- Report: #90962
Complaint Review: Kleeneze UK - Bristol Other
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Kleeneze UK
Martins Road Bristol, NG7 7LL Other, United Kingdom
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Kleeneze UK Ltd ripoff: late, often incomplete, deliveries: charge for virtually all sales aids; charge 7.50 just for sending letters to members; lousy company to work for. Bristol United Kingdom
This company imposes charges on virtually everything that could be construed as a "sales aid", are usually late in delivering customer orders (which are almost always incomplete anyway)and follow a policy of charging their members 7.50 whenever they decide to write to them. They also make it difficult for people to leave the company - I left months ago but thay still insist on contacting me frequently even after having been told repeatedly to stop doing so.
Philip
Nottingham
United Kingdom
Philip
Nottingham
United Kingdom
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Kleeneze
Leeds,Europe,
United Kingdom
7.50 Charge Justifiable
#2Consumer Comment
Sun, May 16, 2004
The company is fair with people who abide by the rules. The company issues upto a 1000 credit limit* to help its agents with their business. If an agent is reliable and honest and pays their bills in time, there will never be any charges incurred. 99% of deliverys arrive on time and complete and there is occationally a small error as there is to be expected with any company the size of Kleeneze. This has almost been eliminated due to the large investment in a state of the art warehouse system. I appologise to Philip ,but with 17000 happy agents and Millions of happy customers we believe that it was an isolated incindent that Philip experienced. To ruduce futher late payment charges; can i please recommend that Philip pays his bills on time. The sponsering aids are chargable to the agents as with any network company. Theis is standard practise and cannot be construed as a 'rip off' as they are also heavily subsidised by the company. In conclusion: All previous comments by philip are factually incorrect and are in fact erroneus.
