Report: #92259

Complaint Review: Dell Computer Corporation - Toronto Ontario

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Toronto Ontario
  • Dell Computer Corporation www.dell.ca Toronto, Ontario Canada

Dell Computer Corporation rip-off! Dishonest, fraudulent, unprofessional and rude! Toronto Ontario

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Here's a copy of my statement of claim against Dell Computer Corporation, which have been filed with the Ontario Superior Courts.

This claim has been filed due to a breach of contract (verbally & written) with Dell Computer Corporation (defendant). I have outlined and itemized my three outstanding issues with an explanation in the body of this communication, the items with supporting documentation. The three outstanding issues that the defendant has breached are as follows:

1. Failure to deliver the accompanying remote control as well as the non-delivery of the three year next business day parts & labour complete care warranty

2. Refusing to repair the defective number pad on the Inspiron 5100 notebook which is covered under both the initial one year and the three year next business day parts & labour complete care warranty

3. Several unfulfilled verbal and written promises

I have contacted the defendant on six separate occasions by phone and by email correspondences in regards to the above-mentioned outstanding issues. In addition, I also solicited the assistance of a third party who specializes in dispute resolutions the Better Business Bureaus (BBB), in which Dell Computer Corporation is a member. As of the present time, I have been unsuccessful in bringing my outstanding issues to a satisfactory conclusion.

To add to this frustrating situation, the defendant had indicated to the BBB in an email correspondence dated March 4, 2004 (see Appendix L-I) that Dell Computer Corporation had communicated their final response regarding my outstanding issues. In this email correspondence (dated March 4, 2004), this defendant deliberately chosen to disregard my outstanding issues when Ms. Ann Johnson and the legal department of Dell Computer Corporation were drafting' their final response. Therefore, any future correspondence and communications with me as well as with the BBB itself regarding these issues would be terminated.

Despite sending the defendant two additional email correspondences after this fact, no communication either verbal or written has been received from the defendant. This decision came as a result of my written correspondence letters to the local media and to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in which I highlighted my ongoing issues with the defendant.

Consequently, Ms. Ann Hart, Dispute Settlement Supervisor of the BBB, had indicated to me in an email correspondence dated March 8, 2004 (see Appendix M-I) that the BBB could not resolve my outstanding issues because the defendant was refusing to co-operate. She had indicated that I should obtain my own legal council considering that the legal department of Dell Computer Corporation is now involved on my case. As a result of defendant's actions, I have no other available remedy of resolving my outstanding issues other than filing a statement of claims.

The defendant has not dealt with my concerns in a serious and timely manner. Please see Appendix G-I to G-II which shows the original date of February 17, 2004 on which I sent correspondence to the defendant and the subsequent response from Ms. Ann Johnson of Dell Computer Corporation which was dated March 3, 2004 (Appendix K-I). The defendant also has ignored my numerous correspondences.

Furthermore, the defendant's written correspondences present a grossly inaccurate and unfair representation of the claimant and gives the wrong impression about the facts. I have articulated myself in a proper and comprehensible manner in regards to my outstanding issues with the defendant. I had given the defendant numerous times to clarify and resolve these outstanding issues but they have chosen not to address my concerns and my outstanding issues. As indicated in email correspondence dated March 3, 2004 from Ms. Ann Johnson of Dell Computer Corporation, it clearly demonstrates that the defendant has been neglectful in understanding my concerns.

1. The defendant failed to deliver the accompanying remote control and refused to deliver the three-year next business day parts & labour complete care warranty as per our contract.

On February 5, 2004, I placed an order #57263295 with Mr. Alex Dulevski over the phone. The order #57263295 consisted of a Dell Insprison 5100 notebook 2.8GHx, 15 SXGA+, 4X DVD-RW, carrying case, memory key, remote control and three-year client care warranty. I had made handwritten notes, which I have included in this claim, (see Appendix B-III) of my order while I was on the phone with Mr. Dulevski to avoid any discrepancies. The defendant was fully aware of these discrepancies with my order and has fully acknowledged that these items were ordered. Yet, despite all of this, they still failed to deliver these items for undisclosed reasons.

The email correspondence dated February 16, 2004 (Appendix F-I) from Ms. Ann Johnson confirms the order but the correspondence is both deceptive and inaccurate as all the items were ordered collectively on February 5, 2004. The defendant has on numerous occasions indicated to me in her email correspondences that these items were shipped. This proved to be inaccurate because only the carrying case was received on March 8, 2004 a month after the order date.

