TEAM SWFA - Admin
I received an e-mail today that read:
It was left by Andrew Pigeon after threatening us that he would go all over the web posting negative things if we did not do exactly what he wanted.
And he did go all over the web posting like he promised.
On our Facebook page.
worst customer service. period. hands down. are attempting to hold near $400 from me on a defective scope i tested out and am not happy with. ridiculous!
SWFA.com I asked customer service about this because something sounds fishy. Here is there reply: (17:09) wendy: Stephanie and I have been working on this return. The customer stated that he no longer wanted the items that he ordered when I gave him his RMA. He never mentioned the issues until after he sent the scope back. We have had Christopher test the scope and there are no issues found with the tracking. He also used the original scope box as the shipping box. There are ring marks on the scope. He was made aware of the return policy listed on the back of the packing slip that he was asked to fill out for his return.
SWFA.com Mr. Pigeon,
We don’t have representative I.D. numbers, however you do have my first and last name, which is Stephanie Price.
The facts of your return according to our records are as follows:
You purchased the scope September 28, 2014 and on November 6, 2014 you called for a return authorization. When you called you spoke with my supervisor, whose name is Wendy Bagby. The only reason you gave her for wanting to return the items on your order was that you no longer needed the items. She gave you a RMA number of 21582 and explained to you that you needed to write the RMA number on the back of your invoice in the space provided and below that you needed to fill in the blanks as to what you wanted us to do for you.
We didn’t receive your return until January 6, 2015. Two months after you were given the RMA number. The mount was not returned.
On the back of your invoice the only thing you provided was the RMA number. You didn’t tell us what you wanted us to do for you. You didn’t mention anything about the scope appearing to be “used or damaged slightly through shipping”. You didn’t tell us that you had mounted the scope. You didn’t provide us with any information about the scope not tracking properly. If you felt the scope had a defect you should have mentioned that in the space provided so that:
1) We could have checked out the scope. And
2) Not placed it on our Sample List for sale to someone else.
Once we informed you we couldn’t accept the scope back because it now had ring marks on it was the first time we learned about any of these issues.
Our technicians checked out the scope and found no issues at all. It tracked at all distances, including 600, 800, and 1000 meters. They also could not see any damages that might have been caused through shipping. The only damages found on the scope were your ring marks.
Since we have a reputation for having the best customer service in the industry, it will still not be a problem for us to accept back the items you have returned. However, since you paid with a non-reloadable gift card we can only give you store credit. Also you will be charged a 15% restocking fee for the now used scope and the factory box you destroyed by using it for a shipping box. The total of the items you returned come to $335.85. 15% of that comes to $50.38, so your store credit will come to $285.47.
Bottom line is that he was not honest with us and we tried to accommodate him the best we could. Now today I received the e-mail about his complaint being on the first page of Google so I replied to it asking how much money they wanted from us, just to see.
"We can move this report to the 2nd page for a total of $1400 divided across 4 months @ $350/Month. The entire process takes anywhere between 4 - 6 months. I'm thinking 4 - 5 for this report. We do provide a refund if the report is not buried within 6 months."
It came from a company named C2C Advertising Agency. I don't think our friend Andew Pigeon is involved but it does seem shady that one company will publish garbage (and get it ranked high) then another company says they will clean it up for you for a fee. The Ripoff Report site is obviously driven by the large amounts of advertising, pop ups and click bait which make me immediately not take it too seriously.
Hopefully we can get this post equally ranked on Google and I can send them an e-mail asking for some cash to take it down.
Edited by Chris Farris - October/27/2016 at 12:12