As my search for a pair of OEM rear spats for a Shortie came up dry, I decided to do some hunting on the Net.

 

I came across a US firm called Ionic Dynamics who, believe it or not, make replicas of the very spats I was looking for! :D

 

See here.

 

Emails were sent, prices were agreed and an order was placed. It got stuck in Customs for a few days and I had to pay an extra £18 to get them delivered. They arrived this afternoon! :D

 

Sooo... you can only imagine my disappointment and horror when I compared them to the OEM set off a LWB I have here and found that they're identical! :(

 

Yep, they seem to have modelled them off the 2+2 rears, not the Shortie ones. :( :(

 

I've sent them an email to make them aware of this but I'm gutted. If I'd known, I'd have saved my money!!

 

So, all in all, that was a complete waste of time and money!! Sick as a chip.....

I'm not sure it's that 'black and white' Stephen. The spats are 2+0 specific and will only fit a 2+0, however they have seemingly been moulded from 2+2 spats (which are flexible rubber) and have been modified to fit the 2+0 only.

 

Yeah, plus the fact that the picture is of the actual product sent (I believe) then it does start to get a little greyer round the edges.

What if the picture of the camel was in fact of a cow? :lol:

 

Sorry, shouldn't joke. It is a crappy situation and I for one will be very careful that I triple check anything I buy from overseas going forward.

Your quite right you shouldn't joke!

You're both "right" and you're both "wrong". Mistakes happen, no-one died or lost their house. Disappointing, OK; "gutted" - well, not like a kipper, anyway.

Are these exact copies of the SWB OEM ones? No. Different shape and different material (fiberglass clearly stated).

Will they fit the SWB and not the LWB? Yes.

 

Is the vendor under any legal obligation to refund shipping? No.

Would the vendor be under any legal obligation to refund shipping if they were in UK? No (see distance selling regs - purchaser is liable for shipping)

Would a US vendor be under any legal obligation in the UK to refund a UK puchaser? No. (Unless you want to report as criminal fraud and get plod on your side).

 

US vendor has offered to refund price ex-shipping and FunkySi has offered to take back on your behalf. OK, not ideal but pretty good compromise.

 

I speak as someone who bought the wrong propshaft from the US because I did not check part nos and turbo/na carefully enough. Was it the vendor's fault? No.

 

Think of it as an educational bendy thing (thanks, Terry).

You're both "right" and you're both "wrong". Mistakes happen, no-one died or lost their house. Disappointing, OK; "gutted" - well, not like a kipper, anyway.

Are these exact copies of the SWB OEM ones? No. Different shape and different material (fiberglass clearly stated).

Will they fit the SWB and not the LWB? Yes.

 

Is the vendor under any legal obligation to refund shipping? No.

Would the vendor be under any legal obligation to refund shipping if they were in UK? No (see distance selling regs - purchaser is liable for shipping)

Would a US vendor be under any legal obligation in the UK to refund a UK puchaser? No. (Unless you want to report as criminal fraud and get plod on your side).

 

US vendor has offered to refund price ex-shipping and FunkySi has offered to take back on your behalf. OK, not ideal but pretty good compromise.

 

I speak as someone who bought the wrong propshaft from the US because I did not check part nos and turbo/na carefully enough. Was it the vendor's fault? No.

 

Think of it as an educational bendy thing (thanks, Terry).

 

The highlighted part is where, in the original description, these were described as being direct replicas of the OEM 2+0 rear mudguards. Therefore, in my opinion at least, the parts are not what was advertised.

 

Your situation would be a different story if you'd (for example) purchased something explicitly stated to be a LWB propshaft and the seller sent you a SWB one instead. You say you didn't check part numbers carefully enough, whereas I relied on an advert that clearly stated what the parts were and what original parts they'd been moulded from.

Taken from the Consumer Contracts Regulations (which replaced the Distance Selling Regulations in June this year):

 

Cancelling goods

 

Your right to cancel Your right to cancel an order for goods starts the moment you place your order and ends 14 days from the day you receive your goods.

 

If your order consists of multiple goods, the 14 days runs from when you get the last of the batch.

 

This 14 day period is the time you have to decide whether to cancel, you then have a further 14 days to actually send the goods back.

