DSLRUsers.com

tyrone_tong wrote:Please ensure all products are as new

ROTFLMAO

And there, perhaps, lies your answer to at least how this happened.

I guess I'm still confused as to what they will do when they receive the camera. Sure, they can check the shutter count and it will be high. How will that prove that it was that high when Tyrone received the camera? Or to put it the other way, how will that show that it wasn't 0 when shipped?

Tyrone, that sounds a very fair and responsible way to deal with it, I would be happy with that. Record the serial number Sounds like you are on track to a happy resolution. They may well have had no knowledge of what had happened to your camera prior to them receiving it.

You probably don't care too much about this ...

I had a look at my photo #1 from my D80, and it's Actual Shutter Count in the EXIF is 1

rflower wrote:I had a look at my photo #1 from my D80, and it's Actual Shutter Count in the EXIF is 1

This prompted me to check the first photo from my D70 (purchased in Feb 2005). It is 1.

Thanks everyone for helping.
I have already sent the item back and from their last e-mail, they will replace my D300 if they check the shutter count is the same as the one that i said.

I have recorded the S/N and the lastest shutter count for the camera.

Mine also gave me the grace of taking the 1st shot (all my d200/300 / 700 allowed this !)

I had to set time and dates.

It sounds like they have accepted to replace, I would take them up on this post haste and send the parcels as trackable and registered.

Good luck

Have just read the posts. I hope your new/used camera problem is resolved VERY quickly. I have purchased numerous item from C/D over the last year or two and have always found them to be personable and professional to deal with. It definitely seems from the evidence presented that your camera was not brand new, which is unacceptable. Here's hoping. Ozi.

It is not the end. I sent them back the camera and they promised me to send me back a replacement. The outcome is,

i received the camera today. The box has been changed(differnet s/n). Everything is packed again, but the camera is the one i sent back.! The same s/n!!!!

What the.....

Tyrone,

That is bad news. I hope you have been on the 'phone to them and asked them to "Please explain!".

They changed the box, and then put the same camera into it?

Take photos of that, then call them and express to them, professionally, how deeply disappointed you are.

As I said, you need to do that professionally, but at the same time, you need to ensure they understand just how angry you might be, and that you consider this to be at best unprofessional, and at the worst, fraudulent behaviour on their part.

Ask to speak with somebody very senior. Ask for a detailed explanation, and then shut up. Listen to what they say, and make them answer the questions that you ask them, rather than waffle on about whatever they might feel like talking about.

gstark wrote:They changed the box, and then put the same camera into it?

Take photos of that, then call them and express to them, professionally, how deeply disappointed you are.

As I said, you need to do that professionally, but at the same time, you need to ensure they understand just how angry you might be, and that you consider this to be at best unprofessional, and at the worst, fraudulent behaviour on their part.

Ask to speak with somebody very senior. Ask for a detailed explanation, and then shut up. Listen to what they say, and make them answer the questions that you ask them, rather than waffle on about whatever they might feel like talking about.

Yes they just changed the box so the S/N on the box is different to the camera.

tyrone_tong wrote:It is not the end. I sent them back the camera and they promised me to send me back a replacement. The outcome is,

i received the camera today. The box has been changed(differnet s/n). Everything is packed again, but the camera is the one i sent back.! The same s/n!!!!

What the.....

I agree, that is rather sneaky, thinking you would not notice that they swapped the cameras. GO with what Gary has suggested, it does seem like they are taking advantage of being an internet retailer at the moment. I would definitely not be a happy camper. Did you take photos of the serial numbers of the camera and old box (ie when they matched)??

Anyone know if this sort of thing can be taken to the ACCC?

Cheers

aim54x wrote:

tyrone_tong wrote:It is not the end. I sent them back the camera and they promised me to send me back a replacement. The outcome is,

i received the camera today. The box has been changed(differnet s/n). Everything is packed again, but the camera is the one i sent back.! The same s/n!!!!

What the.....

I agree, that is rather sneaky, thinking you would not notice that they swapped the cameras. GO with what Gary has suggested, it does seem like they are taking advantage of being an internet retailer at the moment. I would definitely not be a happy camper. Did you take photos of the serial numbers of the camera and old box (ie when they matched)??

Anyone know if this sort of thing can be taken to the ACCC?

