Watch sold on Smash TV not working

This is now developing into another drawn-out case dating back to last December. It is about a watch sold on Smash TV before Christmas in a teleshopping programme, Al fil-ghodu. The progress or, rather, lack of it, so far is as follows:

Josephine Spiteri bought three items, including a watch. It subsequently transpired that the watch she was given was not like the one she had ordered. Besides, it was not working. Therefore, prior to publication, in line with my policy, I gave Smash Communications Ltd more than a fair opportunity, over a period of seven months, to give me their side of the case or resolve the matter to their customer's satisfaction.

In the absence of any response from Smash Communications, on July 28 I featured one of Mrs Spiteri's letters. Subsequently I referred to the case again last Sunday and I received the following letter from their lawyer:

I write on behalf of my clients Smash Communications Ltd of Thistle Lane, Paola, and refer to your article which appeared in The Sunday Times on July 28.

I am instructed to inform you that my clients had sent a letter dated June 28 (copy herewith attached for your convenience) which for some reason you did not quote in your article, despite the fact that you had received it a month before the above-mentioned article appeared in The Sunday Times.

As you may follow in the letter, my clients are simply suppliers of airtime and the teleshopping programme you refer to is produced by The Production House, one of my clients' customers. My clients had also pointed out that any such complaints should be directed to the said Production House and not Smash Communications Ltd.

One feels that you should have given full coverage of the issue without omitting my clients' reply and explanation. In this way you misdirected the readers of The Sunday Times into believing that my clients were the responsible party answerable to your customer's complaint.

I trust that the damage which can be caused to Smash Communications Ltd due to this lack of attention can be rectified in your column shortly. (Dr Carlo Bisazza)

I did not feature the letter referred to in my July 28 article simply because, at the time, I had not received it. So I reject the accusation that I "omitted" Smash Communications' reply and explanation. We pick up our mail every weekend. My assistant Claire and I open the mail every Saturday and, in effect, we opened and read the letter (albeit dated June 28) on August 3, six days after the publication of the article. Dr Bisazza's assertion that I received the letter a month before the July 28 article is wrong. In any case, here follows the letter in question:

I refer to your reader's complaint and re-attach your correspondence. The programme in question is produced by The Production House, Victoria Flt/3, Triq il-Parrocca, Naxxar, tel. 2142-4442/2142-4444.

Please direct your complaints to The Production House, as we do not get directly involved with our client's customer services. Smash Communications Ltd is only the supplier of airtime and The Production House is one of our various customers.

Should you require further information or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact us on the above address or telephone numbers. (Andrew Farrugia, station co-ordinator, dated June 28, received August 2)

Indeed last Sunday, in a genuine attempt to give Smash Communications and the Production House some space, I turned a blind eye to the gross "date" discrepancy of the letter. I just appealed to whoever is responsible to resolve the matter as follows:

"...we received a letter from the station co-ordinator, Smash Communications Ltd., Mr Andrew Farrugia, who is based in Paola. He informed us that the programme in question is produced by The Production House in Naxxar and asked us to direct our complaints to them."

With reference to Dr Bisazza's allegation that I misdirected readers into believing that his clients were the responsible party answerable to my customer's complaint, the above excerpt confirms that, as soon as I had the relevant information, I informed readers accordingly.

As regular readers know, before I decide whether to feature a case or not, I always give the relevant companies/traders more than a fair opportunity to give me their side through requests for their comments for inclusion in the column. Most companies co-operate. However after I feature such cases due to the absence of any response, some companies/traders try to give the impression that they had already dealt with the matter before I featured their case.

The extent to which certain companies are prepared to go in their attempts to exonerate themselves from their responsibilities never ceases to amaze me. Although I often have such "supposedly" late deliveries, I do not think that Maltapost is the problem simply because it happens too often and, in a given case, it constitutes a very convenient excuse.

The most recent case wherein the supplier tried this trick was about the sale of a discount card applicable to a closed restaurant. The company in question is Rhino Power Ltd. After I featured the case in line with my policy as explained above, Reuben Vella sent me an e-mail claiming that he had refunded his customer more than a month earlier.

Subsequently the consumer wrote: "I have no doubt that your intervention was instrumental in changing the stand that the price of the card was not refundable. Thank you for your intervention." This case is still pending because we are waiting for an explanation from Mr Vella of Rhino Power with an assurance that he has rectified the way his company operates whereby this won't happen again. So far, I referred to the case on June 30, July 14 and July 28, to no avail.

To go back to the Smash Communications and The Production House case, the fact that the Production House produced the programme and that they are Smash Communications' customers does not necessarily exonerate the latter from their responsibilities. There is a chain here and Smash Communications constitute a very important link.

In any case, at this stage, I look forward to receiving a letter from either the customer, Mrs Spiteri, Smash Communications or The Production House, informing us that this case has been positively concluded.

I thank the named companies in anticipation for their co-operation.