Steve, In your advert you say "operate your camera from 200yds distance using this gear" and "the item will be exactly as described or I will offer you a full refund". I have not had time to test the item at all, but I did read the manual last evening and it says that the maximum direct transmission range is 100 m/330ft. I will return the item in the same secure packaging and by the same method of post for full refund. With regret.
Regards Peter Broadbent (Ahar - knew it! Trouble with a capital T. I checked the book and indeed he was right - the book says 100 metres, but I have used it past this distance fine on full batteries. Nevertheless, I did make a mistake in my listing, which is unusual for me. Anyway I'd had enough of this bozo, so decided to call his bluff......) Peter, I have tested the item at 200 yards and it works. I will not be offering a refund on this item. The item is as described. Please do not send the item back as I will not be refunding you in this instance. Please feel free to take the matter up with eBay. I will be forwarding all email exchanges between us to eBay for consideration. Regards, Steve C. Steve, Have checked with Canon Support and the item is for use up to a maximum range of 100 metres. Please reconsider your position and accept that you will refund in full. Regards Peter Hi Peter, I have read the Canon literature and concede the point that it does indeed say that the LC-4 is capable of a range up to a maximum of 100 metres. However, I have used the LC-4 past that maximum. But that is a moot point. Other points you may wish to consider: You claim to have read the details on the auction page but in case you missed it, anyone with negative feedback should have emailed me first before bidding. In fact you bid and won the item with some negative feedback, in total contravention to eBay's policy as listed here: <http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/unwelcome-buying.html> I was minded to cancel the auction and file a complaint. However, I did not. Your 2nd and 3rd emails to me were not what I would describe as 'friendly', and indeed I found them threatening. Bidding and buying on an item in an eBay auction is supposed to be final. In fact I am happy to refund on any item that is not as described - a totally optional and friendly gesture. The Canon LC-4 Wireless Remote Control that I sold to you was as described in full working order and in mint condition. The fact that I may have detailed one fact with an incorrect number (according to Canon) is relevant but not, in my opinion, reason for a refund. The fact is that you have had the item for several days now - you claimed you needed it in a hurry, and I went against my better judgement and sent it off earlier than I normally would have (again a friendly gesture). And now you claim you have not even had the unit out to test it? I am what I would consider to be a reasonable chap - I'm not out to con anyone. Never have and never will. I provided an item for sale in good faith. Anyone buying from eBay should do their own research and consider carefully the deal they are entering into. Regards, Steve C (If I had listed it correctly at 100m working distance, I would not entertain a refund, unless the unit was faulty. I'll list my lessons learned at the end of tail....) Steve, Have now tested the item and it appears NOT to be working. Have spoken with Canon who are having a technician call me back to ascertain whether or not this is so. Will update you when I have a response. Regards Peter Peter, If this is the case, and the LC-4 is not working, then of course I will honour a refund, including your postage costs. However, if the item is returned to me and I test it and find it to be working, then it will be packaged up and returned to you. regards, Steve C Steve, I have faults identified with the transmitter plus the item being "not as described" in your auction description. I shall return the item to you asap and if I do not receive a refund in full by return I shall not refer the matter to eBay but place the matter in County Court without further reference to your good self. Regards Peter Peter, I will gladly receive the item back. I will then test it myself, and if I find the item to be in good working order, I will send it back to you by return. Your idle threats about county court action do not frighten me, so threaten away. If I test the item and I find it is faulty, I will gladly refund you, and offer my apologies. Please be advised that I will be keeping track of all communications between us as a reference in any possible future Police action that could result with reference to any possible threatening behaviour likely to take place. And you may consider *that* as a threat. Steve Steve, You misunderstand. I am not threatening you, nor did I intend to do so. I will return the item to you tomorrow with details of my complaint. Regards Peter (yeah right) Steve, I will advise you in writing when I return the item. The item has a number of faults, verified with both of my cameras, so I will refer to the specific items and cross-reference to the manual so that you can be in no doubt as to the basis of my complaint. I trust that we will then be able to reach an amicable solution and post positive feedback for each other. Regards Peter (ahar, he like that old positive feedback doesn't he ! ) Steve Sent today via Special Delivery ZU 9851 7104 2GB guaranteed by 1pm tomorrow. Peter Peter, I have now tested the unit and indeed there is a fault with it. Please accept my apologies. I shall be refunding you in full, including postage. I can send a personal cheque by registered post, or I can pay you by Paypal right away, but I will not be able to pay the Paypal fees for you. Please let me know what you would prefer. Steve. Steve, Cheque will be fine, plus positive feedback for prompt payment please. Regards Peter (he wants that +ive feedback but he ain't gonna get it....) Peter, In the post today. Steve Steve, I look forward to receiving the positive feedback for prompt payment! Peter (I'll bet you do) Steve Cheque arrived thanks - but not the feedback! Peter (I wonder why....) ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- In the event we did not correspond again. I waited to see if he'd give me a neg, but he never did, and I never did, so it just ended that way. I subsequently sent the remote off to Canon Professional in London, they fixed it free of charge (it was a faulty board in the handheld remote, not the IR flash part) so that was great - it was well past warranty. I offered it again on eBay, with a slightly different auction (I haven't bookmarked the page unfortunately) that says it was faulty, fixed and tested by Canon and now as new - sold for the BIN price of £149 by a very happy buyer. Things I had learned from this: 1/ It's so easy to smell a ratbag 2/ I do not now list manufacturers specs - I provide links to other pages, my thinking being that if someone does their own homework, it's their fault if they get it wrong.. 3/ Keep any and all email correspondence for a while after the auction. Hope this is of use to someone :-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
