ashley

I contacted the Motor Ombudsman (TMO) as I used a company called Automotive Consulting Engineers to produce a report for me to use in a case with the TMO and the FOS, which is advertised on the Motor Ombudsman website
ACE ripped me off and would not provide the service I had paid for. This was accepted by their awarding body The Institute for the Motor Industry (IMI) as a breach of professional standards.
The vast majority of customer reviews on trustpilot and google about ACE are 1* reviews.
ACE are advertised on a supposedly impartial service providers website the The Motor Ombudsman.
The Motor Ombudsman should not be directing consumer to ACE given their track record, as the TMO are operating the CTSI motor codes and alternate disputes resolution scheme, and should definitely not be creating consumer victims in the process, by directing them to a company (ACE) that has failed so many consumers and been sanctioned by its professional body The IMI.
The CTSI took weeks to respond, after they had finally communicated with the Motor Ombudsman about this all they said was that the TMO had now put a disclaimed saying they are not responsible. However it does say they "must meet the required high standards", so is this to say they were responsible for this before the disclaimer, and also given that ACE has not met high standards why are the TMO still advertising their business for them?
The CTSI propose to allow this to continue to cause many more consumer victims during the operation of it motor codes and ADR by the the Motor Ombudsman. I thought they were supposed to protect consumer from becoming victims of breaches of consumer regulations not create them??
I contacted the Ombudsman weeks ago and asked their senior management to have the link removed from their website directing consumer to their services as they should not be promoting businesses especially ones that are responsible for massive consumer detriment.
I asked the The Motor Ombudsman if they were paid to put this firm they as they must get the majority of their client from this. The Motor Ombudsman has refused to respond to this or my complaint about it and related issues for weeks now, far exceeding their own deadlines for response.

I contacted the CTSI because I had been to the Motor Ombudsman (TMO) and used a company called Automotive Consulting Engineers to produce a report for me to use in a case with the TMO and the FOS.
ACE ripped me off and would not provide the service I had paid for. This was accepted by their awarding body The Institute for the Motor Industry (IMI) as a breach of professional standards.
The vast majority of customer reviews on trustpilot and google about ACE are 1* reviews.
ACE are advertised on a supposedly impartial service providers website the The Motor Ombudsman.
I contacted the CTSI and stated that the Motor Ombudsman should not be directing consumer to ACE given their track record, as the TMO are operating the CTSI motor codes and alternate disputes resolution scheme, and should definitely not be creating consumer victims in the process, by directing them to a company (ACE) that has failed so many consumers and been sanctioned by its professional body The IMI.
The CTSI took weeks to respond, after they had finally communicated with the Motor Ombudsman about this all they said was that the TMO had now put a disclaimed saying they are not responsible. However it does say they "must meet the required high standards", so is this to say they were responsible for this before the disclaimer, and also given that ACE has not met high standards why are the TMO still advertising their business for them?
The CTSI propose to allow this to continue to cause many more consumer victims during the operation of it motor codes and ADR by the the Motor Ombudsman. I thought they were supposed to protect consumer from becoming victims of breaches of consumer regulations not create them??
I contacted the Ombudsman weeks ago and asked their senior management to have the link removed from their website directing consumer to their services as they should not be promoting businesses especially ones that are responsible for massive consumer detriment.
I asked the The Motor Ombudsman if they were paid to put this firm they as they must get the majority of their client from this. The Motor Ombudsman has refused to respond to this or my complaint about it and related issues for weeks now, far exceeding their own deadlines from response.

I Reported Automotive Consulting Engineers (ACE) to their membership and awarding body THE IMI, due to the massive amount of damage this company caused me and the law firm I was using, that had gone on over a 6 or more month period. (see the review below)
The IMI accepted all I said as it could not be disputed as I provided the with all the correspondence to prove it. They also witnessed it themselves first hand when ACE promised them they would comply with directs but then refused to actually do so.
I also provide ACE with all the 1* Trustpilot and Google reviews.
They accepted this was a breach of professional standards, but said they would not consider it serious misconduct, as I was the only person that have complained directly to them.
I explained I had had to do much research and spend a lot of time finding out The IMI gave ACE their membership and that there was a complaint procedure.
I told them they had not received more complaints for this very reason but they still effectively disconsidered the 1* reviews which make up the vast majority of all reviews of ACE.
I also told them that their policy did not state their decision to take away accreditation would be based purely on the number of complaints they received.
I told them this was wrong given that most consumers were unaware the IMI had a procedure they could refer a complaint about ACE to.
Also I stated this was wrong because the IMI's complaint procedure does not state this is what they will bases their decision on and disregard other factors, this is despite them accepting their complaint process needs a complete overhaul as a result of my contact with them.
They also refused to give any detail of number of members they have ever banned and stopped from using the IMI's logo to promote and legitimise their companies.
It seem the IMI are not as transparent as they claim and that even when a member is bring their organisation into disrepute they will not even suspend them let alone remove their from their membership.

