Play.com - my experience

clhs

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Are you actually reading my posts or just reading the first line and making the rest up yourself?

What anger? I am pointing out the obvious that if an item is delayed in the post then clearly that is down to the post office. If an item is not dispatched until 5 days after it is orderd then of course this has nothing to do with the post but as I said what reasion is there for any company to not dispatch an order (if in stock) for a few days??

So once an item is dispatched then of course it is down to the post office and it is down to you as a grown adult to read all the info on the site before then complaining.

If an order is not dispatched for a few days then this is down to the retailer. I'm glad this is now resolved.

You just seemed angry when you said that you were "annoyed" because someone was criticising Play.com. Anyway I am not interested in having a battle with you; I was just sharing my honest, unbiased experience of Play.com. Transparently there was no offence to you intended.

johnnyboyrebel

clhs wrote: »

You just seemed angry when you said that you were "annoyed" because someone was criticising Play.com. Anyway I am not interested in having a battle with you; I was just sharing my honest, unbiased experience of Play.com. Transparently there was no offence to you intended.

I never said I was annoyed when someone criticised Play.com. I said it is annoying when, as a company, postal issues are aimed at the company the customer purchased from whereas the delay is clearly with the postal service. Personally I don't like Play.com or any company that uses standard post like they do as I would rather get a service that gives a next day delivery. If i did use play.com I would have to accept that delivery may be delayed as this is what happens with Royal Mail.

You still don't appear to accept that your post isn't a criticism at Play.com but instead at the post office. If Play were rude on the phone for example or somehow did something wrong somewhere then that would be a criticism but this is a postal issue. Have you checked with your local sorting office as it is 99% probable that the item is still there. There are various reasons for this but again it is common.

I am not battling with you at all, I simply feel the need to constantly point out at various people that postal issues are down to the post office. If Play's systems are anything like ours then orders are packed and dispatched automatically, we would certainly have no reason whatsoever to step in and mess up the process by delaying dispatch.

coacs

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

I never said I was annoyed when someone criticised Play.com. I said it is annoying when, as a company, postal issues are aimed at the company the customer purchased from whereas the delay is clearly with the postal service. Personally I don't like Play.com or any company that uses standard post like they do as I would rather get a service that gives a next day delivery. If i did use play.com I would have to accept that delivery may be delayed as this is what happens with Royal Mail.

You still don't appear to accept that your post isn't a criticism at Play.com but instead at the post office. If Play were rude on the phone for example or somehow did something wrong somewhere then that would be a criticism but this is a postal issue. Have you checked with your local sorting office as it is 99% probable that the item is still there. There are various reasons for this but again it is common.

I am not battling with you at all, I simply feel the need to constantly point out at various people that postal issues are down to the post office. If Play's systems are anything like ours then orders are packed and dispatched automatically, we would certainly have no reason whatsoever to step in and mess up the process by delaying dispatch.

You don't "need" to point out that Royal Mail are terrible. You can just let other people voice their opinion, even if it doesn't agree with yours. You could try anyway. Just a thought.

johnnyboyrebel

coacs wrote: »

You don't "need" to point out that Royal Mail are terrible. You can just let other people voice their opinion, even if it doesn't agree with yours. You could try anyway. Just a thought.

It's not an opinion when it is incorrect is it?

It's pretty much like me saying that I bought a sofa from CSL (other sofa suppliers are available!!) and 2 months later it fell apart and then saying "CSL suck".

It makes no sense??? :mad:

coacs

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

It's not an opinion when it is incorrect is it?

It's pretty much like me saying that I bought a sofa from CSL (other sofa suppliers are available!!) and 2 months later it fell apart and then saying "CSL suck".