Cheers

Yes I do have the pictures of the old box, the camera and the "New" box and "new" camera.

Initially, they could have been forgiven for the "used" camera as it might have been outside their control (their supplier, etc.), but returning the same camera in a different box is inexcusable.

ATJ wrote:Initially, they could have been forgiven for the "used" camera as it might have been outside their control (their supplier, etc.), but returning the same camera in a different box is inexcusable.

And it displays a pattern of conduct on their part that can easily explain why the problem occurred in the first place, as well as one that is illegal.

Tyrone, did you pay by credit card? If so, now would be the right time to advise your credit card provider of the failure of the vendor to deliver the goods as advertised and promised.

tyrone_tong wrote:Yes I do have the pictures of the old box, the camera and the "New" box and "new" camera.

Did the serial number on the original box match that of the camera?

Have you called them yet to express your bitter disappointment?

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:Initially, they could have been forgiven for the "used" camera as it might have been outside their control (their supplier, etc.), but returning the same camera in a different box is inexcusable.

And it displays a pattern of conduct on their part that can easily explain why the problem occurred in the first place, as well as one that is illegal.

Tyrone, did you pay by credit card? If so, now would be the right time to advise your credit card provider of the failure of the vendor to deliver the goods as advertised and promised.

I paid by a VISA debit card... Can I have little bit more detail about it?

Thanks everyone.

gstark wrote:

tyrone_tong wrote:Yes I do have the pictures of the old box, the camera and the "New" box and "new" camera.

Did the serial number on the original box match that of the camera?

Have you called them yet to express your bitter disappointment?

The old box and old camera were match. The "new" camera is not matching the box

I called the general manager and he explained to me that it was just a mistake. He said there is no point of sending me the same camera and this was just a mistake by his boss...

So.. I will have to send the camera back again....and wait until next week......

The general manager has a boss? That's odd.

They should send you a new camera now without waiting for you to send the old one back (again!). They are the ones that have made the mistake, twice. You are the one that has paid for goods you have not received - and given it was with a VISA debit card, the money is already gone from your account.

Totally unacceptable, how do you make such a 'mistake' it was intentional!

ATJ wrote:The general manager has a boss? That's odd.

He must be married.

They should send you a new camera now without waiting for you to send the old one back (again!).

Exactly.

You should insist upon overnight delivery, and they should include pre-addressed packaging for you to then return the dud camera to them.

Basically, the new camera should be in your hands tomorrow.

They are the ones that have made the mistake, twice. You are the one that has paid for goods you have not received -

Exactly. This is now a serious set of issues that they have created: they need to rectify the problems before you let other prospective clients know of your very poor experience.

You have been very seriously inconvenienced through no fault of your own. They now need to take note of your needs, and deal with this post-haste.

and given it was with a VISA debit card, the money is already gone from your account.

You need to speak with your bank. Tell them that you have not received the goods as promised/advertised, and that you wish to challenge the charge.

And make sure that you tell camerasdirect that unless you have a replacement camera in your hands ... tomorrow ... you will be taking this action.

Tyrone, great advice above especially the part about advising your CC bank now. I would also point out the disruption this is providing to your use of the camera. I would also point out that you will contact the Qld Dept of Fair Trading or equivalent if this is not sorted in a satisfactory manner shortly. Point out that it is illegal under the Trade Practices Act to pass used goods off as new and they have tried to twice! Point out you have photographic proof and will be happy to share it with any tribunal.

I suggest you put this in a letter as you are unlikely to remember all the points you wish to raise.


As I said earlier, any company can have a problem, it is how they deal with it which is the measure of the company. Trying to pass used goods off as new twice will keep them off my supplier list.

Glen wrote:As I said earlier, any company can have a problem, it is how they deal with it which is the measure of the company. Trying to pass used goods off as new twice will keep them off my supplier list.

Good point Glen. I have now reconsidered my once positive opinion of Cameras Direct.

Hi Tyrone and all readers.

David Richardson - General Manager Camerasdirect.com.au
I thought I would offer my explanation as this has been an embarrassing experience.
Tyrone at all times was very professional with his case with us, i dealt with him personally and I can say that it is always nice to deal with an understanding customer.
Firstly the issue of the high count on the D300 has been taken up with our supplier, we believe that this particular model must have been used as a demo. This is something we are very annoyed about as these demos are not, in our opinion, what we class as new. Though many traditional retail shops routinely sell their demo stock as new Camerasdirect does not.