Below is my review of ACE setting out their many failings and problems that have cause the vast majority of reviewers and no doubt many other that have not left reviews.Complaint to their Regulator The Institute of the Motor industry
As you can see from the many 1 star reviews on Google, and 1 star reviews on Trustpilot here which was used as evidence the investigation by the IMI, Mr Thomas of ACE is anything but reliable or capable of providing reasonable customer service.
Should you find yourself in this position contact their regulator The Institute of the Motor industry tel (0)1992 511521, they are independent and can investigate complaints against Mr Thomas, not surprisingly Mr Thomas will not make you aware of this.
I did this under their complaint about professional standards. Despite the IMI being provided with the thousands of complaints on Google reviews and Trustpilot they did not consider it gross misconduct so he was not suspended or struct off. However they have told me this is only because mine was the first complaint they had received, why they prioritise this over thousands of bad reviews I can't understand and they won't explain.
However they said if they receive more complaint he will likely have his membership terminated. so if you are one of those that were treated in the same way as me please raise a complaint with the IMI. tel (0)1992 511521
The IMI did write to him stating he had breached their professional standards so the complaint was upheld against him, this I reviewed today.
Graham Thomas inspected my car which he stated had a fault due to a design flaw / fault due to Porsche faulty manufacturing. It took weeks to get him to produce the report, and when asked to follow through and provide a response to Porsche trying to belittle in competence and impartiality Mr Thoms would not respond despite many request by text email and phone.
He and his firm would not investigate a complaint against their poor service.
He continued this refusal to communicate with a large law firm after making appointments he would not attend or meet and request to do so.
He even told a senior member of the IMI that he would communicate and then refused to, so they saw it first hand.
The whole point of getting a report from ACE was to get them to represent me and the law firm in court, otherwise his report is useless.
———————————————-
You can see the rest of my review on Trustpilot

I requested a quote from Katie, on the basis of 100 guests (know this would alter nearer the time.
The quote was for 4-5 canapes per person on her recommendation and £14 per person for a cold buffet. There was also a cost for 3 staff from 5-11pm.
We were given prices per canape and per person for the cold buffet. We used this a out budget and it was similar to others.
However when it came to paying the deposit we were told that prices were all subject to VAT adding a further £500-£600 to the budget.
Reluctantly we continued with this, a week before the event on 7th june, the balance was due, at this stage Katie told me she would add on 3 % if I was to pay by mastercard. This I had never been advised of but could not go without a cater for the event that was due on a little over a weeks time.
I have since looked this up and it is illegal to apply these charges for using mastercard and has been since 2018, Mastercard merchant rules prohibit this.
The ladies that waited on the night were very nice and helpful, and the food was fine.
However the amount of food Katie advised us to order was massively over what the average person would consume, there was more than half the food left over at the end of the party.
We had to get rid of it, and gave to to a retirement home opposite the venue the following morning, but again it seems clear that any tactic will be used to add cost to the catering and add unfair charges that are not made known in advance.

I bought a leather jacket from them RRP £1870 supposedly luxury high end product.
It arrived and was faulty. I asked them to collect it and provide a replacement, not much to ask you might think, considering the damage was their fault and home delivery was part of the price.
They refused to do so and told me I could become an unpaid member for their staff, driving round to get a box and them to the post office to send it to them.
I refused as this is a breach of the consumer protection act and the Consumer protection from unfair trading regulations. They tried to ague these regulation do not require them to collect faulty or incorrect items without adverse inconvenience and expense to the consumer, just so they could be right and save their company money and administration. They do this to all their customers they told me so.
So I got my bank to do a chargeback under the mastercard rules. This states the customer must make the item available for collection and the merchant must collect it.
Belstaff continued to refuse to collect it so my claim went in to get the full refund.
Belstaff challenged it time and again trying again to intentionally misinterpret the rules that applied to the transaction in their own favour.
The bank was clear all along as Belstaff had refused to collect the item as required the had failed to abide by the Mastercard rules and I go all my money back and they never did collect the jacket.
I have asked them if as a result of them having had it confirmed they are required to collect faulty or incorrect items from customer homes, but I doubt they will do so or even respond, as refusing to comply with these consumer rules costs them money and time arranging it, but you would think this sort of customer service would be something a company selling high end expensive products would so as standard instead of having to prove them wrong by using their bank!

