Approved Food - general discussion thread

Smashing

Sarahsaver wrote: »

I did notice that when there was baby food on the site it said those orders would get priority.

Are you serious?

What a farce. :rolleyes:

Mistymaid

Not been a farce for me - made my orders, got some, only a few, substitutions, takes a week to get to me because it's got to come a long way and takes a couple of ferry rides (no damages) - got half my £10.50 postage refunded last time, and sat and worked out that if I'd have paid RRP the cost should have been over £96 and it cost me (with the £5.25 postage) £36 ...
No problem.

Never had a problem getting though on the phone - (funny that Decker says he did, because only a week or so ago he said he hadn't/wouldn't phone???!!!!) and never had a problem sorting anything out.
Didn't have my server working properly last week so didn't have the benefit of getting in here very often for updates, but I know things are delayed and since I am a fervent money saver, I'm sticking with it.

All those that aren't - all well and good, it's obviously not for them.

mdecker_london

Mistymaid wrote: »

Never had a problem getting though on the phone - (funny that Decker says he did, because only a week or so ago he said he hadn't/wouldn't phone???!!!!)

Your personal attacks are becoming more than a little tiresome (and cowardly - I'll wager you wouldn't call me 'Decker' to my face). It seems that every time someone raises a legitimate complaint, or a report of their bad experience with Approved Foods you're straight in with comments that are often critical of that poster. By far the majority of all your posts on MSE have been promoting AF, so you seem more than a little partisan.

As you're well aware, I hadn't tried to call AF before I posted here last time; and at that time you were the first to tell me how unreasonable I was being for expecting my order to be delivered without all the extra steps you said were perfectly acceptable. You were also aware that I hadn't seen this or the other thread, and I hadn't ordered because of MSE, so I didn't know that the vendor was communicating with all his customers here, rather than via email.

As it happened, I gave you and Approved Foods the benefit of the doubt and called, as you suggested, and provided a list of substitutions, again as you suggested. I've refrained from any further comment until my delivery arrived, and I've simply reported my experience.

We're all well aware that you have had a perfect experience with AF, as you seem determined to remind us of this every single time someone posts their own experience. May I request you accept that other people have had different experiences to you, and allow them to post their experiences without your abusive comments? Otherwise people may begin to suspect you are little more than a stooge of AF......

Mistymaid

mdecker_london wrote: »

Your personal attacks are becoming more than a little tiresome (and cowardly - I'll wager you wouldn't call me 'Decker' to my face). It seems that every time someone raises a legitimate complaint, or a report of their bad experience with Approved Foods you're straight in with comments that are often critical of that poster. By far the majority of all your posts on MSE have been promoting AF, so you seem more than a little partisan.

As you're well aware, I hadn't tried to call AF before I posted here last time; and at that time you were the first to tell me how unreasonable I was being for expecting my order to be delivered without all the extra steps you said were perfectly acceptable. You were also aware that I hadn't seen this or the other thread, and I hadn't ordered because of MSE, so I didn't know that the vendor was communicating with all his customers here, rather than via email.

As it happened, I gave you and Approved Foods the benefit of the doubt and called, as you suggested, and provided a list of substitutions, again as you suggested. I've refrained from any further comment until my delivery arrived, and I've simply reported my experience.

We're all well aware that you have had a perfect experience with AF, as you seem determined to remind us of this every single time someone posts their own experience. May I request you accept that other people have had different experiences to you, and allow them to post their experiences without your abusive comments? Otherwise people may begin to suspect you are little more than a stooge of AF......

Oh I would call you Decker to your face ... particularly since it's your user ID
... and I seriously would like you to clarify exactly what you are inferring ... again ... regarding my support of AF ... seriously. Because I am about to report this thread at your persistent comments suggesting I have involvement with them!

The vendor is NOT as in as much as I am aware, contacting customers via this site - as it clearly states on the homepage of his website to call him if you have problems - which you refused to do ... By the time you did it appeared to be a little late to resolve the issue.

I don't mind you giving your opinion, not in the least, but when I read things that say "and that delivery would be refunded (but only for those who paid the lowest delivery charge," this is an untruth - plain and simple. Those who paid the higher delivery charge ie me - got £5.25 of it refunded.

Also when I read, "A Crook," I interpret this as you personally feel you have been cheated - well please feel free to go and sort it out. I really don't think this board is the place to make potentially slanderous comments.

State the facts, make sure they are correct and then we can all put our points of view forward.
I have put mine forward, without bias, and given an honest representation of my experiences - they have been good - some hitches, but that's life!

tricki1

mdecker_london wrote: »

When I ordered the second time there was no mention of the two week delay that was later mentioned on their front page, even though they knew seven days before on 17th January that they'd have no chance of honouring orders made after that time in a reasonable period of time (they had a rush of orders on the 16th that they knew would overwhelm them). They also knew by 17th January that many items still advertised on 24th when I placed my order were already out of stock. Despite this, they took the full amount from my bank account via Google checkout, even though Google specifically ban such actions until the order is confirmed to be in stock and ready to ship.

mdecker_london wrote: »

Perhaps the most serious cause for concern is that the vendor, in breach of all sorts of legislation (as well as Google’s T’s and C’s) took payment in full despite not having the goods available for sale and in the knowledge that even a part-order couldn’t be shipped for weeks. This can only be explained by a) the vendor being slapdash and/or ignorant of Google’s rules and the law or b) a crook.

I'm sorry but please show exactly where in google's policies or uk laws it says you cannot take payment before an order is shipped, before you accuse someone of being a crook! I guess paypal's is in trouble then and ebay, amazon etc.