 

Your right to a refund You should get a refund within 14 days of either the trader getting the goods back, or you providing evidence of having returned the goods (for example, a proof of postage receipt from the post office), whichever is the sooner.

 

A deduction can be made if the value of the goods has been reduced as a result of you handling the goods more than was necessary.

 

The extent to which a customer can handle the goods is the same as it would be if you were assessing them in a shop.

 

Refunding the cost of delivery The trader has to refund the basic delivery cost of getting the goods to you in the first place, so if you opted for enhanced service eg guaranteed next day, it only has to refund the basic cost.

these were described as being direct replicas of the OEM 2+0 rear mudguards.

They may have changed their website but right now, it says

proud to offer our version of the J' spec rear mudguards

To me, that is not claiming "direct replica".

And, under the liability section

The liability of IonicDynamics.com is limited to the original purchase price of the merchandise.

You ordered and received a set of rear spats which would fit a SWB. You got that. Is it an exact copy of the OEM for SWB? No. Did you ask them in your communication if it was?

Clearly there's a mistake in the communication between you and vendor. In law, I regret to say, they have done nothing wrong (caveat emptor). They have been OK in offering a purchase price refund which matches what they would have been liable for if they were a UK vendor and you claimed your legal (UK & EU) rights under Distance Selling Regs.

Looks like an honest mistake both ends. Learn from it and move on is what I'd do.

Taken from the Consumer Contracts Regulations (which replaced the Distance Selling Regulations in June this year):

If you want to rely on the Consumer Contracts Regulations (which replaced the Distance Selling Regulations in June this year) you need to buy from a vendor covered by those regulations (i.e. in the UK - or the rest of the EU as applies). These regs do not apply to US or other worldwide consumer contracts.

As Gary posted before the website was changed, the parts offered were a direct replica of the original J spec rear mudguards, specifically for the SWB Z32. Therefore that's exactly what I believed I'd be getting.

 

There were no part numbers to mix up or options for me to select the wrong one.

 

Let me put it another way: if a breaker offered a 99 Spec front bumper, but when it was delivered it turned out to be the 89 Spec one, the buyer would be unhappy.

 

If the seller's response was along the lines of "it came off a 1999 car so it must be the right one. And it'll fit your car so everything's fine" would anyone expect the buyer to just chalk it up to experience?

Agree with Mike on this. Appreciate that this is a pain in the ass, but I do believe it to be a genuine mistake. It has been sorted now. There is little/no JDM Z32 part availability in North America. I think possibly posting private correspondence wasn't the best thing to do, but also appreciate your frustration, however it is counter productive and would generally make a vendor less willing to continue dialogue.

 

José was quick to offer a refund, something that he didn't have any legal obligation to do.

 

This is just me playing devil's advocate. These spats have been sold in the US and I believe that as they actually fit and no one knows any better, they have been as they are. I'd also imagine that the spats supplied to José to mould were miss-sold to him and because there was no reference point and the fact that they fit, we have arrived at the situation as presented.

 

The website has been corrected and I've agreed with José to source some SWB rear spats and to try and get back the ones you currently have.

 

:)

Edited November 19, 201411 yr by Funkysi

....please don't shoot the messenger - I wanna help both parties. :) Something I don't have to either as it isn't really my problem, but I want to helo a valued fellow member and trader and also an internatiobal vendor

 

:)

I've never suggested that it wasn't a genuine mistake. But the fact remains that he sold items that weren't what he described.

 

Ok, Si - I'll ask you: if you buy a part for your car and it's not what it was described as, would you be happy or prepared to be out of pocket over it?

 

Yes, Jose's offered a refund for the parts themselves but I still end up $65 down with nothing to show for my troubles. I bought in good faith, based on his description, and it transpired that his knowledge of the parts he was replicating was sadly lacking.

 

So I have to pay $65, plus Customs charges, plus postage to get these spats down to you, just to increase his knowledge...?

No, I wouldn't be happy at all, but I think I would have gone about things a different way. Dragging a vendor's name through the mud and posting up private dialogue before coming to a conclusion wouldn't be how I'd have handled it. I'm a sales and marketing professional and I would have continued helpful dialogue, especially as they're 'community'. :).

 

I am looking at this from both points of view. You have a right to be disapointed and demanding of a refund, but work with the vendor in a respectable manner and things will come to a conclusion more swiftly. Any vender would be wanting that sort of help.