I bought a leather jacket from them RRP £1870 supposedly luxury high end product.
It arrived and was faulty. I asked them to collect it and provide a replacement, not much to ask you might think, considering the damage was their fault and home delivery was part of the price.
They refused to do so and told me I could become an unpaid member for their staff, driving round to get a box and them to the post office to send it to them.
I refused as this is a breach of the consumer protection act and the Consumer protection from unfair trading regulations. They tried to ague these regulation do not require them to collect faulty or incorrect items without adverse inconvenience and expense to the consumer, just so they could be right and save their company money and administration. They do this to all their customers they told me so.
So I got my bank to do a chargeback under the mastercard rules. This states the customer must make the item available for collection and the merchant must collect it.
Belstaff continued to refuse to collect it so my claim went in to get the full refund.
Belstaff challenged it time and again trying again to intentionally misinterpret the rules that applied to the transaction in their own favour.
The bank was clear all along as Belstaff had refused to collect the item as required the had failed to abide by the Mastercard rules and I go all my money back and they never did collect the jacket.
I have asked them if as a result of them having had it confirmed they are required to collect faulty or incorrect items from customer homes, but I doubt they will do so or even respond, as refusing to comply with these consumer rules costs them money and time arranging it, but you would think this sort of customer service would be something a company selling high end expensive products would so as standard instead of having to prove them wrong by using their bank!

As you can see from the thousands of 1 star reviews on Google, thousands of 1 star reviews on Trustpilot here which was used as evidence the investigation by the IMI, Mr Thomas of ACE is anything but reliable or capable of providing reasonable customer service.
Should you find yourself in this position contact their regulator The Institute of the Motor industry tel (0)1992 511521, they are independent and can investigate complaints against Mr Thomas, not surprisingly Mr Thomas will not make you aware of this.
I did this under their complaints about professional standards. Despite the IMI being provided with the thousands of complaints on Google reviews and Trustpilot they did not consider it gross misconduct so he was not suspended or struct off. However they have told me this is only because mine was the first complaint they had received, why they prioritise this over thousands of bad reviews I can't understand and they won't explain.
However they said if they receive more complaint he will likely have his membership terminated. so if you are one of those that were treated in the same way as me please raise a complaint with the IMI. tel (0)1992 511521
The IMI did write to him stating he had breached their professional standards so the complaint was upheld against him, this I reviewed today.
Graham Thomas inspected my car which he stated had a fault due to a design flaw / fault due to Porsche faulty manufacturing. It took weeks to get him to produce the report, and when asked to follow through and provide a response to Porsche trying to belittle in competence and impartiality Mr Thoms would not respond despite many request by text email and phone.
He and his firm would not investigate a complaint against their poor service.
He continued this refusal to communicate with a large law firm after making appointments he would not attend or meet and request to do so.
He even told a senior member of the IMI that he would communicate and then refused to, so they saw it first hand.
The whole point of getting a report from ACE was to get them to represent me and the law firm in court, otherwise his report is useless.