Previously, Mr. Dulevski had indicated to me that these accessories were to be received within five business days after the order date of February 5, 2004 and prior to the delivery of the Inspiron 5100 notebook. As of the time of writing, I have not received the accompany remote control and the Three Year Next Business Day Parts & Labour Complete Care Warranty.

2. Refusing to repair the defective number pad on the Inspiron 5100 notebook which is covered under both the initial one year and the three year next business day parts & labour complete care warranty

I had indicated to the defendant on three separate occasions by email correspondences that the number pad on the notebook was malfunctioning. I had sent an email correspondence on March 2, 2004 (Appendix J-I) to Ms. Anne Hart of the BBB in regards this issue, which subsequently, the BBB advised Ms. Johnson at Dell Computer Corporation. Ms. Hart had been assigned to my file with Dell Computer Corporation in regards to my concerns and the other two outstanding issues.

An email correspondence was received on March 2, 2004 from Ms. Hart indicating that the defendant would address this issue. Not surprisingly, the defendant did not follow through with this. A second notice was sent directly to Ms. Ann Johnson in regards to this issue on March 4, 2004 (see Appendix T-II) after receiving an email correspondence from her. Ms Johnson for a second time confirmed in her email correspondence dated March 3, 2004 that I have three year next business day parts & labour complete care warranty on this notebook. After five business days passed from the original notification of the defective problem, a final notice (third notice) was sent to Ms. Johnson on March 8, 2004. It was then brought to my attention that I did not have the three year next business day parts & labour complete care warranty as mentioned in the above paragraph despite the claims from the defendant.

Prior communicating both Ms. Hart and Ms. Johnson, I had placed a call to the technical support at Dell Computer Corporation. After an extended wait to speak to a technical support representative (TSR), somebody finally answered my call. I tried to explain my problem about my number pad in numerous ways to the TSR but a communication problem had presented itself. The TSR communicated in broken English with a heavy accent, which made it very difficult to understand him. He had great difficulties in asking me for the service code tag of my notebook.

To add to the unpleasant phone experience, I had problems in communicating numbers and alphabets during the conversation with the TSR. Since the service code tag consists of numbers and alphabets, I was unable to relay my tag number to him. I had placed another call to Dell's technical support and same experience occurred. After several calls to the technical support at Dell Computer Corporation, a friendly English speaking TSR indicated to me that only business users were allowed to communicate to English speaking TSR located in North America and home users, such as myself, were automatically transferred to technical support call centres located in India.

She noted that Dell is fully aware of the communication problems with TSR at the call centre in India and the company recently terminated transferring business users to India. Dell had received so many complaints from business users. I immediately requested to speak to an English TSR located in North America but my request was denied due to Dell's policies and procedures. I have enclosed copies of articles from CNET.com in regards this issue; please see Appendix V-I thru V-VI.

As of the time of writing, the notebook has not been inspected and/or repaired by Dell Computer Corporation nor has the defendant even inquired about this issue. Once again, I am left with the impression that the defendant had completely avoided my issues and is refusing to cooperate with both myself and the BBB to bring the entire situation to a satisfactory conclusion. Furthermore, it is clear that the defendant, Dell Computer Corporation does not stand behind their products.

3. Several unfulfilled verbal and written promises

In verbal conversation on the afternoon of February 4, 2004 with Ms. Ann Johnson, she had clearly indicated to me that the purchase of the notebook Inspirson 5100 would be free of charge at Dell's expense as a sign of goodwill due to the extensive problem and frustrations I was experiencing with them.

Prior to that date, in which the offer was made, Ms Johnson had contacted me on the morning of January 28, 2004 regarding the status of my order of the Inspiron 5100 notebook. She indicated that there was a credit card problem with the original order #56861474 on January 26, 2004. TD Visa (Toronto-Dominion Bank) had rejected the credit card transaction from Dell Computers Corporation in regards to the original order# 56861474 but no explanation was given to Ms. Johnson. I had advised her that there was no problem, which I was aware of.

I then immediately called my visa company and I had a conference with Ms. Johnson and with a customer service representative (CSR) at TD Visa. The TD Visa CSR had informed me that I had no available credit limit on my Visa account as a result of several large purchases on my account. I immediately advised the TD Visa CSR that I did not authorize any large transactions on my visa account except for the one transaction from the defendant in the amount of $2,018.00 (see Appendix A-II).