 

I am sure that if someone had an issue with one of your products, you'd rather it not had gone public until you'd been given a fair chance to sit down and look at all the facts. As far as José, these products were fit for use.

 

You are totally right to want to understand why this has happened, as is José and I believe you're very much entitled to a refund. I am going to try and help too, not thay I have to, but I think it helps as this is 'community'. :D

Edited November 19, 201411 yr by Funkysi

After reading through this thread I would say that in all honesty that mondo should be recording back every penny he ha spend in good will to purchase a Otten that is quite simply incorrectly advertised (Albeit unknown to the seller).

As a business it is 100% there place to ensure that the item is what It says it is and not a modified item that may fit other models.

As a consumer you are completely reliant on the seller to be correct in there advertisement and If a genuine error has occurred then sick it up and put it down as a learning curve and offer a simple replacement and pay for all postage cost incurred by the purchaser.

This is of course just my opinion.

I haven't dragged anyone's name through the mud here - I've simply brought attention to a serious error. Jose and I had already arrived at a "conclusion" inasmuch as he was prepared to refund the cost of the parts themselves, but nothing else.

 

That's not a satisfactory conclusion from my perspective as my only fault in this affair was taking his website's description as being accurate.

 

I gave Jose the facts. I sent him a link to one of Gary's posts that highlighted the difference between the two variants of rear spats. I even attached a picture of the two variants side by side (from Gary's post) to prove that my issue was a genuine one.

 

The response I got was unsatisfactory, where I was told that the parts had been moulded on a SWB bumper, therefore they would fit a SWB, therefore they were fine.

 

He then offered to waive any restocking fee (!) and offered the refund for the parts only.

 

All of the above was following my providing "the facts" about how his supplied parts weren't as described. Then, and only then, did I start to quote his responses on here.

 

As for how I'd like issues with my work handled: a customer damaged an armrest when he opened the packaging, so he asked me to provide another one (completely at my expense and without returning the damaged product to me). I did so. Without fuss or argument.

 

Another customer asked specifically for suede parts for his car. I made them and sent them over. He got in touch over a year later to tell me that they'd faded very badly in the sun and they now looked rubbish! I replaced them with Alcantara parts (as it's UV protected) completely at my expense.

 

I'm more than happy to work with Jose in a "respectable manner" but he seems to refuse to see my point, citing his lack of knowledge as the reason for the incorrect parts being advertised. When faced with that, what else am I supposed to do...?

 

I have no problems with Ionic Dynamics as a company or with Jose as a human being - the quality of the rear spats is very good and I can understand why customers would be happy to receive them. Unless they were expecting replicas of the 2+0 specific rear spats, in which case I'd expect customers (like myself) to be highly disappointed!

 

So what would people have me do here? Am I at fault for trusting a seller's knowledge of the parts he's replicating and marketing? Should I just chalk it up to experience? Should I perhaps take these newly-learned lessons and start applying them to my own trade...? I think not....

I see we're going round in circles here.

 

I am in agreement with you on pretty much everything. But as with any business, they have to protect their interests. Of course he's going to want to see evidence though as he needs to know why things aren't right. If I have kit out on site, I will need to see backuo evidence, photos and whatever before I can even sit and look at it. This thread had appeared before you'd gone anywhere with it.

 

As/when any company, when something goes wrong, the manufacturer needs to know why before going any further. They need to know exactly before they can address the issud. I wouldn't expect anything less. This is something I have to deal with on a weekly basis. More often than not, it is fitting error, so if anything else has happened, it needs to be addressed in details.

 

Appreciate you sent links and info, but it takes time to look at wrong product, especially when it's something thay's been a successful item.

 

Only when venders refuse to communicate or cooperafe would I escalate things. Neither of this fully happened in this instance.

 

You are TOTALLY and UTTERLY within your right to demand a refund dude, but I think you went about it slightly the wrong way, that's all.

 

 

:)

Edited November 20, 201411 yr by Funkysi

Only when venders refuse to communicate or cooperate would I escalate things. Neither of thisr happened in this instance.

 

I was told that the spats were moulded from a SWB, that they would fit a SWB and that therefore there was no significant issue. A partial refund was offered, which I declined, providing the necessary evidence and photographic proof to support my case. Then it sent silent.