As you can see from the thousands of 1 star reviews on Google, thousands of 1 star reviews on Trustpilot here which was used as evidence the investigation by the IMI, Mr Thomas of ACE is anything but reliable or capable of providing reasonable customer service.
Should you find yourself in this position contact their regulator The Institute of the Motor industry tel (0)1992 511521, they are independent and can investigate complaints against Mr Thomas, not surprisingly Mr Thomas will not make you aware of this.
I did this under their complaint about professional standards. Despite the IMI being provided with the thousands of complaints on Google reviews and Trustpilot they did not consider it gross misconduct so he was not suspended or struct off. However they have told me this is only because mine was the first complaint they had received, why they prioritise this over thousands of bad reviews I can't understand and they won't explain.
However they said if they receive more complaint he will likely have his membership terminated. so if you are one of those that were treated in the same way as me please raise a complaint with the IMI. tel (0)1992 511521
The IMI did write to him stating he had breached their professional standards so the complaint was upheld against him, this I reviewed today.
Graham Thomas inspected my car which he stated had a fault due to a design flaw / fault due to Porsche faulty manufacturing. It took weeks to get him to produce the report, and when asked to follow through and provide a response to Porsche trying to belittle in competence and impartiality Mr Thoms would not respond despite many request by text email and phone.
He and his firm would not investigate a complaint against their poor service.
He continued this refusal to communicate with a large law firm after making appointments he would not attend or meet and request to do so.
He even told a senior member of the IMI that he would communicate and then refused to, so they saw it first hand.
The whole point of getting a report from ACE was to get them to represent me and the law firm in court, otherwise his report is useless.
———————————————-
Response to Mr Thomas’s reply to my review, he was asked many times to contact me repeatedly, that went on for months, he did agree to have a call or teams meeting with my Solicitors they tried over the course of many weeks to get this done, Mr Thomas repeatedly agreed he would but never did, I have copies time the emails from the solicitors, I believe theses and the solicitors over someone with hundreds of 1* reviews.
It always is hard to get a motor manufacturer to admit fault or design faults, if he wasn’t already aware of this where has he been all these years? That’s the point of them going into a more detailed report and testing as other experts are now willing to do and then act as an expert witness, as I intended to do with Mr Thomas, but could never get him to communicate.
He caused me and the solicitors to spend many hours going through many other experts that had capacity to act for us, and causing many months delays to the progression of the legal case, totally unreliable and in breach of the IMI’s professional standards.
If what I was saying is untrue as Mr Thomas says why would the IMI have upheld my complaint against home for breaching their professional standards?
Again if her does this to you raise a complaint with the IMI.

I first contacted PS on 26/3/2025 over a month ago to make my first claim since I took out the policy almost 2 years ago.
There was a lot of back and forth getting the claim submitted. It was then accepted and the repair was not appointed for over a month from then! I was told by PS that due to the value of the car I should have a full acid dip process done for the best finish.
Then in mid April I clip a curb with a different wheel, and contacted PS to add this to the repair when the other one was to be done, as I had been told the car would be put up in stands while the wheel was taken away for 2-3 days, and I didn't want to g through not having the car twice, I told them the same process needed to be done on both wheels.
I was not contacted by the repaired about the 2nd wheel, and the date for the repair was a week away. Ps Told me they would sort it out.
Every day for the next 5 days I had to call them as I had no contact. I raised a complaint about the inconvenience.
Finally I was called by Just Wheel the repaired that told me the reason they had not called me was because PS had not linked the claims together, and they started blaming each other.
12 hours before the arrival of just wheel I was called and told they would arrive at 7am, they had had over 1 month to inform me of the time of the appointment. I told them that is was inconvenient and unsociable hours and they should be operating within the same hours of as PS, they canceled the appointment (added this to the complaint)
I call PS explained the above, they told me they would get another company to call me, I amended the agent that it had to be the same full acid dip process as had been agreed, she said she would make sure this was done. I was called by another company but they don't provide the acid dip process!!
Back to PS was met with hostility and denials. The saga goes on, supposedly their complaint team will sort it out now, I won't hold my breath.

A group of us went there last night for a special occasion and booked more than 2 months in advance for 7.30pm.
The would not allow us to take our table until 20 minute after the reserved time, and then made us wait 2 hours from our booking time to serve our food, no apology whatsoever, but served many other tables around us some with large groups on them with 30 minutes.
I would not recommend them and won't use the again.
Also didn’t serve many items we order but charged us for them anyway,

This historic site is lovely, great landmark.
A lot of work goes in from the committee and volunteers to maintain this relic and keep it looking as good as it does.
It is all done for Charity for everyone to enjoy.

Airbnb have gone way down hill.
I have spent over 3 1/2 hours today on 3 separate calls with promised calls from them not being made.
For no reason I had been locked out of my account, it worked fine a few days before when I booked a house to rent and paid 50% upfront!
They are useless and can hardly understand a word that you are saying.
This is since they relocated their Ireland office to Asia somewhere. They just don't have a clue and don't care.
I was once given a partial refund for problems I was caused on a previous booking, they now say this is never done under any circumstances.
Also they record all the calls but when asked for copies they say their own policy doesn't allow them to and overrides GDPR law!! just shows how little they know.

I ordered a jacket from Cotswold outdoor online store, having used their filters to select an insulated and waterproof jacket.
It displayed the Montane Mens Phase Pro Shell Jacket.
When it arrived it was immediately obvious that it was not insulated.
I called Cotswold outdoor, they accepted their website did not return the correct results from the filters selected, and only because I had proved it to them (as they replicated it their end) over the phone they would collect it from my home free of charge, normally they would consider the customer responsible and charge them or make they drive to a post office etc and pay to return the products. It is likely many other customers have been charged to return for the same reason as they did not know to ask for the company to cover this.

