Dvr365 V Dm16ec0

[SystemQ]

The facts are-

You purchased a CCTV camera from us and sent it back for repair.

The reason you sent it back was that you claimed it at failed on installation.

When we received this camera back it was found that the diode inside it that offers Crow bar protection against reverse polarity had been damaged (blown off the board) by a voltage being applied cross-polarity to it. A few other components such as the voltage regulator had also failed through the voltage being applied incorrectly. The connector had been cut of the camera and no doubt the wires had been wired the wrong way around purely by an easy to do mistake.

On receipt of your camera, a total of 3 messages were left by technical to your company to call regarding this item and in the meantime it was repaired FOC and sent back to.

Unknown to anyone at System Q you had written a thread on this website stating that your service with this camera had been poor when this clearly was not the case, when I discovered this thread I contacted you.

I asked you by personal message three times to reveal your Company identity and each time you refused. I needed to see what service you had and what was wrong with the product.

Only by asking another member of this forum your name did I get your Company details.

When I found out that you had damaged the camera yourself and it was repaired FOC yet you still decided to slander System Q it obviously not a business relationship that is going to flourish and we removed you from our trade database.

Paul.

[Chorlton]

Posters 10 & 11 both claim to be merely stating facts.

Neithers stories match & this is exactly why naming and shaming (of suppliers or customers) is not allowed.

I have left Pauls reply as it is just that, a reply to the comments made about his company on the trust that the topic ends here as both parties have now said their piece.

Thanks,

C.