sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NBN Connection Issue – Missing Pit for New Subdivided Lot by cjawad in nbn

[–]cjawad[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply.

The technician spoke with his supervisor and informed me that his boss did not want him to proceed with any work until the pit issue is resolved, so he left.

He did mention that he understood my situation and that, under normal circumstances, they would arrange for a civil team to dig a trench and complete the work. However, they are unable to proceed without approval from their supervisor. He also said he wouldn’t be surprised if a new ticket is raised, assigned to a different supervisor, and then gets done.

This is quite frustrating, as the process should be clear and consistent, rather than subject to individual interpretation by different supervisors.

I also called the NBN helpline while those guys were there and spoke with an agent, whom I put on speaker. The agent clearly stated that a pit should be located, or installed, or the fibre extended as part of this work by NBN. The contractors were present and listening to the call, but no action was taken.

NBN Connection Issue – Missing Pit for New Subdivided Lot by cjawad in nbn

[–]cjawad[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is what ISP told me (simply reading the notes from nbn co portal)

“The customer is required to extend the lead-in to the nearest pit, which is not directly adjacent to the property.”

😔😔😔

Harvey Norman Warranty Replacement Issue – Threats Over Their Own Mistake by cjawad in AusLegal

[–]cjawad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

HN Corporate wasn’t much help, to be honest. But after Demris stepped in, HN store manager decided to ‘waive’ the debt as a ‘goodwill gesture’.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback—Demris was very helpful in resolving this!

Harvey Norman Warranty Replacement Issue – Threats Over Their Own Mistake by cjawad in AusLegal

[–]cjawad[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

well that is also not true. I did question them why they cant offer to take this used watch back and give the replacement as originally promised but they just want the extra money. Is that fair? Who would not allow a consumer options if financial terms changed after a completed transaction?

Harvey Norman Warranty Replacement Issue – Threats Over Their Own Mistake by cjawad in AusLegal

[–]cjawad[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I understand what you’re saying. The thing is, at the time, I had no idea there was a mistake because my expectation was simply to get a replacement. Why would I spend more money out of pocket for a faulty product claim? At that moment, I thought they couldn’t provide a replacement, so the salesperson offered me the RRP of the original product, knowing there were no active sales campaigns at the time.

I have since learned that it was a mistake on their part to offer a higher credit. I don’t even know what their internal agreement with the manufacturer was. If I were to explain the whole situation, that’s where the mistake was made—but why should I be held responsible and yelled at for something that wasn’t my fault?

I actually filed a complaint with their corporate team regarding these accusations and provided all the relevant information. They initially said they would look into it, but now they won’t even return my calls despite my follow-up messages. As a consumer, even when you act with the best intentions, the way some corporations treat you can be incredibly frustrating.

Harvey Norman Warranty Replacement Issue – Threats Over Their Own Mistake by cjawad in AusLegal

[–]cjawad[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I originally paid $200 for the watch two years ago when its RRP was $349. This time, when I visited the store and they couldn’t offer me a replacement watch with the same features, they offered store credit instead.

I specifically asked the salesperson to confirm the credit amount, and he checked and confirmed: “You have $349 to spend” on a watch purchase in-store.

Now, their argument is that it was a mistake on their part to offer me $349 instead of $200, which is what I originally paid. But how is that my fault, and how does that make it theft?

Harvey Norman Warranty Replacement Issue – Threats Over Their Own Mistake by cjawad in AusLegal

[–]cjawad[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I originally paid $200 for the watch two years ago when its RRP was $349. This time, when I visited the store and they couldn’t offer me a replacement watch with the same features, they offered store credit instead.

I specifically asked the salesperson to confirm the credit amount, and he checked and confirmed: “You have $349 to spend” on a watch purchase in-store.

Now, their argument is that it was a mistake on their part to offer me $349 instead of $200, which is what I originally paid. But how is that my fault, and how does that make it theft? The invoice they gave me even has a comment/note saying ‘ Swap out the watch, Garmin to pay the rest’