I then ordered Montane Mens Phase Pro Shell Jacket instead, after having spoken to a product expert at the cambridge office,as I had had a dispute with A senior member of management in the pasted, where he blamed me for selecting the wrong size and wanted to charge me to exchange for the size that fitted. (I asked him to raise this with management and amend their returns policy with senior management, but they refused to respond, instead continuing to charge customers instead, even though I had demonstrated how they were acting in breach of the consumer protection act) I had demonstrated to him how even within the same brand the sizing can be different and so customers end up the wrong size when they have done all they could to avoid it.(even when using the size guide on their website).
The product expert at cambridge told me I should order the same size as other products I had ordered from them. I told them I had an XL RAB jacket she said to order the product I wanted in the same size. She agreed that the sizing varies within brands and is even more variable between brands.
When the new jacket Patagonia Mens Lone Mountain Parka arrive in XL as advised, it was massive and way too big for me despite the directions from the product expert.
Again I called and managed to persuade the person I spoke to not to charge me again for an exchange, they said they were doing this only as discretionary and that their returns policy would normally require customers to pay even though they had used the size guide and they ended up being wrong.
I have had extensive exchanges with a senior manager and asked they they amend their returns policy as it is in breach of the Consumer Protection act 2015, but she refuses. I have asked that I get a response from the senior management team with a categorical upholding of my formal complaint or an a rejection so I can take it to the retail ADR, but she has said I am unlikely to get one.
This is a requirement of Uk retailers, even the Cotswold outdoor's complaints procedure does not include details or direction of how to refer your complaint onto the Retail ADR, this is known as prescribed rights and must be contained in retailers complaints procedures if you reach the end of their complaints procedure and are not satisfied and want to take it up with an independent body.
It seems they want to be right even when they are wrong and don't want customers to be able to get an independent outcome.
Their returns policy is in breach of the consumer protection act 2015

see the relevant sections ( I provided this to Cotswold Outdoor but they chose to ignore this)

23Right to repair or replacement

(1)This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

Section 57 below states a trader cannot limit liability by writing its own terms and conditions that are not compliant with the CPA 2015, so stating it does not qualify for home collection because Cotswold outdoor have narrowed the definition of fit for purpose not to include the wrong size, is in breach of the CPA 2015.
55. Right to repeat performance

(2)If the consumer requires such repeat performance, the trader—

(a)

must provide it within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer; and

- made it clear in my call bot expressly and by implication you cannot exclude yourself from this being the purpose for which it was purchased. See from my email. (c)before the contract is made, the consumer makes known to the credit-broker (expressly or by implication) any particular purpose for which the consumer is contracting for the goods.

Also see section 63 6 (A), 6 1, and 4

Placed an order for an expensive wedding ring, was told it was in stock paid in full then to be told it wasn’t in stock.
They even admitted this in a chat response from "Charlotte" it stated:
"At the moment, our website does not display a live stock count for each size, which may lead to the ring being advertised as available for next-day delivery for all sizes. Please rest assured that we are actively working on improving our website to implement a live stock count feature." This is know as bait and switch which is a breach of the consumer protection act 2015.

When I placed the order I was told it was in stock and I'd get it next day, but then they said it wasn't and they would have to make it specially, I was only told this after they had my money. (again bait and switch), a few days later they then forced me to agree to additional terms and conditions, again this is a breach of consumer regulations by unilaterally imposing new terms and conditions.
I placed the order on 5th December, I still don't have the ring (yet the have had my approximately £4k for nearly 6 weeks, which was meant to be presented for Christmas, this company can ruin even the most special occasions.

Another of the consumer regulations they breach comes when they entice their customer to buy their products based on the unsubstantiated RRP prices, in my instance they stated the RRP was £6,739 and their price was £3,665.
I asked them to demonstrate how they arrived at the RRp of £6,739, so I could decide if I actually was getting a good deal, they refused to be transparent. They sad the RRp was the "estimated hight street value", this means nothing as they would not state how the arrived at that estimate. I asked for the data used to reach that estimate, they again refused. They said the data was classified. This is a breach of consumer regulations to use RRP to entice customers then refuse to provide the calculations and data to demonstrate this. It is also a breach of the Advertising standards Authority's advertising codes.