It makes no sense??? :mad:

No, it's not like that, really, it's more like the guy who started this post bought a phone from PLAY, waited a month, didn't have a phone, had to complain, and only got it 3 weeks later. It's more like that. I've used PLAY and I've waited ages for delivery too. Never had to wait 7 weeks but I've waited ages for games and DVDs. In the end I just started using HMV because stuff arrives quicker.

coacs

If I were you I would give PLAY a wide berth. Most of my orders arrive late (not as much as 7 weeks but usually more than a fortnight) so I just use HMV now. The prices are always about the same and when HMV say that they have sent the item out, it tends to arrive promptly.

johnnyboyrebel

coacs wrote: »

No, it's not like that, really, it's more like the guy who started this post bought a phone from PLAY, waited a month, didn't have a phone, had to complain, and only got it 3 weeks later. It's more like that. I've used PLAY and I've waited ages for delivery too. Never had to wait 7 weeks but I've waited ages for games and DVDs. In the end I just started using HMV because stuff arrives quicker.

Yeah so there was a postal issue then? Maybe I am in some kind of parallel universe but you have just stated what I have said all along :rotfl:Therefore it is EXACTLY like my CSL example.

Customer told Play it hadnt arrived so they sent a replacement (after all how would they know it hadn't arrived until customer tells them???) 'had to complain'? Again another obcious statement, of course they woukld have to complain as Play would have been none the wiser otherwise

coacs

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Yeah so there was a postal issue then? Maybe I am in some kind of parallel universe but you have just stated what I have said all along :rotfl:Therefore it is EXACTLY like my CSL example.

Customer told Play it hadnt arrived so they sent a replacement (after all how would they know it hadn't arrived until customer tells them???) 'had to complain'? Again another obcious statement, of course they woukld have to complain as Play would have been none the wiser otherwise

Doesn't make any sense I'm afraid. Waiting 7 weeks for a phone is terrible and the retailer should have taken action long before then. End of story. (Except I get the distinct impression that you are not going to let that be the end of the story and will feel the need to continue to belligerently extol the virtues of PLAY in a bid to have the last word).

johnnyboyrebel

coacs wrote: »

Doesn't make any sense I'm afraid. Waiting 7 weeks for a phone is terrible and the retailer should have taken action long before then. End of story.

It may not make sense but its a postal issue (this is based on the fact it was in stock and dispatched which it is obvious it will have been) Play's site states a maximum period of 21 days, the OP agreed to this when placing the order, if this doesn't sound like something anyone would want to do ie. wait 21 days as a worst case scenario then don't order off Play, it is quite simple.

To agree to that, place the order then complain before 21 days makes no sense. If you dont read all info on a site before making an order then you shouldn't be let loose to order online.

Play simply allowed the time their site already stated that they woudl assume the OP had read. The fact that a replacement took 3 weeks again is clearly a postal issue.

As stated Play would no longer be in business if they accepted an order and just didnt bother sending it out if this is what you are suggesting. If you had experience of working in or for a company like Play then you would understand this.

coacs

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

It may not make sense but its a postal issue (this is based on the fact it was in stock and dispatched which it is obvious it will have been) Play's site states a maximum period of 21 days, the OP agreed to this when placing the order, if this doesn't sound like something anyone would want to do ie. wait 21 days as a worst case scenario then don't order off Play, it is quite simple.

To agree to that, place the order then complain before 21 days makes no sense. If you dont read all info on a site before making an order then you shouldn't be let loose to order online.

Play simply allowed the time their site already stated that they woudl assume the OP had read. The fact that a replacement took 3 weeks again is clearly a postal issue.

As stated Play would no longer be in business if they accepted an order and just didnt bother sending it out if this is what you are suggesting. If you had experience of working in or for a company like Play then you would understand this.

Erm, I think you'll find that 7 weeks is actually more than 3 weeks. So, to reiterate: 7 weeks is unacceptable. You and your other PLAY colleagues might not like people daring to berate your company, but the fact remains that they dropped the ball for this guy. You can argue all you like (and you clearly like to) but you can't get round the fact that 7 weeks is unacceptable.

But I am enjoying your continual denial of this fact. In no way does it make you look slightly dumb.