From Mr C. Farrugia Vella.
Unfortunately, in the 15th February edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday in the Customer Service column, Mr Muscat Inglott published extracts from e-mails which are destined only to give an unfair bad name to Crosscraft, misinterpreting the consumer law, judges our customer service without any previous communication with us and, most importantly fails to give customers the correct advice.
The introduction to this article states: “ Hereunder featuring an exchange of e-mails between a consumer and trader”. Anyone who reads this can see that this is false as there are no e-mails from Crosscraft. The article is all about an exchange of e-mails between customer, Mr Muscat Inglott and Janet. Moreover, in no instance has Mr Muscat Inglott contacted us about this matter, as it is ethically done prior to publication, such that he can hear our side of the story too.
Instead Mr Muscat Inglott armed only with e-mails sent from the customer, thus not having given us the chance to explain the situation, decides to publish an e-mail, which very strongly suggests that our customer service is close to inexistent. This as the e-mail says, “What kind of customer service, if any, does Mr John Meli give to his customers?” How is it possible that Mr Muscat Inglott judges Crosscraft without first hearing our point of view? This is illogical.
It is also worth noting that Mr Muscat Inglott wasn’t even able to get the name of the customer service official at Crosscraft right, let alone the facts. There is no John Meli at Crosscraft and for his information the official referred to has 30 years experience as Chief Purser with a well-known airline. This is the kind of person Crosscraft employs to give the best service to our customers.
Moreover, consumer authorities, and this includes Mr Muscat Inglott, usually mediate with both parties before publishing a case. In this case this was entirely omitted, which invariably means that the reason behind this article means that the aim is to damage our reputation and not find a solution to this matter. It leads me to think that this article was made in a hurry and in an unprofessional way even though there was time enough to plan. The first e-mail published was from last September; actually the issue started last June. In the letter this is called “recent” if so why did they take so long to react? Is that prompt customer service?
In this case the customer claims that she lost the guarantee document, which is the link between customer and trader. The guarantee is a proof that the said product was purchased from a certain trader on a certain date etc. The customer has misplaced this document so now there is difficulty proving the purchase date or the origins of the product. The law states that it is the entire responsibility of the customer to keep safe this document but here Mr Muscat Inglott clearly chooses to misinterpret the law by trying to put the blame on the trader for not being able to trace the sale and tries to imply that unless you do this then Crosscraft is disreputable. Why does Mr Muscat Inglott want to exempt the consumer from his responsibilities? Why does Odette Vella (Official Representative of the Consumer and Competition Division) insist that this matter is entirely the customer’s responsibility?
This article ends by the writer “ reiterating that the legal guarantee is valid for two years no matter what”. First of all I want to point out that Crosscraft offers much more than a mere legal guarantee, and secondly it is clear that for any legal guarantee to be valid you have to prove that you actually have it. So we are abiding by the law and it is Mr Muscat Inglott who is misinterpreting and giving the wrong advice.
Crosscraft holds the editor responsible for the extensive damages suffered by said article, which not only damaged our reputation but also is an insult to the readers who expect precise and correct information from such a reputable newspaper. Hence we ask you to remedy accordingly. We ask for a clear apology from Mr Muscat Inglott which states to the point that:
1. It was wrong to judge Crosscraft without first discussing the matter with them.
2. It is unusual to publish a case without previously discussing with both parties.
3. To claim that no effort from his side was done to mediate the two parties.
4. It is false that legal guarantee is valid no matter what.
5. It is not as claimed that published e-mails are between trader and customer.
6. The law states that it is the consumer who is responsible for the proof of purchase documents and has nothing to do with the trader being reputable or not, which invariably means that in this case Crosscraft can’t proceed with claim only because the customer wasn’t able to prove the purchase and that it is perfectly normal for Crosscraft to demand such document.
7. The article was written with lack of any professionalism expected from someone like Mr Muscat Inglott who has such a long experience in the sector.
Should Mr Muscat Inglott fail to publish requested apology then Crosscraft will seek immediate legal advice without any notice or hesitation.
Moreover we ask you to communicate with the local Consumer and Competition Division authorities, discuss with them if Crosscraft has acted correctly in this case of lost guarantee document situation and publish your findings.
The objective of this article is to explain that in this case Crosscraft is right and the writer is completely wrong and that we remove any doubt, which your readers might have built due to the article shown, and ensure your readers are aware of the excellent customer service we are committed to offer.
Clyde Farrugia Vella
Managing Director
Crosscraft Co. Ltd
Editor’s note: We are still awaiting feedback on the above from the Consumer and Competition Division.