 

I'd class that as refusal to co-operate...

 

But you're right - you and I are going round in circles here, and there's no need for it. As I've said, I'm quite prepared to send these spats down to you so that you can then confirm to Jose that I no longer have possession of them, but not before an agreement is reached between he and I regarding the amount of refund he's offering.

 

And on that note, I'm calling it a night.

Glad things are getting sorted though and I said that I will help where I can.....seems that has been missed too.....

As you found, there are UK laws to protect us as buyers, but unfortunately if you decide to go overseas then you do lose this protection.

 

We are in the UK, buying JDM parts from a US company...it's not straightforward. It sounds like Jose has probably never seem the genuine article and I guess this is the reason some dealers here refuse to deal with imports.

 

I really hope you do get a larger share back because you have done nothing wrong but suspect PayPal are your best chance....though not sure how they deal with overseas transactions.

Funksi, I'm sorry that you had to fill in for me, I was truly busy all day today and was unable to reply until I got home tonight.

 

Mondo, I never went silent, unlike some people I have a life outside of the internet, and have activities that prevent me from being online all of the time.

 

What bothers me the most about you is how you complain and intend to excuse your oversight by blaming my product description. You made this thread with the obviously intent to defame me and coerce me into providing you a full refund.

 

You also continue talking about your analogy, you forget one key element, you were shown pictures, your analogy mentions nothing about that.

 

Then you go on and on asking why I believe your demands are unfair. Well let me tell you buddy they are because you didn't do your "due diligence" to ascertain that these were in fact the design that you intended to purchase. You were fully aware of the possibility that these could be in fact LWB mudguards because you already have them on your car. Then you intend to loose nothing and transfer the blame onto me without recognizing your at fault here too.

 

We also have a BINDING agreement in our legal section that states what will happen when a customer wants to return something. Shipping charges are not refundable under any circumstance.

 

What is going to happen here is that I will issue you that full refund, not because you are right, just because I realize you will never understand my points and you will never accept your mistake. I already accepted my mistake.

 

My experience with you has truly been unpleasant, and will definitely have an impact on how I handle overseas orders from now on.

 

I have nothing more to say to you, and won't invest anymore time arguing with you. Please limit your future correspondence by just providing tracking info of the parcel being shipped to either me or Simon. Your refund will be sent back after the item is in our possession.

 

Regards!

 

Jose.

i agree with Richard on this , there are lessons to be learnt on both sides, Jose for his part has stood up to the plate and offred a refund but i can see Simons part in wanting to recoup the postage he was charged,

postage is a third party cost anyway ( a service provided to both seller and buyer ) and in this instance should be classed as not cost recoverable, unfortunate but logical, i hope it comes to a mutualy agreeable conclusion to you both, shame there are not so many British suppliers of Zed bits and those that do supply are quite costly. ( supply and demand i supose )

 

kaza

C'mon then... who thinks I'm being unreasonable here? I'm genuinely interested to know.

 

I don't think you're being unreasonable. If I read that items title and description I would expect to receive an EXACT replica of a 2+0's rear spats made out of fibreglass. Nothing else. I personally wouldn't want a modified set of LWB spats on my Zed, I think the SWB spats look alot better.

 

Jose, I appreciate you didn't intentionally set out to advertise them incorrectly, but you did. A full refund isn't to much to ask for. It's not like you've sold hundreds you have to refund, it's one customer! I appreciate you don't want to fork out for the return postage as well so why not set a price for them to be sold through the forum, (no ebay sellers fees) if they sell then give Mondo the difference?

 

On a more positive note I just had a good look through your website and you have some awesome products, I love the carbon fibre mirror shell replacements.

Funksi, I'm sorry that you had to fill in for me, I was truly busy all day today and was unable to reply until I got home tonight.

 

Mondo, I never went silent, unlike some people I have a life outside of the internet, and have activities that prevent me from being online all of the time.

 

What bothers me the most about you is how you complain and intend to excuse your oversight by blaming my product description. You made this thread with the obviously intent to defame me and coerce me into providing you a full refund.

 

You also continue talking about your analogy, you forget one key element, you were shown pictures, your analogy mentions nothing about that.