We were happy to replace this D300 with a new one when it was pointed out to us and we had a chance to confirm the count.

The replacement was a genuine silly mistake. We had both cameras out of their box on one desk as we wanted to take a shot with the new one and look at the EXIF info to ensure we didn't send Tyrone a replacement with anything other than a "0" count (or in this case a "1" count as we took a photo) we simply then put the cameras back in the wrong box. Simple but in this case a very silly mistake.

FYI: When i talked with Nikon they confirmed that it isn't unusual for a new camera to have a count up to about 50 but it is usually 0.

We will naturally replace the camera and as i have said to Tyrone we will make up the freight costs to him + a gift. We cannot ship the replacement until the other is returned for the very reason that some of you suggested. Tyrone could cancel the transaction on his credit card or not send the other back (though i really don't think that is his way of doing business). These are just procedures that we must have internally as you would be amazed at what people try.

As General Manager (The CEO is my boss, but he is not my wife ) we treat all our customers very well. I could list many cases where we have been more than fair simply to keep a customer happy and keep them a fan of CD's. We will do the same with Tyrone.

Mistakes happen and this has been a clanger. But ultimately Tyrone will be looked after in a manner that hopefully keeps him as a happy customer, difficult in this instance but i believe he is a reasonable man and though he has been badly inconvenienced he will see that we are genuine.

David,

Thank you for putting your side of what happened. It does sound like not simply an unfortunate occurrence, but a whole litany of them. We look forward to hearing from Tyrone that you satisfied his needs.

Hello David,

Welcome to the forum and you have my respect for coming here and putting your side of the story. It is unfortunate about the second silly mistake.

I don't want to complain on Tyrone's behalf and am aware that you two are in the middle of a transaction, but feel your comments open a few subjects by themselves. I do find (personally, not Tryone speaking) your reluctance to cross ship when you have been at fault disappointing. I assume you don't often deal with professional users who may need their gear in a more timely fashion. Your relationship and transactions with clients seems to be based upon the premise, in your own words of "you would be amazed what people try". You have said you are applying that lack of trust in this case to Tyrone, whilst you clearly expect him to trust you, even though you have clearly ballsed up twice. I would suggest that even if Tryone was the best scammer in the world, it would be hard for him to engineer you sending him a second hand camera. On the basis that most people try harder to rectify a problem a second time, it would be almost impossible for him to engineer you TWICE sending him second hand goods as new! Even though that is the case, you are still treating him like "one of those people whom you would be amazed what they try". As an aside, I think you would be offended if there was a heading "Cameras Direct - you would be amazed what they will try" (with regards to twice sending a s/h camera), but don't expect Tryone to be offended?

$2k is only a small purchase for a retailer but a large figure for many individuals. I look forward to hearing a happy resolution for both parties.

Glen, couldn't agree with you more.

It would be reasonable to give David/CD the benefit of the doubt that the second mistake was just that, however, given the series of mistakes that have impacted Tyrone, and the expectation that Tyrone continue to trust CD, I think it a bit rich that CD will distrust Tyrone in terms of the cross shipping. What is to prevent this "mistake" from happening again?

Well, I hope this has been rectified.

On a more positive note, I found myself in Biggera Waters next to Labrador with a few grand burning a whole in my pocket and decided to buy from C/D.

I called in on their warehouse and purchased the D700, grip and a few batteries with no problems what so ever. I was very happy with the purchase, the service and the friendly staff. I'd be happy to use them again, and despite Tyrones misfortune, I'd recommend them.

Just mho.

congratulations on your purchase!

i must say i'm a bit disapointed at how quick people are to jump on CD from a great height without knowing the facts and from only one side of the story.

to me it looked like CD sent a second hand camera that they did not know about then after checking it out thoroughly offered to replace it.
they then mixed the cameras and boxes up ... a simple silly mistake and one they are also rectifying.

now they will receive the camera back and ensure it and the new camera are in their correct boxes before sending it back out .

sure its been a stuff up but not malicious like some are inferring.

maybe i'm just a bit more trusting than most

Raskill wrote:On a more positive note, I found myself in Biggera Waters next to Labrador with a few grand burning a whole in my pocket and decided to buy from C/D.

