Code. According to Section 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code: (1) Unless excluded or modified ([redacted]), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.

Review: The company replaced parts that was not broken, in order to charge additional money. In addition they did not repair the machine at all. The first time we plugged it in to use it, the machine leaks water all over the counter, near power outlets. The repair was not done properly, we paid the equivalent of purchasing a new machine from them, while they replaced undamaged parts, and never fixed the machine. In addition the customer service representative was rude, they want to have us spend more money to get them to fix the machine that they have not delivered in working order.Desired Settlement: I desire them to ship the item from my house to there factory. Fix the machine properly and send it back to me.

Business

Response:

To Whom It May Concern,

When we received [redacted]'s XP7245J4 machine from the consumer on 12/**/13, our receiving clerk noted on the paperwork, that for a machine of this weight, size and value, it

was packaged poorly. We noticed that the top guide and covering cap were damaged in transit to us. Perhaps these are the parts the consumer is

referring to as not needing "replacing:. When we called the customer to request payment for the $80 bench check fee, we conveyed to the customer that the top cap and cover guide were damaged.

He was made aware of this, to ensure he knew they would be an additional cost to replace these parts.

After the bench check evaluation was completed, we called the customer to let him know that the repair cost would $315.68 total ($293.00 for the repair plus tax).

We reviewed the mechanic's evaluation,and discussed the parts that needed to be replaced (please see the list below). We also conveyed to the customer that we provide a 90 day warranty on the

parts that were replaced. At this time, [redacted] provided payment to go ahead and complete the repair. We explained that parts had to be ordered, and the repair would take a few weeks to complete.

After [redacted]'s repair was completed, we ran the machine several times to test it. Our quality control department performs this task to ensure the machine was works and meets manufacturer standards (set forth by [redacted]).

[redacted] received his XP7245J4 machine back on 2/**/14. The tracking# is [redacted] ( shipped via UPS). He called us on 3/**/14 ( approximately one month after he received his espresso machine back), to state the machine wasn't working.We urged [redacted] to mail the machine back to our facility. We conveyed to him that he had a 90 day warranty on any parts that were replaced, and we could evaluate (at no charge) the machine to determine if there was a problem with the machine.We also explained that we do not offer free return shipping (this is not a service our company provides), the customer would need to pay to mail the machine back to us.

[redacted] had this [redacted] espresso machine for several weeks before contacting us to state the machine did not work. We would have to re-evaluate the machine to determine if there is a NEW problem with it.

Please ask [redacted] to return the machine to our facility. An authorized

[redacted] mechanic will personally inspect the machine to see what issues it might

have. As mentioned, all out of warranty repairs carry a 90 day warranty (on parts that were replaced) from the date of it's completion. We do not pay for the return shipping of an item. Our warranty

covers the parts and the labor to repair the product. Listed below are the parts that we replaced on [redacted]'s [redacted] espresso machine.

PARTS REPLACED WERE:

MS-5883891........facia panel

MS-0A01357........guide

MS-4A01693........covering cap

MS-0A01717........flow meter

MS-0A01392........drawer

MS-0599146........collar clamp

MS-5370795........distributor

MS-0678845........filter

MS-5370796........element

088....................water filter

We hope this information helps to resolve this matter.

Sincerely,

Review: I bought a part for my food processor from this company. Their website was clear that the part would fit my model. The part did not fit. At first the company agreed to a return but wanted me to pay return shipping. When I told them I should not have to pay return shipping since their website was inaccurate, they stopped communicating with me completely. They did not answer my voice messages or emails.Desired Settlement: Refund purchase price

Business

Response:

There are two versions of this customers model DLC-10S. The difference is the type of plastic the bowls are made from. One uses BPA free plastic and one does not and the bowl they purchased does not fit the lid they have. In order for their machine to work they have to replace the lid they have and there machine will work. They do not have to return the parts. All they need to do is upgrade the lid to the [redacted]

Review: A T-Fal electric tea kettle that I purchased on April **, 2015 from [redacted] stopped working within the warrantee period. T-Fal instructed me to ship it for repair to Turnpike Appliance Service Center. On February **, 2016, I shipped it, via [redacted], at a cost of $9.49, for repair or replacement. I included in the package, also as instructed by T-Fal, a piece of paper that contained my name, address, phone number, email address, REF number ([redacted]), and a description of the problem.

On Friday March [redacted], wanting to learn the status of the repair, I spoke with Crystal at T-Fal, who said she would research it and call me back. She called the following Monday, the [redacted], and told me that the package had been shipped to me and signed for on March [redacted] by Chris at 4:08 PM. The [redacted] tracking number was 1Z14[redacted]90397. I never received the package, and there is nobody named Chris on the building staff where I live. On March [redacted], I spoke again with Crystal and she suggested getting Turnpike into the loop since it was they who had shipped the package.

I then called Turnpike and spoke with Renata. She told me that the package had been shipped to me at [redacted], which is the address of the [redacted] store from which I had shipped the package initially. When I went to that location to retrieve the package, [redacted] charged me a storage charge of $42: $6.00 per day for a period of 7 days. I explained to the manager, Chris, what the situation was, but he did not offer to waive the charge. I felt I had no choice but to pay; had I contested it and gone home without the package, storage charges would have continued to accrue. I assumed that Turnpike would reimburse me since the mistake had been theirs, not mine.

As it turned out, my assumption was wrong. I had a lengthy conversation today (March [redacted]) with Renata, who made it very clear that Turnpike would assume no responsibility for the mistake. She was adamant about this. She said that Turnpike had not found the paper I included and therefore had shipped it to the [redacted] store of origin.

I have a very clear recollection of having included the paper in the package. The reason this memory is so clear is that, in preparing the package, I at first sealed the carton without having included the paper, and then, realizing this when I saw the paper sitting in front of me on the table, had to re-open the package, fold the paper, insert it into the carton, and re-seal the carton.

