Complaint Review: Easishop I Design Asia Ltd (Oliver Evans)

iKit www.ikit.com company owner - Oliver Evans. I will never forget this name. He also is the owner of idesign asia, easishop. I saw this guy in 2011 CES Las Vegas, thanks for giving me your business card.
And i found you now living in Hong Kong. 3 years ago, i spent thousand bucks on idesignasia which is easishop paypal account. I promise That, i will find out more about ikit, easishop, idesignasia from hong kong business Registration department.

iKit.com
Easishop
idesignasia
are same owner from UK base in Hong Kong.

This rebuttal is called a timely reply, as a significant amount of time has now elapsed since the filing of that inaccurate and misinformed allegations that were levied against me. I have no probleblem with anyone who has an issue that needs to be addressed, but I would have thought that before filing such ludicrous allegations one would firstly check that the facts are correct, and secondly, address them with me directly.

I have never had any dealings with "Roy" from "London", and in any event, if he suggests that i have, it would only have been to address the issues surrounding the unfortunate circumstances. Clearly, Roy had a problem as did other consumers but he is the only one to complain and not accept the truth of what actually occurred. I have noted what he has said, and confirm that his version is incorrect although there is some merit in what he has said. Simply my ebay account was hacked into by a third party who sought to obtain monies by deception. When i realised that this was the case and that there was no way i could honour agreements to which i had not been privy to the only option was to arrange for refunds to be provided to those affected.

I consider that i have acted in a reasonable manner and i am grateful to those customers who accepted my honest explaination of events. They have received refunds and were not detrimentally affected although it is of course disappointing that some people may have been 'out of pocket' for a short duration while the appropriate adminstration was being addressed. Again i fail to see how i can be accountable with regard to a process that was set in place by someone other than myself. ie. Ebay and PayPal. However these two organisations are to be congratulated as they have protected both the consumer and myself, and aggrieved seller. I am sure that the reasonable man would prefer to recover his money, even if there is a delay, than fall prey to an unscrupulous predator.

Furthermore, had i acted in an unacceptable manner i am sure that i would be liable to criminal prosecution for theft, deception and possibly money laundering as well as benefiting from the proceeds of crime. I can assure you that no such prosecution has taken place.

"Roy" has made personal comments in relation to how and where i conduct business, and i fail to see the relevance of this. I have business dealings worldwide.

What is unconscionable is that "Roy" should choose to provide inaccurate, false and misleading information of a derogatory nature with regard to members of my family.Whatever perceived business dealings "Roy" may have had with myself (which i have stated above were fraudulently conducted by a third party), his perceived contract is with myself and has no bearing on my family whatsoever. His comments are malicious, libelous and designed to wound and harm innocent individuals. I am sorry to report that members of my family have been questioned as a result of "Roys" allegations, and understandably they have been upset at having to justify their innocence in relation to an issue for which they are not directly involved.

The company to which "Roy" refers ie Southcoast Homesearch is a legitimate company that was set up to find suitable accomodation for those in need, and i am sure that if sufficient enquiry is made into this company, many positive testimonials will be noted. This company is currently one of many that is affected by the world wide recession also which has considerably affected the market place for such a business. In the United Kingdom properties for purchase are in decline and the rental market is increasing although this is at the lower end of the market spectrum.

Furthermore, big business, which is a main source of investigation and revenue is in decline and therefore the need for housing at the niche end of the spectrum has waned and subsequently  this target demographic audience is no longer a viable source of business for the company given the current economic climate.

In light of my rebuttal i would invite "Roy" to consider what i have said and agree to remove what he has previously posted as being his grounds for being allegedly 'ripped off'.

Whilst time has considerably moved on for "Roy" this incident took place 3 years ago, he has received his reimbursement and this matter has no doubt been forgotten by him, leaving such comments on the world wide web for public consumption may prove detrimental to me which is completely unreasonable when considering i am entirely blameless.

I have chosen to deal with this issue but way of rebuttal as i consider that the time that has elapsed has strenghtened my position as can be seen from the fact that there are no other complaints or problems of a similar nature that has been reported. It is not practicable from a litigation stand point to persue this matter through the court as quite simply the legal costs involved would be horrendous. There are issues of jurisdiction arising, i am in Hong Kong, "Roy" is in London and Ripoff Report are an American company. It is therefore not economic to persue matters over the purchase of what appears to be a camera. In the event that i did litigate, and my action was proven successful, Ripoff Report have indicated that there is no culpabiltiy apportioned to them and in that regard i would have to seek recovery of damages for compensation and legal costs directly from "Roy". I suspect he would not be in a position to meet these costs, and if truth be told i have no intention in wielding an axe or carrying out a personal vendetta against a man who was clearly upset at being taken advantage of by a third party and who also failed to obtain the purchase he was hoping had been made.