Raskill, if you have a few more grand weighing your pocket down, please forward to the Ozimax Retirement Fund.

Shane, I think you are very fair on this subject. Like you I don't believe in trial by internet. If one took at face value that CD didn't know about the first camera being used (which I am quite comfortable to believe) and just made a clumsy mistake on sending the second s/h camera, they still have treated Tyrone poorly in the fact that he laid out something like $2k way back in mid October and (to the best of our knowledge) didn't have his camera by early November.

Tyrone from memory is one of the younger members here (he lists his occupation as student), I would assume as like most $2k is a reasonable amount of money to have invested in a purchase. As CD have his Credit Card details (and CC have real dispute resolution procedures) I cant see why they cannot cross ship and resolve this once and for all for Tyrone. The result will be the same financially for them, one new camera out the door and a s/h back at their premises to resolve with their supplier who sold them a s/h camera as new.

As I stated before, it impressed me that David came on here and gave his point of view. Also the positive experiences of Raskill and Ozi lead me to believe this is a one off. This makes me loathe to use David's own words, but you state that we have heard only one side of the discussion, but we did actually hear why they wont cross ship - "because you would be amazed at what some people try". My thoughts are Tyrone is being inconvenienced here through no fault of his own and CD will rectify this but are not prepared to extend themselves to do so. He is being distrusted and so further inconvenienced even though he could not possibly have engineered this. Both CD and yourself mention trust, but CD wont extend any trust at all to Tyrone.

This post makes it sound like my opinion of CD is very poor, it is not. Based on the experiences of other members here which have been positive they seem a reasonable company, David's willingness to face a problem is impressive. As I have said many times in this thread, it is how a company deals with a problem which is their measure. DO I personally think CD have been reasonable, yes. Do I think that CD went the extra mile or extended the tiniest bit of trust or empathy to Tyrone, NO.

I would love to see a post from Tyrone and a post by David that this has been resolved promptly and amicably for both parties.

Back in my Waltons Ltd days, we had a saying:

"The customer is always right - stupid maybe, irrational, illogical, but always right." Did we get taken advantage of? You bet. Did we get ripped off sometimes? You bet. But all in all, the customer was given the benefit of the doubt in 99% of cases, and the company did exceptionally well. At least until a certain businessman named A*** B*** (rythmes with abscond) came along and fleeced the company, staff and creditors of millions. That's another story.

I certainly hope C/D does the right thing by the customer here. That will be the only right outcome for the company in the long term.

Ozi.

Glen wrote:Shane, I think you are very fair on this subject. Like you I don't believe in trial by internet. If one took at face value that CD didn't know about the first camera being used (which I am quite comfortable to believe) and just made a clumsy mistake on sending the second s/h camera, they still have treated Tyrone poorly in the fact that he laid out something like $2k way back in mid October and (to the best of our knowledge) didn't have his camera by early November.

Tyrone from memory is one of the younger members here (he lists his occupation as student), I would assume as like most $2k is a reasonable amount of money to have invested in a purchase. As CD have his Credit Card details (and CC have real dispute resolution procedures) I cant see why they cannot cross ship and resolve this once and for all for Tyrone. The result will be the same financially for them, one new camera out the door and a s/h back at their premises to resolve with their supplier who sold them a s/h camera as new.

As I stated before, it impressed me that David came on here and gave his point of view. Also the positive experiences of Raskill and Ozi lead me to believe this is a one off. This makes me loathe to use David's own words, but you state that we have heard only one side of the discussion, but we did actually hear why they wont cross ship - "because you would be amazed at what some people try". My thoughts are Tyrone is being inconvenienced here through no fault of his own and CD will rectify this but are not prepared to extend themselves to do so. He is being distrusted and so further inconvenienced even though he could not possibly have engineered this. Both CD and yourself mention trust, but CD wont extend any trust at all to Tyrone.

This post makes it sound like my opinion of CD is very poor, it is not. Based on the experiences of other members here which have been positive they seem a reasonable company, David's willingness to face a problem is impressive. As I have said many times in this thread, it is how a company deals with a problem which is their measure. DO I personally think CD have been reasonable, yes. Do I think that CD went the extra mile or extended the tiniest bit of trust or empathy to Tyrone, NO.

