Sensible questioning or costly barrack-room lawyering: which?

D_P_Dance

Amazing how arrogant and ignorant the M&S Executive team are.

Not only M&S.  I am in the process of taking the CEO of Dixons/PCWprld to court for appalling customer service including a breach of SOGA.  A so called management trainee with whom I spoke was totally unfamiliar with this legislation.   

MistyZ

beamerguy said:

You and your wife remain valued customers

An oft-used phrase which means nothing, absolutely nothing.  How will this 'appreciation' reveal itself?  A red carpet, a cup of tea with the manager?  Discounts?  All it means is 'please keep spending your money'. 

Cark, you've tried the scenic route.  Maybe erudition and irony were lost on the recipients.  If and when you do have the energy to take up arms again, send the short version, ideally with evidence that M&S owns the car park.  Short version could well include the word 'lie'.  It should reiterate the requirement for reasonable adjustments. It might include a reminder re. press involvement.  Do not honour them with more than 4 sentences and make the meaning irrefutably clear.

D_P_Dance

Why not buy a share and "mention" the matter at their AGM?

beamerguy

MistyZ said:

beamerguy said:

You and your wife remain valued customers

An oft-used phrase which means nothing, absolutely nothing.  How will this 'appreciation' reveal itself?  A red carpet, a cup of tea with the manager?  Discounts?  All it means is 'please keep spending your money'. 

NO, it means .... we do not respect customers, there is a Lidl, Aldi, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons down the road, go park your car there

Fruitcake

beamerguy said:

You and your wife remain valued customers, and we hope you will not be deterred from shopping with us.

On behalf of our Executive Team, I am sorry we cannot help further.

Kind regards

. . . . . . . . . .
Executive Team
Your M&S Customer Service

Amazing how arrogant and ignorant the M&S Executive team are. Of course people will be deterred with such a bad attitude problem    Only 3 months ago M&S reported sales were down by 5.5%, they cannot afford to have an attitude problem.   Such stupidity only means that more will shop online with other suppliers.

That is one of the point that needs hammering home. If they want to recover this reduction in profit they need to retain customers. Fobbing them off will do the exact opposite.

Personally I don't believe ECP own the site at all, but only definitive proof from the Land Registry will show that. Once obtained I would drop the nice guy act and be more forceful and say, your employee is mistaken, you own the land, here is the proof, now cancel the charge. Nothing else will convince me to ever set foot in a M & S store ever again.

Do leave negative feedback on social media if you can. People need to be warned how badly the company is treating genuine customers.

Fruitcake

Cark said:

Running a bit late here. Thanks for the recent posts, and apologies for forgetting to mention the store: it's a smallish version of a tyhpical supermarket, what Marks & Spencer calls a Food Hall. It is located at 22-27 King Street, Penrith, Cumbria. The Council people haven't so far been able to help with the NDR data but the Land Registry say they'll allow land ownership searches at £3 a time.

I have now replied to the sender of the M&S email, attaching these images 001-00. The first is the store's sign at the rear entrance from the car park). the second and third are of ECP's own signage .

.

Further to this, the new and improved *cough* BPA CoP states shows these images in one of the appendixes. Whilst naming the landowner is optional, if they decide to do so it must be a true and accurate statement. Anything else is a lie; a deliberate intent to deceive.













This means that either M & S are wrong/lying when they say they do not own the land, or the PPC is lying because they have erected signs saying that M & S DO own the land. The landowner should also report the scammers to the BPA for this misrepresentation of facts if they themselves are the landowners, which I doubt.


Both statements cannot be true. M & S as principle need to either correct their error/lies and admit they own the land, or instruct their agent to cancel the charges and change the signage to reflect the true ownership. 

D_P_Dance

Does it matter who owns the land?  Surely the contract to manage it is all that is required and that will have to be produced in court, ot have I missed something here.  .  

Fruitcake

D_P_Dance said:

Does it matter who owns the land?  Surely the contract to manage it is all that is required and that will have to be produced in court, ot have I missed something here.  .  

In my opinion, yes it does matter because the scammers say M & S own it and M & S say the scammers own it. 

One of those statements is not true. It is at best a mistake, and at worst it is a lie. M & S caused this problem and they need to be made aware of what's going on both with the scammers and within their own company.

DoaM

MistyZ said:

Cark, you've tried the scenic route ... send the short version, ideally with evidence that M&S owns the car park.  Short version could well include the word 'lie'

Exactly what I meant by my circus joke.

1505grandad

What a shocking state of affairs.

Perhaps it would help if a number of independent consumers email the CEO steve.rowe@marks-and-spencer.com (I will gladly be one) along the lines of:-

It has come to my attention that there is a dispute as to who owns the land at one of the stores owned by M & S.

The store in question is situated at  22-27 King Street, Penrith, Cumbria.

It seems that employees of M & S are telling customers that Euro Car Parks own the land BUT ECP say M & S own the land.

Obviously both of these statements cannot be true, in other words, someone is deliberately lying.

I attach signs which clearly state that ECP manage the land on behalf of M & S.

Therefore either the employees of M & S are deliberately lying to customers when they say ECP own the land OR ECP are deliberately stating a lie on their signs which forms the contract with the customer when parking.

If the latter statement is true, i.e. ECP are lying, then surely it is the responsibilty of M & S, as principal, to make sure statements made by their agents in the parking contract (signs) are true.

TO SUMMARISE, SOMEONE IS DELIBERATELY LYING TO M & S CUSTOMERS.

I look forward to your clarification as soon as possible.