I raised this and the delays in providing the ring in early december I still have had no ring and no response to my complaints, which they say they will deal with winin 10 days.

Their phone lines have been down for over a since beginning of December, the recorded message says it due to a technical issues. A company this size would not allow this communications contractors to allow this to happen, it is obvious given the delays I have suffered in getting responses and waiting 4 times longer to get the ring than I paid for, the phone line have been taken down by them as they are massively under staffed. Yet they treat their customers like idiots and expect them to believe it is due to technical issues.

The ASA are currently doing an advertising campaign on tv and radio about how they screen adverts to make sure they are legal, decent, honest and truthful and compliant with the advertising codes, the knowingly all millions of adverts per year to be published that are misleading in relation to used cars and not stating if they were commercially used or owned.
They are mis-advertising themselves, will they investigate thier own ads for misleading consumers?
They do not ensure ads are legal, decent, honest and truthful as the promise as they made the following ruling against Glyn Hopkins and Fiats Chrysler corporation and the entire motor industry
This was upheld against the entire motor industry not one motor manufacturer or trader has complied with the ruling, and the ASA refuses to enforce non compliance with the ruling, supposedly because of the amount of money the ASA gets from the motor industry’s advertising revenue.
Try not to tell others to comply with advertising regulations if you are not prepared to do so yourselves!!

I bought a Porsche that was 9 months old, there have been many problems with it including double the mileage that advertised and agreed, damage to the wheel and tyre (which they tried to blame me for doing in the 5 days I had before I noticed it until I obtain records that the Bolton dealership had knowing done while owning the car) Non N rated tyre fitted which is a Porsche requirement. They chose not to carry out the 111 point Porsche check prior to handover (meaning I won't qualify for the extended 10-15 year warranty)
But more recently I reported that I had excessive condensation inside the car and lights.
It went into to the Cambridge Porsche dealership. They were instructed by Porsche GB to tell me that it was a characteristic of the car.
I had an independent inspection done by Automotive Consulting Engineers as the Financial Ombudsman directed me to.
The report stated that the condensation was excessive and was a design fault, and that other manufactures car of similar design and specification do not do this.
I passed the report on to Porsche GB and to Krishan Bodhani Chief Executive Officer of Porsche.
The response I received was a disgrace, they refused to accept the findings of the independent and impartial report produced by ACE.
I was told by the Porsche assistance / AA recovery driver that this is happening all over the country and not just to Tycan ( which Porsche is dealing with as a recall) but on other models like mine which is a Caymen, but also on Boxsters and 911's.
Porsche are now relying on this being normal even though it will, as ACE confirmed, cause damage to the electric, switches and fabrics.
Porsche are saying this is allowed for in there technical bulletin, This they refuse to supply in order to see if this is contained there.
Even if it is contained there, this document was never provided to me before purchase, which makes it redundant as it is introducing new terms and conditions after the contract was created, so an u fair term in a consumer contract.
They are no doubt doing this to other customer and possibly many, in order to avoid another costly recall.

This Company is ethically and morally bankrupt
Since writing this review I have seen this on facebook, Zamberlan now sell their own orthotic insoles, after having used me inserting orthotic insoles into my Boots to the cause of the failing linings in court, Unbelievable dishonesty and hypocrisy. Go to the bottom of this review for the description from their facebook page.
These are the same depths and design as the orthotic insoles I used, that they blamed for the failing of their product.
---------------------------------------------------------
I have purchased boots twice from one of Zamberlan's UK approved retailers (legend Footwear) I also tried to resolve the issue with the UK Distributor Chris Davidson Agency, and Zamberlan itself.
Both pair developed holes in the inner lining after just 2-3 months
This ended up going to court, the defence all above relied on was that the fact that I had used orthotic heel insoles.
Millions of people use these insole for health reason.
I have used these in Salomon walking boots, and with Scarpa and Timberlands. This has never caused them to fail.
None of the information on any of these companies above state these should not be used with their Boots, their warranty does not prohibit it either.
So for them to claim after the even without any warning or mention of this in their sales or warranty literature this is not permissible and will invalidate any warranty, is to claim the consumer is at fault for having a health condition that requires them to use orthotics and at fault for the companies not setting this out in their warranty and sales literature.
If you need to use orthotics or only want to deal with reputable and ethical companies, don't buy this band or buy from these companies.