 

Then you go on and on asking why I believe your demands are unfair. Well let me tell you buddy they are because you didn't do your "due diligence" to ascertain that these were in fact the design that you intended to purchase. You were fully aware of the possibility that these could be in fact LWB mudguards because you already have them on your car. Then you intend to loose nothing and transfer the blame onto me without recognizing your at fault here too.

 

We also have a BINDING agreement in our legal section that states what will happen when a customer wants to return something. Shipping charges are not refundable under any circumstance.

 

What is going to happen here is that I will issue you that full refund, not because you are right, just because I realize you will never understand my points and you will never accept your mistake. I already accepted my mistake.

 

My experience with you has truly been unpleasant, and will definitely have an impact on how I handle overseas orders from now on.

 

I have nothing more to say to you, and won't invest anymore time arguing with you. Please limit your future correspondence by just providing tracking info of the parcel being shipped to either me or Simon. Your refund will be sent back after the item is in our possession.

 

Regards!

 

Jose.

 

Ok: firstly, thank you for agreeing to issue the refund - that is very much appreciated.

 

Secondly, I have made no attempts whatsoever to "defame" you or try to coerce you into issuing a full refund. The purpose of this thread was simply to draw peoples' attentions to something that could well affect somebody else, and to seek opinions over my options. I've never slandered you in any of this, I've praised the quality of your products and I've been continually polite, courteous and avoided being overly familiar so as to maintain some professionalism. I don't appreciate being talked down to by a supplier, especially when I haven't done that to you, nor do I appreciate being told "not to cry" about being misled!

 

I've continued to mention my analogy because pictures seen do not necessarily have to be of the item a customer will receive. I'm not suggesting for a second that your website shows pictures that are unrelated to the actual product here, so please don't start thinking that - however the fact is that there are sellers out there who use that practice.

 

You've mentioned my failure to do my "due diligence." Here is how I see it: when there are no part numbers and no multiple options, then an item's description is the key thing. I didn't stop to consider the possibility that your items could be moulded off the incorrect parts because your description basically assured me that that wasn't the case. I've explained how the SWB spats don't fit the LWB bumper so, when your description clearly stated that your items were moulded from genuine SWB parts and they would NOT fit the LWB bumper, then the obvious assumption to make (and not an unreasonable one either) is that they are replicas of the exact parts I was looking for!

 

So my intent to transfer "the blame" as you put it simply isn't so. The fact of the matter is that your initial knowledge and statements were incorrect, leading you to inadvertently market your product incorrectly, leading me to purchase the product based on incorrect and misleading information.

 

Therefore I still maintain and admit to my "mistake" here, which was to put too much faith in your knowledge of the product you marketed, which has led to this unfortunate and unpleasant situation. Should I order anything from overseas in the future, I'll be making absolutely certain that I'm ordering exactly what I want, so there's a lesson I intend to take from this.

 

You mention your "binding returns agreement" but I'm fairly sure that doesn't (and shouldn't) necessarily relate to items that aren't what you described them to be, hence me looking for a full refund. Had they simply been marketed as "your version of OEM mudguards" then I'd have asked for more information before ordering. As I've continually said, I didn't ask for any more i nformation because your description was so specific.

 

I will get your spats collected and sent down to Si shortly. He can then confirm that they are no longer in my possession and they are in the condition one would expect for brand new fibreglass parts.

 

The real irony here is that, despite all of this, your products are very good quality and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to other people!

 

Anyway, it seems this thread has probably run it's course now. Nobody has been defamed, you have been made aware of your descriptive error and now corrected that.

 

Thank you to everyone for their opinions in this unfortunate matter... thank you to Jose for agreeing to issue the refund and correcting his website so swiftly. I truly hope that doesn't dissuade anyone from ordering from Ionic Dynamics because, as I said, the products are excellent quality and the shipping was fast too. So I would recommend them.

 

Si.

Glad to see that the issue has been resolved. Time for some window shopping over at Ionic!

 

And I can't help but comment on the standard of English spelling and grammar in this thread - I never thought I'd see the day! Hallelujah!

 

And I can't help but comment on the level of English spelling and grammar in this thread - I never thought I'd see the day! Hallelujah!

 

:bow:

 

 

I was thinking EXACTLY the same!!! lol It's very refreshing!

Edited November 20, 201411 yr by Funkysi