If Turnpike didn't see the paper, they could at the very least have phoned me before shipping. I know positively that they knew my telephone number for it was included, together with the work order number [redacted], on a yellow slip of paper that I found taped to the tea kettle. Chris at the [redacted] store said he would have called me when the package arrived on March [redacted], but there was no phone number on the outside of the package. Turnpike was negligent again, this time in not including the phone number on the package.

The tea kettle cost me about $34.83, including tax, to buy--considerably less than the [redacted] storage charge of $42, not to mention the initial shipping charge of $9.49.Desired Settlement: Turnpike Appliance Service Center should refund me the [redacted] storage charge of $42.

Business

Response:

This customer mailed in a tea kettle for an in warranty repair. The manufacturer states that if the customer does not send in a letter outlining complaint and address then we are to use the address on the outside of the package. We did not charge the customer $42.00. It is our understanding that the [redacted] store he used to mail in his kettle charged him $42.00 for storage. The customer is responsible to ensure all required information such as complain. phone number and address and included with his repair. We did not receive this letter from the customer and used the address on the outside of the package.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

As stated in my original complaint, Turnpike knew my telephone number, the proof of which is that it appeared on the yellow slip of paper that was taped to the tea kettle. (I tried to attach a photo of it to this form a few minutes ago, but it was rejected by your software, requiring me to re-type my entire answer.) Turnpike could have phoned me when they were unable to find the paper I had enclosed in the package that contained all my contact information, but they did not. Nor did they call me to tell me that they were shipping the package to the [redacted] store. Nor did they write my phone number on the outside of the package so that [redacted] would be able to notify me when the package arrived there. When I spoke with Turnpike and expressed incredulity that they would know my name and phone number if they had not found the paper I had enclosed, they explained that the REF number (serial number) on the bottom of the tea kettle allowed them to retrieve the information from a database, where it had been entered by T-Fal, the manufacturer. That database would also reflect my address and e-mail address, as I had given all that information to T-Fal, and Turnpike could have easily made use of it to contact me. Turnpike was negligent in neither contacting me nor putting my phone number on the outside of the package, thus allowing [redacted] storage charges to accrue for 7 days. Had my phone number been placed on the outside of the package, [redacted] would have called me when the package arrived, and I would have had to pay $6 for one day rather than $42. (Turnpike was also negligent in allowing the piece of paper I had included to go missing, but my complaint is not contingent on that fact.)My wife, who is [redacted], remarked that if such a mistake were to happen in Japan, the manager would visit the customer at home to apologize and present the refund in person.Just as I was about to enter this reply, I received a phone call from a T-Fal representative to tell me that T-Fal will make good on my [redacted] storage charge, for which I am grateful. Obviously, T-Fal, unlike Turnpike, is concerned with protecting their good name. As a result of T-Fal's intervention, I want nothing more from Turnpike.Sincerely, [redacted]

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Review: I ordered 2 food mixer beaters. They said they were a direct replacement for the old ones. They are different in that they won't stay in the mixer.I called and they said since we had used them they wouldn't take them back. We had to try them to see if they would fit! When we received them they were just thrown in a box with bubble wrap, so they weren't sanitary then. For all we know they could have been used. They refused to refund or replace them. Their return policy says if defective, parts can be returned in 30 days. Since they won't stay in the mixer I consider them defective.Desired Settlement: Since the lady got really smart with me about it I would like a refund. Since they are different from the old ones another set probably would be the same.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted],

Review: I sent my Panasonic shaver to Turnpike Appliance on 9-**-13 for repair. It is five months later and I still waiting for my shaver. Turnpike Appliance advertises 7-10 business days for all repairs. Each month I have contacted Turnpike Appliance for an update of my repair. Each month I am told that they are waiting for the parts from Panasonic. The two employees that I have talked to are [redacted] and [redacted] over the five month period. On 12-**-13, I spoke to [redacted] and requested to speak to a [redacted] He told me that a [redacted]would call me within 48 hrs. This did not happen. I called back on 12-**-13, I spoke to [redacted] and I was told that I would have to wait until the end of the year for them to update their inventory and the company comes back after the holidays. On 1-**-14, I called checking on my status and wanted to talk to a [redacted] transferred me to [redacted] ([redacted]. [redacted] told me that they are still waiting for the parts from Panasonic. On 2-**-14, I checked on the status and spoke to [redacted]. I asked what parts are they waiting for from Panasonic. [redacted] said he would have their repair department contact me within 48 hrs. and that the I could not talk directly to them at this time. This did not happen. On 2-[redacted]-14, I called and asked to be connected to the repair department and [redacted] said he was the repair department. I pointed out to him that I never receive calls from Turnpike Appliance when I am promised that they would call me. [redacted] said I needed to contact Panasonic and give them my Order Number and my name and they can assist me with the parts that Turnpike Appliance is waiting for. I called Panasonic and they had no records with my name, order number and Turnpike Appliance. I called back to [redacted] of Turnpike Appliance and explained what Panasonic said. [redacted] said that Panasonic probably needed the Purchase Order Number and that he did not have it. [redacted] said his [redacted] would have it and that she is not there and would have to leave her a note.Desired Settlement: I feel that I am dealing with a less than reputable company. They don't return phone calls, give customers the run around and refuse to give [redacted]'s name. I asked their employee ([redacted]) who [redacted] was and he replied [redacted] who is the [redacted] When I asked for the last name of [redacted]. He told me he could not give out that information. I would like to have the repair done as promised or have my shaver and my money of $99.00 returned.

Consumer

Response:

I received this e-mail from Turnpike Appliance once I filed my complaint.

[redacted]

[redacted]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.

Sincerely,