This description is from Zamberlan outdoor's own facebook page and post

Best combo for a trekking, hiking, or backpacking experience? The AMELIA GTX women's mountain boots and CUSHION COMFORT FOOTBEDS, the best choice when you need great shock absorption.

The greatest combo for a trekking, hiking, or backpacking experience? Women's mountain boots AMELIA GTX, and CUSHION COMFORT FOOTBEDS, the best choice when you need great shock absorption.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Shark asked for more info to make it look like they are responsible and will take action to correct the faulty design, I am confident this is merely an exercise in PR.
------------------------------------------------------------
My previous Shark vacuum packed up in January.

I bought the following models:

Shark Anti Hair Wrap Cordless Pet Vacuum (the small wheels after using the vacuum only once were already tangled up with hair and fluff. I only have a 2 bedroom house the majority of it is hard floor. The 2 dogs I have don't moult as they are hypoallergenic. Yet "Anti hair wrap for pets, had already clogged up. This new design does not allow you to remove those small runner wheel, as the previous one did. I you applied enough force to putt out the blockages it would snap the plastic around them.
I call called Shark and explained the issue, they agreed those wheels are no longer removable, and I would not be able to maintain the appliance. They agreed to send a different model and collect the one I had. I had a video call, I was told the replacement would have wheels that are removable. (though tried to charge me shipping !! This is again consumer regulations, having insisted on this they waived the charge.
I then received Shark Stratos Anti Hair Wrap Plus Pet Pro Cordless Vacuum. This replacement did not have removable wheels either. I contacted them again and spoke to a Team Leader Courtney. She agreed to send out another model and collect the Stratos.
I received the Shark Classic Anti Hair Wrap Cordless Stick Pet Vacuum. The wheels were not removable either, they are attached to a plastic section that is removable, but the wheels do not meaning the same problem exists.
I raised a complaint and asked Courtney to pass this to the senior management team as their products were unfit for purpose.
I was promised the would deal with this and overcome that issue. Instead they just refused and have not amended the design, meaning those models are all being sold and are unfit for purpose.
See some of the exchanges below

Hello Ashley,

Thanks for contacting SharkNinja!

Further to your email of 25 March and following your earlier contacts of 14 and 15 March 2024, I would kindly refer you to our response of 14 March 2024 and confirm the details laid out do constitute our final response on this matter.

Your initial queries have been answered in full and as no further information requires additional attention, I confirm your concerns have been processed in line with our full complaints process.

Kind Regards

Thanks

SharkNinja EMEA head office product and legal teams

Hello Courtney,

This business decision makes the products unfit for purpose for the reasons I gave you over the phone and that you and your colleagues accepted.

WHat happened during testing even the most rudimentary tests would have shown that after only light use these runner wheels get blocked / clogged, why did they launch it?

They already knew from the previous model I had that the previous design allowed those wheels to me removed on a spring mechanism to allow the fluff / clogging to be removed.

The new model you supplied, does have an assembly that the wheels are on that can be removed so you can get to both sides of those wheels, but until they get clogged, I will not know if the blockage can be removed without having to apply so much force as to risk damaging those components.

This is not the not the same as the one I had before where the wheels clipped out on a spring mechanism.

Will I as promised hear back from the specialist team and management about the above design flaw, and the Consumer Protection act regulation breaches and the Consumer Protection from unfair trading regulations breaches, as you promised in our call.

Did you request a copy of our call, as discussed in addition to the one I had with you colleagues before?

Regards

Ashley

Hello Ashley,

Thanks for contacting SharkNinja!

I have raised your concern to our product specialist team and response is:

The design is part of a business decision. Rest assured this has been fed back to the Product Marketing Team.

Really hope you enjoy the new unit, any concerns please do not hesitate to get back in touch.

Courtney
Team Leader


Hello Ashley,

Thanks for contacting SharkNinja!

I have raised your concern to our product specialist team and response is:

The design is part of a business decision. Rest assured this has been fed back to the Product Marketing Team.

Really hope you enjoy the new unit, any concerns please do not hesitate to get back in touch.