I understand you say he had knowledge that he wouldn't have stock, but that cannot be proved, and common sense states that errors can happen, especially when the vendors system is proven to be overloaded like in this case, and in any case the law only requires that a refund or suitable replacement which he is attempting to do despite problems.

Google states "Please be sure you're able to fulfill and ship the order before you charge the buyer." It is not a matter for google when the vendor takes payment, and it is not a legal requirement that I can see - only a guideline. You can argue that it is not particularly good practice, but in normal situations for a small business, issues of stock not being availiable are rare, it is only because of the sudden expansion that has occured that it has become a problem. Larger businesses have automated systems that are well tested that can keep track of stock. AF has suddenly had to implement an untested method to their website to help cope with the sudden rise in orders, and have no experience in dealing with it and its flaws.

I agree it could have gone better, I am not completly happy with the service as it is at the moment, but spouting off that AF is a crook etc is grossly unfair without proof.
Maybe you want to warn other people that you think the service is bad, that is your call, but constructive criticism is always better. If you want good service, tell them what things they could do to improve it, not just complain about the problems you have had, or you find you just get standard letter and your letter filed in the bin. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you find that approach too passive for you, but I find that offering a morsel of constructive critisism and politely asking for help works much better. The poor support people must be relived not to be shouted at for once

mdecker_london wrote: »

I’m also uneasy that this vendor didn’t use his common sense and stop taking orders after 16th January until he could clear the backlog. That would have meant much shorter times between order/delivery, and much less likelihood that items would be out of stock. In addition I’m disappointed at the lack of contact – at no point prior to the day of despatch was I contacted, despite the vendor knowing for nearly three weeks that he wouldn’t be able to fulfil the order its entirety.

I do not think AF had much choice but to keep trading as shutting down the first time proved to cause too disruptive - small traders do not have the financial resiliance of larger companies to money flow disruptions especially one working on such small margins.
Lack of contact is dissapointing, and some of the other problems you mentioned in your post needent have happened if they were doing things properly. New untrained staff and mass of pressure will not have helped.

I still feel the store is worth it, but going to have to be patient and wait until the problems are sorted out before ordering again, as its a little much atm

Skint_Catt

I think you'll find that insinuating that Dan is a crook is defamatory and I hope he takes action through this site against you.

tricki1

Skint_Catt wrote: »

I think you'll find that insinuating that Dan is a crook is defamatory and I hope he takes action through this site against you.

It wouldn't go that far. He stated that he thought that AF taking funds before shipping (with status of availability of items unknown)was against consumer law - thus saying a crook while going a bit too far is kind of fair comment IANAL so fuzzy on that part of law, but I wouldn't have thought was against the laws of slander. Don't agree with the statement but that's besides the point.

I think mdecker may be getting confused with the policies on the google website - from reading the vendor must take authorisation within 7 days to be guaranteed availability of funds.Capture of funds (actual payment as a pose to authorisation) must be done within 24 hours of shipping. (http://checkout.google.com/seller/policies.html?hl=en_GB)

MDecker - Do you have proof that AF is actually taking payment more than 24 hours before shipping, or are you confusing the payment authorisation that shows up on your bank statement with the actual payment? Authorisations for payment sometimes show up on bank statements, and look just like a payment, when they are really just a guarantee that the amount will be available when the seller completes the order. I think that is the case, however I could be incorrect, I just thought it could offer an explanation as to why you appear to be charged before time.

Mistymaid

Well it's not the only accusation he is throwing around ... everytime I post and say I haven't had many problems - which I haven't - I'm accused of somehow being involved with AF and promoting them!

Amazing how he gets offended at being called Decker, which is part of his user ID, and doesn't see the irony in the fact he's called Dan, a crook, and made continued suggestions that I am not a genuine customer!

I'm livid ... seriously.

But I will come up for air to say that I do have sympathy with some folk who've had problems - maybe it is my location that makes me more tolerant than most - but for many people who genuinely NEED to save money, AF has been a boon, despite the hitches.

Stranger_Than_Fiction

I can only offer my own experience of AF which is as follows. I have had 3 orders delivered - the first one was back in November and bags of crisps had burst. I emailed Dan and he refunded the money immediately (his offer, not my request). With the second order, DHL lost half of it. Dan immediately replaced it. My third order from 3rd Feb arrived yesterday and I'd had washing up liquid substituted for washing powder. I phoned Dan. It took 3 goes to get through, I spoke to him for a couple of minutes and he organised for the washing powder to be sent. It arrived today. I have visited the warehouse once, met Dan face to face and found him to be helpful and, more importantly, genuine.

This is a business which was getting about 50 orders a week just 4 months ago and now, thanks to this site and publicity through the Financial Times, Radio 4 and many newspaper articles, is getting many times that number on a daily basis. This has obviously led to many difficulties with the business and Dan would be the first to acknowledge it's been a huge learning curve.

This type of shopping will not suit everyone so it's inevitable some customers will fall by the wayside. I, for one, am happy with it. I don't need things to arrive instantly and I am confident that any problems will be ironed out. That is my experience to date, after all.

I understand some people are disappointed with the level of service they have received and feel it has not been sorted out satisfactorily for them but I do think it is unfair to imply AF or Dan is being crooked in any way.

fay66

Well I agree with you Misty, Its quite clear they have been overwhelmed with orders for well over a month and their homepage and this forum reflects it, why moan when people know there is a problem, really frustrates me!