We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Goods sent that I never ordered!
Options
Comments
-
Curious2010 wrote: »Good on you lot... for reading between the lines!
I'm very good at that on this board lol!0 -
janiebaby29 wrote: »Having been on the recieving end of Huffy via a PM from him , I can vouch for the above :eek:
Actually can you copy and paste it as a post, could do with another laugh!0 -
-
Where's Huffy gone?0
-
-
Not sure it did Huff much good going off on a tangent like that!!! Not sure he will be back..:)0
-
Broken_hearted wrote: »Whatever the truth to this story any company that would come on slating a customer rather than saying this is a private matter and we dispute the claims, is to be avoided at all costs.
I disagree.
Having just read throught his thread as a whole, my intitial thoughts were that Huffy had been treated badly. However, his somewhat irrationally aggressive responses to what were, for the most part, relatively innocuous comments from MSE'ers surprised me a little.
Once the supplier's identity was confirmed, I think that Huffy can have no complaints that the supplier entered the fray to defend itself (also offering to verify its bona fides via email to the already-published website).
On balance, I think that Abused Supplier's version of events is well-stated and professional; it also makes complete sense. Recognising that we are, nonetheless hearing two differing interpretations of events and cannot be 100% sure as to what the entire truth is, I would tend to lean heavily towards the side of Abused Supplier, and welcome their considered response to the accusations. I also note that they have offered - with Huffy's consent - to publish the related communications.0 -
Just had a re-read through this thread and my original post about me thinking that Huffy was a spammer trying to discredit the company has been removed ,
Just thought I'd let you lot knowThe original janiebaby0 -
Just come back to see if this was ever resolved ??
i hope so both for the OP and the company !!The original janiebaby0 -
On balance, I think that Abused Supplier's version of events is well-stated and professional; it also makes complete sense. Recognising that we are, nonetheless hearing two differing interpretations of events and cannot be 100% sure as to what the entire truth is, I would tend to lean heavily towards the side of Abused Supplier, and welcome their considered response to the accusations. I also note that they have offered - with Huffy's consent - to publish the related communications.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards