Complaint Review: Aria Technology Limited Aria PC Technology Aria.co.uk Aria.com

The following are despite the owner & sole director of Aria Technolgy Ltd of Manchester, England (Aria PC Technology, aria.co.uk, aria.com, etc. an importer & online wholesaler & retailer that sells also by magazine advertising, by mail order), Aria Taheri having signed incorporation documents undertaking to discourage fraud, and its company secretary Frank Harasiwka being a qualified through the British Institute of Chartered Secretaries:-

GOODS DESCRIPTION QUALITY: Firewire card's picture didn't show, description didn't say, I asked if had an internal socket, it assured that it had it didn't. Ram didn't work; told, it said that I bought cheap ram which didn't always work on all motherboards that they were supposed to, and that I needed better quality' -costing more. Motherboard was described by it as 4gb ram & ok for 3200mhz manual said 3.5gb max., 2gb max. if 3200mhz (told, changed its description to 3gb!!!).

DELIVERY: I waited at home all day, phoned, Delivery was attempted! (it charges for redelivery) can't be but: used my tel. no.? Aria gave it us wrong.

TECHNICAL SERVICE: It said what did I expect if I bought cheap (It was an averegedly priced popular, reputable brand) Maybe you need to use 2 only 4 ram slots with 1x2gb ram in each [!!!] the manufacturer may've since brought out something to enable it!!!

RETURNS: Return form referred me to manufacturer (no contact details) for refund. Having used contact form' repeatedly I had to email & telephone & it took 2 to 3 days to get an RMA. It said nothing wrong' with items & to arrange to collect it acknowledges them a statutory refund.

CUSTOMER SERVICE: This number is not connected sales: Never heard such nonsense!; it's fax, same; its email automatically reissued RMA.

REFUNDS: No mention, despite reminders, re. RMA item not its brand. Re. only of its own brand, after reminders, e-mail:'Credited, less 25% testing/re-stocking fee' I asked it to close my account & why 25% deduction? Damaged it!' asked how, wouldn't say, nor refund at this time. Reason to claim from a receiver? Not your business'. Told of the law, it wrote that it consulted its company secretary Frank Harasiwka and its managing director Aria Taheri who advised that monies due me would not be authorised.

COMPLIENCE: It wrote: While these are often restockable as new (that I damaged them, so a restocking fee). Reminded that it had said nothing wrong with them', entitled to automatically deduct 25%'. It wrote if credit unacceptable to click; then that was entitled to refund as credit. It wrote to confirm a purported telephone agreement; asked to explain, it didn't. Asked if its name changed (varied on stationary) it didn't reply. No response when its director-owner was faxed and alerted to the law and that it verged on fraud.

PRIVICY - ADVERTISING: My 5 year old a/c (it'd opened another) on internet! I clicked not to send email ads.; I got an an ad., my privicy infringements rose from the average about 2 or 3 nearly 30.

COMPETENCE DUE CARE: Terms & Conditions' say unless seal broken' & elsewhere there that under no circumstances software returnable'. It wrote:'As requested, closed your account', then, Shall arange to close it'; and, Blocked ads. to your e-mail ----.co.uk, told that on its records it's .com', didn't reply. It wrote it was deducting a testing/restocking fee for unreturned item; told, said nothing.

ATTITUDE: It wrote: You don't make sense' and also sought to deny the purported telephone agreement which it had claimed and written to confirm asked what it did not understand, it didn't say. Asked what it deducted for what, how, why, didn't respond. Asked for my account history, didn't respond. Having already been told that it was necessitating undue correspondence costing me money and seeking to limit or exlude the exercise of my rights, it sent me a county court claim saying that my faxes had cost it some 500 (= some US$900) demanded some were disrupting its customer service and costing it money the county court contacted, at the time and later, was surprised & knew nothing of it.
Letters to direct addresses of its owner & sole director Aria Taheri, and, of its company secretary Frank Harasiwka on companies house records not replied to.

MY RESEARCH: I have done some research on it - I find its position as below:-

Its busines rating situation does not appear promising with a product rating of only 3 in Britain's biggest computer magazine, having also been publicised with figures disputed by the affected not to pay site-promotion affiliate fees, and its further drop in an overall business rating -now only 3.19 and last month in another with 67% consumer dissatisfaction, a computer magazine with wide publicity having just withdrawn it product remmendation upon finding it to be supplied to the consumers differently than was submitted for its laboratory tests.

While publicising itself as expecting a turnover of 24 ("$36") millions and shortly to more than quadruple that to some 100 (now nearly $200) millions per annum and as helping in charitable matters, its 'charitable and political contributions' for the year is 3 thousands; it also had occasion in respect of 28, prior to being made to refund after much delay, to say it was not prepared to do so "at this time

Having been reported as having had occasion to be overruled by Trading Stardard in relations to goods it sold, by the Committe for the Supervision of Telephone Information Services to have misleadingly advetised its technical service, legally bidingly having been held by Nominet Dispute Resolution to have unlawfully engaged supuriously in a concentrated campaing to disrupt the operation of competitor business and to have been using different names and logos and labels with the specific purpose of confusing the customers and cunsumers into believing its own products to have been manufactured by another, its owner having prided itself in writing to have sold defective 'repaired' goods for 6 times the cost price at 500% profit and it avoiding reference to goods sold as new by their labelled brand-names in correspondence, consumer comments include it not keeping records & denying knowledge of sales to consumers, a claim of "dogy dedections" by it from consumer debit card accounts which have had to be frozen consumer, County Court judgement against it having had to be sought to be recovered by seizure by court official 'its' assests -with only 1,000 guaranteed in shares wholelly held by its owner and with zero-satisfied legal charged including on all future sales of goods which a salesman of it on another's website has referred to by the way as (=excrement).

I think the consumers should know these about this online/internet trader, the Aria Technology Ltd. (Aria PC Technology), aria.co.uk., aria.com.

Eren
London
United Kingdom