I would love to see a post from Tyrone and a post by David that this has been resolved promptly and amicably for both parties.

I also can see your point and everyone elses but a bit of patience for an extra day or so will see tyrone with a camera that has been checked and the correct box with the correct serial numbers on its paperwork that will match the checked paperwork.
[maybe they don't have another new camera in hand ?]
Rushing things may only allow another clumsy mistake ... better to be slow and sure.

of course they could always send him the new camera in the old box and then Tyrone could swap them over and send back the old camera and old box which could save a couple of days.

If i was CD and Tyrone was being nice about the whole thing then i would tend to treat him better than if he was jumping up and down carrying on.
[the Poojee Hotel springs to mind here ]

Shane,

Big Red wrote:but a bit of patience for an extra day or so

But why?

Tyrone has already exhibited the patience of Jove, and then some.

None of what has happened here has been of Tyrone's doing, yet he is the one who is being inconvenienced. He was given a second hand camera, and then given that same, second hand camera, a second time.

He has had to arrange for the shipment of the camera back to CD.

Twice.

I don't know about you, but this wouldn't simply piss me off, for me it's bloody inconvenient and time consuming as well. And it's the consumption of the time that is very important here: we do not get to get that back, do we?

I accept David's statements that the errors are genuine. I respect David for coming here and clarifying CD's position.

What about some respect for Tyrone? Does he not deserve that? What has Tyrone done that he fails to get due respect from CD? What has Tyrone done done that CD fail to pay him the trust that, IMHO, he has already earned.

From my perspective, even accepting the errors on CD's part are genuine, there comes a point whereby normal protocols need to be overturned. In the interests of providing the customer with a positive experience, it behoves CD to now go that extra mile, and display to Tyrone that same good faith that they expect him to show, but which, in reality, they have thus far failed to earn. Yes, they've made their statements, but those statements needed to backed up with action, and that action needs to mitigate the already significant inconvenience that has been foisted upon Tyrone.

Instead of supplying Tyrone with a camera pre-return, instead of mitigating the problem, they have cosen to distrust and disrespect Tyrone, and to extend the problem.

[maybe they don't have another new camera in hand ?]

That may well be the case.

But that is not Tyrone's problem. To me, it would be an excuse.

Rushing things may only allow another clumsy mistake ... better to be slow and sure.

Ok, I'll play.

By shipping the correct, unopened camera, before receiving the unsatisfactory one back, there is absolutely zero possibility of shipping the unsatisfactory one back to Tyrone. In point of fact, CD actually shot themselves in the foot here, because they have opened themselves up to the possibility of repeating the error by their actions in insisting upon this prior return.

I would view the likelihood of this occurring as very low, but it's people who screw-up, and at the end of the day, CD employ people.

of course they could always send him the new camera in the old box and then Tyrone could swap them over and send back the old camera and old box which could save a couple of days.

And thus provide Tyrone with his camera at the earliest possible time. Surely, that should be the goal?

If i was CD and Tyrone was being nice about the whole thing then i would tend to treat him better than if he was jumping up and down carrying on.

Tyrone has not received the camera that he has paid for. Why should he not jump up and down?

As Glen says, it is how CD handle the problems that matters. On a scale of 1 to 10, they have been positive, they have been somewhat good, but they have expressed distrust and disrespect. Maybe 6.5, simply because, when the second foul-up occurred, they failed to be respectful and pro-active.

Yes, the second foul-up was innocent: I accept that, but that doesn't change the fact that it was CD's foul-up. That's where the game plan changed, and they should have become pro-active and positive, and just shipped the correct item. That is where customer service begins, or ends.

Hi All, as I am in the market for a new camera, I was just wondering was there a succesful ending to this litany of errors! and how Tyrone felt the problem was rectified once facts were established.
CD certainly have competetive prices, but if Tyrones experience is not an anomaly I will be wary!

Jaff I think they got it all sorted in the end....not sure if it is an anomaly, it may well have been. As the dollar goes up the grey market is looking tempting so I dont blame you for looking at buying over the net.

Have a look at DigitalRev and others...it is a shame that DD is no longer as competitive.