I am also aware that in "Roy" filing his report and in my filing this rebuttal that we are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States legal system and i can ill afford the time or money to travel to the United States to address matters. I am sure that if "Roy" is asked whether he would wish to attend a court in the United States he would likely decline any such offer.

It is dangerous to assume the intentions of others, and if it subsequently transpired that "Roy" wanted to go to court in the US then i would be more than willing to attend to defend my position and provide documentary evidence in support of what i have stated herein.

I would therefore urge anyone who has read "Roys" statement to give due consideration to my rebuttal and if any further information is needed please do not hesitate to contact me. I am a legitimate business man who has no desire to act inappropriately or to "rip off" consumers, but prefer to provide a good service and a good product at a reasonable price to the mutual benefit of all concerned. It is my opinion that i conduct my business in this way as it leads to future business and recommendations to other consumers.

Thank you for taking time to consider this lengthy response.

This rebuttal is called a timely reply, as a significant amount of time has now elapsed since the filing of that inaccurate and misinformed allegations that were levied against me. I have no probleblem with anyone who has an issue that needs to be addressed, but I would have thought that before filing such ludicrous allegations one would firstly check that the facts are correct, and secondly, address them with me directly.

I have never had any dealings with "Roy" from "London", and in any event, if he suggests that i have, it would only have been to address the issues surrounding the unfortunate circumstances. Clearly, Roy had a problem as did other consumers but he is the only one to complain and not accept the truth of what actually occurred. I have noted what he has said, and confirm that his version is incorrect although there is some merit in what he has said. Simply my ebay account was hacked into by a third party who sought to obtain monies by deception. When i realised that this was the case and that there was no way i could honour agreements to which i had not been privy to the only option was to arrange for refunds to be provided to those affected.

I consider that i have acted in a reasonable manner and i am grateful to those customers who accepted my honest explaination of events. They have received refunds and were not detrimentally affected although it is of course disappointing that some people may have been 'out of pocket' for a short duration while the appropriate adminstration was being addressed. Again i fail to see how i can be accountable with regard to a process that was set in place by someone other than myself. I am sure that the reasonable man would prefer to recover his money, even if there is a delay, than fall prey to an unscrupulous preditor.

"Roy" has made personal comments in relation to how and where i conduct business, and i fail to see the relevance of this. I have business dealings worldwide.

What is unconscionable is that "Roy" should choose to provide inaccurate, false and misleading information with regard to members of my family.Whatever perceived business dealings "Roy" may have had with myself (which i have stated above were fraudulently conducted by a third party), his perceived contract is with myself and has no bearing on my family whatsoever. His comments are malicious, libelous and designed to wound and harm innocent individuals.

The company to which "Roy" refers ie Southcoast Homesearch was a legitimate company that was set up to find suitable accomodation for those in need, and i am sure that if sufficient enquiry is made into this company, many positive testimonials will be noted. This company is currently one of many that is affected by the world wide recession also which has considerably affected the market place for such a business. In the United Kingdom properties for purchase are in decline and the rental market is increasing although this is at the lower end of the market spectrum.

Furthermore, big business, which was a main source of investigation and revenue is in decline and therefore the need for housing at the niche end of the spectrum has waned and therefore this target demografic audience is no longer a viable source of business for the company given the current economic climate.

In light of my rebuttal i would invite "Roy" to consider what i have said and agree to remove what he has previously posted as being his grounds for being allegedly 'ripped off'.

Whilst time has considerably moved on for "Roy" this incident took place 3 years ago, he has received his reimbursement and this matter has no doubt been forgotten by him, leaving such comments on the world wide web for public consumption may prove detrimental to me which is completely unreasonable when considering i am entirely blameless.

I have chosen to deal with this issue but way of rebuttal as i consider that the time that has elapsed has strenghtened my position as can be seen from the fact that there are no other complaints or problems of a similar nature that has been reported. It is not practicable from a litigation stand point to persue this matter through the court as quite simply the legal costs involved would be horrendous. There are issues of jurisdiction arising, i am in Hong Kong, "Roy" is in London and Ripoff Report are an American company. It is therefore not economic to persue matters over the purchase of what appears to be a camera. In the event that i did litigate, and my action was proven successful, Ripoff Report have indicated that there is no culpabiltiy apportioned to them and in that regard i would have to seek recovery of damages for compensation and legal costs directly from "Roy". I suspect he would not be in a position to meet these costs, and if truth be told i have no intention in wielding an axe or carrying out a personal vendetta against a man who was clearly upset at being taken advantage of by a third party and who also failed to obtain the purchase he was hoping had been made.

I would therefore urge anyone who has read "Roys" statement to give due consideration to my rebuttal and if any further information is needed please do not hesitate to contact me. I am a ligitimate business man who has no desire to act inappropriately or to "rip off" consumers, but prefer to provide a good service and a good product as a reasonable price to the mutual benefit of all concerned. It is my opinion that i conducted my business in this way as it leads to future business and recommendations to other consumers.

Thank you for taking time to consider this lengthy response.