My Experince & Research on Aria Technology Limited (Aria Technology)

Name: eren_a

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Aria Technology
Date:	07/04/07 (414 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: None

Disadvantages: Total dissatisfaction

Goods bought from Aria Technology Limited it were desribed incorrectly, faulty/unfit –it said they were not. Shown so, it varied the technical specifications, without more. It said I damaged returned goods; reminded that it had said there were nothing wrong with them in seeking, despite their return within the cooling off period, to refuse to refund, it claimed a right to credit only, and only in respect of its house brand –despite repeated reminders avoiding reference to another brand. It even sought to deduct a testing and re-stoking fee also for an item never returned. Told of the law and alerted to its duty to know or ascertain it, it said it consulted its company secretary Frank Harasiwka –a member of the Instutute of Chartered Secretaries & Administrators, and its “managing”/sole-director-and-owner Aria Taheri, who advised not to authorise due refund. It claimed a telephone agreement to make conditional statutory entitlements –when asked to state time-date-number involved it did not respond -nor did its company secretary & sole-director reply at direct contact addresses stated on companies house records. It misleads in its terms & conditions, and it is known to have issued documents purporting to be what they were not. Its stationary misleads even as to its status/name.

It appears to have contempt for consumers & laws; e.g., its public internet reply to a named customer: 'If you are too cheap to buy a floppy cable...' It sells to government, public bodies; its consumers' complaints include: adverse effects on websites of charitable nature for children, the sick, the poor, the elderly; ruination of 17 year old student's college work responded with ludicrous arrogant insults, no joy on contacting owner. High employee dissatisfaction is suggestible by an ex-staff of it's reference to its quite high staff turn-over, and its owner telling of having sold goods at 6 times cost price with 500% profit and it claiming to employ top professionals, in a matter in law originally of simply refunding about £100 for returned resalable goods estimated the cost only to itself of only faxes received as being nearly £600. In dispute supported by its customer-trader it is complained of attempting to scare off consumer comment.

While publicising itself as expecting a turnover of £24 ("$36") millions and shortly to more than quadruple that to some £100 (now nearly $200) millions per annum and as helping in charitable matters, its 'charitable and political contributions' for the year is £3 thousands; to the extent of necessitating contacting the Information Commissioner it having kept on the internet customer account data inactive and old and by itself replaced years later with new, on custom only months old it ignored demand to issue an account history; it also had occasion in respect of £28, prior to being made to refund after much delay, to say it was not prepared to do so "at this time”

It is on the record to have been found against by the Trading Standards Authority in its trading practices, to have been found against and warned by the Independentent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services in respect of misleading as to its technical-service, a computer magazine has just retracted upon complaints a previous best-buy award to it for its failure to supply as presented for its laboratory tests, it has been held by Nominet Dispute Resolution legally bindingly to have advertised and sold products of its own by so naming or labeling them as to cause its customers and consumers to belive them to be products of another; has 4 legal charges on everything it owns –including all future sales; its registered liability is limited to only £1,000 overall –and it is stated as not having honoured judgement for consumer with county court officials being sent to seize its assets.

Summary: Avoid it, tell consumers and Authorities set up to discourage such practices