My Scotweb Experience

**McNaughtan** · 10th December 12, 07:03 AM

I'll try to keep this short and to the point.

I did read Nick's "sticky" before posting. His suggestion that another email to complaints@scotweb.co.uk would somehow have resolved my problems is disingenuous. I wrote this posting simply to give an honest account of how we were treated as a warning to others. Believe me I have exhausted every communications avenue open to me in trying to resolve the various problems Scotweb created over the 5 months. Having exhausted all reasonable means, I'm having to rely on the Visa dispute to resolve the situation - emailing Visa all the substantiating emails and paperwork was my last resort in sorting things out.

I do accept the point that there are always two sides to an argument: Nick thinks that the sporrans he sent us were "authentic". I have a full band of gnarled old Scottish pipers who unanimously disagree - in fact one laughed out loud when he saw them. In any case, we accepted the hit in returning the sporrans and merely expected a refund within a reasonable time frame in line with Scotweb's "no quibble" returns policy. Two months later we're still waiting and Scotweb's full explanation for the delay is "technical difficulties".

Nick's reference to "external agencies' arcane rules"possibly refers to Australian Customs rejection of Scotweb's official invoice that asserted that 10x$1=$1, 4x$1=$1 and 7x$1=$1! Yes, really!!

Only when I posted this account on XMTS, has Scotweb shown any real interest in resolving my problems - draw your own conclusions.

**Domehead** · 10th December 12, 12:42 PM

Mr. McNaughtan,

If your purpose is truely altruistic re: saving the rabble from a mercantile error, certainly you realize your redress is better served anywhere else but here?
Numerous members have come to know and respect Mr. Fiddes, not only as a proprietor, but through history and scholarly exchanges as well. His reputation is built on these facets, outwith his relevant business ventures. To wit, he's recently seen fit to pruposefully "rehabilitate" an historic, family owned weaving mill from potential liquidation. One that many members hold dear, not only due to their fabric quality, but their legacy.

Should you have followed Mr. Fiddes' advice, indeed the normal forum protocol, the very members whom you hoped to "save" may have aided you with means or experiential advice by which to have connected with or settled your grievance with Mr. Fiddes respectfully - on the q.t., as it were. As it stands, though your "side" of the story may have merit, it's conveyance appears a bit "trolling".

**denmcdough** · 10th December 12, 02:29 PM

Always two sides to a story, for sure. But I do think that what was said about Scotweb needed to be said in this public forum. If not, then how do we distinguish who is reputable, and who is not. After all, isn't that what forums are all about, to learn? I had a similar problem with another Scottish company two years ago, and it became a nightmare.

Now, to be fair, I have never dealt with Scotweb, but I do empathize with the pipe band's dilemma. Had the OP not been made, Nick would not have responded. And, to be quite clear, there have been some disgruntled forum members with Scotweb's performance. And, there have been many who have had decent service; no complaints whatsoever. Boils down to a crap shoot.

As for me, I'm sticking with the forum advertisers who are top notch...who have great products and, more importantly, render tremendous service. So, who might that be? I do not mind stating that the following vendors have been wonderful to me, and if there was a mix-up (it does happen occasionally), it was handled with regret, and quick resolve: USA Kilts, Stillwater, STM, Celtic Croft, Dunadd (former advertiser), Bonnie Heather Greene. Now, I have not done business with the other vendors on this site, so I can only speak from experience about the vendors that I just mentioned.

As an after thought: had things been done correctly, in the first place, there would be no need to contact Nick!!!! My feelings are with the pipe band.

Good luck with the pipe band and your dilemma.

**Domehead** · 10th December 12, 03:51 PM

DenMcDough,
So, to be clear, you're supporting a "first ever post" which lays-out-in-lavender an admittedly respected vendor, contributor and professional- whom must also run the trials and tribulations of everyday business - which you, personally have never dealt with?

What I support is not Mr. Fiddes in the case of Pipe Band v. Scotweb. What I support is XMTS as a resource by which Mr. McNaughtan will find said "disgruntled forum members" and reach out to them. Or, find the "many others who have had decent service", of which I am one. That information could have been communicated via forum or PM. The conversation then takes a decidedly different tone.

To my ear, Mr. McNaughtan's post is not altruistic. It's trolling & un-necessary. Mr. Fiddes' response is not "reactionary". Its obligatory, especially considering this context. And, re: the rediculous amount of information available here, the entire conversation the OP is based on should have been done "off-line", so-to-speak.

**madmacs** · 10th December 12, 05:05 PM

To play devil's advocate...

Nick asked the OP to contact him to get the issues resolved... One would hope that both the OP and Nick can get it resolved... Hopefully the OP will post following this.

Should he have had to feel like posting on a public forum was his .only recourse? Did Nick even know there was a problem? Does it really matter? Scotweb is a forum sponsor, have had good dealings with many, and some problems with others... When I worked for a major company we had 2 rules, 1. We're number 1 in the field, we don'tvbash the competitors products. 2. We want the happy customer at the end of the day... 1 bad experience does more harm to the company than a dozen good customer experiences... Largely because bad experiences get broadcast.

At the end of the day I'm sure Nick will resolve it....

**denmcdough** · 11th December 12, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Domehead

DenMcDough,
So, to be clear, you're supporting a "first ever post" which lays-out-in-lavender an admittedly respected vendor, contributor and professional- whom must also run the trials and tribulations of everyday business - which you, personally have never dealt with?

What I support is not Mr. Fiddes in the case of Pipe Band v. Scotweb. What I support is XMTS as a resource by which Mr. McNaughtan will find said "disgruntled forum members" and reach out to them. Or, find the "many others who have had decent service", of which I am one. That information could have been communicated via forum or PM. The conversation then takes a decidedly different tone.

To my ear, Mr. McNaughtan's post is not altruistic. It's trolling & un-necessary. Mr. Fiddes' response is not "reactionary". Its obligatory, especially considering this context. And, re: the rediculous amount of information available here, the entire conversation the OP is based on should have been done "off-line", so-to-speak.

Mr. Domehead,

Well, to each his own. You have your opinion and I have mine, so I stick with the OP.

In conflict, everyone thinks they're right; two sides to every story. I'm sure this situation will correct itself with Nick's help. It's a shame that he had to get involved in the first place. I do think, though, that there was nothing incorrect with the OP. If you think so, then, that's your opinion. Different strokes for different folks!

I should hope that we're in agreement on one thing: the situation needes to be corrected.

**Steve Ashton** · 11th December 12, 05:46 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I quote from our FAQ Policy on Product Reviews and Endorsements;

"Product Reviews & Endorsements

One of the functions of X Marks is to allow open and honest reviews of kilts, and kilt related products or services.

Product Reviews are the best way for new members to gain information about suppliers. We encourage our members to post Product Reviews. All reviews must be about a product purchased for the members own use. Product reviews must contain only verifiable factual information.

Negative product reviews are also encouraged as an important warning to other potential buyers, but the reviewer must be very careful not to denigrate or libel the manufacturer or supplier. Negative reviews must contain only verifiable factual information.

If a member wishes to post a review, of a product purchased from one of our advertisers, it would be best if the review is posted in that advertisers section of the forum."

Bold added by me.

This is the official policy of the forum.

**Domehead** · 11th December 12, 06:53 PM

Thank you, Mr. Ashton.

This is exactly what was saying...the OP smacks of trolling and should be dealt with "off-line", or (per your request) in the advertisers section.