Courtney
Team Leader

Since writing this review I have seen this on facebook, Zamberlan now sell their own orthotic insoles, after having used me inserting orthotic insoles into my Boots to be the cause of the failing linings in court, Unbelievable dishonesty and hypocrisy. Go to the bottom of this review for the description from their facebook page.
These are the same depths and design as the orthotic insoles I used, that they blamed for the failing of their product.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I have purchased boots twice from one of Zamberlan's UK approved retailers (legend Footwear) I also tried to resolve the issue with the UK Distributor Chris Davidson Agency, and Zamberlan itself.
Both pair developed holes in the inner lining after just 2-3 months
This ended up going to court, the defence all above relied on was that the fact that I had used orthotic heel insoles.
Millions of people use these insole for health reason.
I have used these in Salomon walking boots, and with Scarpa and Timberlands. This has never caused them to fail.
None of the information on any of these companies above state these should not be used with their Boots, their warranty does not prohibit it either.
So for them to claim after the even without any warning or mention of this in their sales or warranty literature this is not permissible and will invalidate any warranty, is to claim the consumer is at fault for having a health condition that requires them to use orthotics and at fault for the companies not setting this out in their warranty and sales literature.
If you need to use orthotics or only want to deal with reputable and ethical companies, don't buy this band or buy from these companies.

This description is from Zamberlan outdoor's own facebook page and post

Best combo for a trekking, hiking, or backpacking experience? The AMELIA GTX women's mountain boots and CUSHION COMFORT FOOTBEDS, the best choice when you need great shock absorption.

The greatest combo for a trekking, hiking, or backpacking experience? Women's mountain boots AMELIA GTX, and CUSHION COMFORT FOOTBEDS, the best choice when you need great shock absorption.
---------------------------------------------------------
Below is my response the the company's reply:

I don't see what the issue with this order being in 2021 and complaint in 2022, I first raided it with amazon, they would not deal with it on the second occasion. I consider the Zamberlan products are not fit for purpose for a large section of its customers, as the companies has blamed the 2 failed pair of its on the orthotics,which many people need to use for medical reasons, and there is nothing in its warranty of product details prohibiting their use.

And if fact as my review says Zamberlan has now launched its own inserts for sale to be used with its products that are almost and identical profile tot those that I inserted!

It is said the the product was extensively used, if extensive use of £320 pair of boots is 3-4 mile dog walks per week for 2-3 months then they are admitting their product are not hard wearing or really fit for purpose.

The design of Zamberlan boots I purchase had the soles stitched to the upper, with the intention that the soles could be replaced when worn out. The soles were bearly worn before the linings failed, so how it would ever have get to the stage of being able to replace the soles.

I have a pair of Scarpa Terra 11 GTX walking boots, which cost almost half the price of the Zamberlan ones I have been using these for 3 years with no problem and have the orthotics inserts in them, yes they are worn now but I ma still using them and they have lasted 20-30 times longer even though they were a fraction of the price of the Zamberlans whereas both of very expensive Zamberlan once only lasted 2-3 months each.


I let them have the boots back for inspection that I had paid £320 for, which I could at least have worn for gardening, but they never returned them!

Now as you can see they are threatening me because I have written an honest and factual account of what has happened.

Since writing this review I have seen this on facebook, Zamberlan now sell their own orthotic insoles, after having used me inserting orthotic insoles into my Boots to the cause of the failing linings in court, Unbelievable dishonesty and hypocrisy. Go to the bottom of this review for the description from their facebook page.
These are the same depths and design as the orthotic insoles I used, that they blamed for the failing of their product.
---------------------------------------------------------
I have purchased boots twice from one of Zamberlan's UK approved retailers (legend Footwear) I also tried to resolve the issue with the UK Distributor Chris Davidson Agency, and Zamberlan itself.
Both pair developed holes in the inner lining after just 2-3 months
This ended up going to court, the defence all above relied on was that the fact that I had used orthotic heel insoles.
Millions of people use these insole for health reason.
I have used these in Salomon walking boots, and with Scarpa and Timberlands. This has never caused them to fail.
None of the information on any of these companies above state these should not be used with their Boots, their warranty does not prohibit it either.
So for them to claim after the even without any warning or mention of this in their sales or warranty literature this is not permissible and will invalidate any warranty, is to claim the consumer is at fault for having a health condition that requires them to use orthotics and at fault for the companies not setting this out in their warranty and sales literature.
If you need to use orthotics or only want to deal with reputable and ethical companies, don't buy this band or buy from these companies.

This description is from Zamberlan outdoor's own facebook page and post

Best combo for a trekking, hiking, or backpacking experience? The AMELIA GTX women's mountain boots and CUSHION COMFORT FOOTBEDS, the best choice when you need great shock absorption.

The greatest combo for a trekking, hiking, or backpacking experience? Women's mountain boots AMELIA GTX, and CUSHION COMFORT FOOTBEDS, the best choice when you need great shock absorption.