The TD Visa CSR had indicated during this conference call, that she could not disclose the detailed information on my account because the merchant, Ms. Johnson was on the phone. Ms. Johnson at that point indicated that she was unaware of any additional transactions charged on my TD Visa account from Dell Computer Corporation but added that she would contact the finance department at Dell Computer Corporation to verify that information.

At this point, the conversation with Ms. Johnson was terminated. The TD Visa CSR immediately transferred my call to the fraud department to start an investigation. The fraud department at TD Visa notified me that there were three transactions from Dell Computer Corporation posted and a fourth transaction from Dell Computers Corporation that was rejected by TD Visa on my Visa account, which resulted in bringing my available credit limit to zero. For an immediate resolution, the fraud department at TD Visa had advised me to contact the defendant directly and have Dell Computer Corporation cancel the three unauthorized transactions on my TD Visa account thru their Point-of-Sale (POS) system. The TD Visa fraud department had provided me with an estimated time period from real time to 24 hours for the cancellation process to be posted on my TD Visa account.

I contacted Ms. Johnson immediately upon discovering this new information from TD Visa. She said that she was unaware of these transactions but she had the finance department looking into this matter and would call me back as soon as possible when any information was known. After numerous phone calls back and forth between TD Visa, and Dell Computer Corporation for three consecutive days, from January 28 to January 30, 2004, another technical issue was discovered.

According to Ms. Johnson, the finance department at Dell Computer Corporation discovered another computer software problem with their POS system, in regards to canceling the three unauthorized transactions posted on my TD Visa account. On January 30, 2004, which was three days after the fact, the defendant finally processed the cancellation of the three unauthorized transactions on my TD Visa account. At that point, Ms Johnson informed me that a large substantial discount would be granted on the original order #56861474 on the afternoon of January 30, 2004.

On the next business day, February 2, 2004, my credit card situation was finally resolved and my credit limit became available. I contacted Ms. Johnson and Mr. Dulevski to inquire about the reason for these two credit card errors and the status of my impending order. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Dulevski did not answer their phone. For the record, please note that both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Dulevski's voice mail greetings indicated that they were in the office that day.

I called Ms. Johnson and Mr. Dulevski again on the morning of February 3, 2004 after not receiving a call back. Due to their non-response, I was given the impression that they were avoiding the situation and reluctant to address my concerns in a prompt and timely manner. On the evening of February 3, 2004, I sent an email correspondence to Pat Foran at Consumer Alert of CFTO TV regarding my outstanding issues (see Appendix C-III). In addition, on February 4, 2004, I contacted the Federal Privacy Commissioner regarding the unauthorized transactions and my privacy concerns. I had sent an email correspondence (see Appendix C-I) to Mr. Dulevksi on the morning of February 4, 2004 indicating to him that I had contacted the Federal Privacy Commissioner. Surprisingly, I received an email correspondence from Ms. Johnson at 12:43pm on February 4, 2004.

I called Ms. Johnson approximately at 2pm and she had apologized for credit card errors and said that an investigation had been carried out into the multiple authorizations on my credit card. She then continued with an explanation on the process of the investigation into this malfunction of the defendant's sales systems and POS system that affected Dell Computer Corporation. Ms. Johnson mentioned that four different department (technical, finance, sales & executive support) had been contacted during their investigation. Ms. Johnson said that she appreciated that fact that I had bought this problem to her attention before it affected other Dell's Computer Corporation customers and caused public embarrassment.

She made a comment about how unbelievable it was that I was affected, considering the fact that I had so many previous problems with Dell Computer Corporation regarding sales orders. She again apologized and immediately said that my order for the Inspiron 5100 notebook would be free of charge after placing an order with Mr. Dulevski. Ms Johnson had advised me that the original order #56861474 had been cancelled due to insufficient credit on my TD Visa account as a result of the three unauthorized transactions.

Further, Ms. Johnson had indicated that she would reverse the charges on my credit card after Mr. Dulevski completed the order. I did not questioned Ms. Johnson's action at the time because she had reversed my other two previous orders due to another problems caused by the sales department at Dell Computer Corporation. For your records, I have provided supporting documentation from defendant regarding the other two previous orders; please see Appendix R-I thru Appendix S-II. Ms. Johnson had advised me that that Mr. Dulevski would contact me regarding the order of the notebook.

Mr. Dulevski immediately sent me an email correspondence dated February 4, 2004 at 2:41pm after the discussion with Ms. Johnson. I had placed another order #57263295 on February 5, 2004 with Mr. Dulevski and confirmed the order details twice with him to avoid any future discrepancies and made handwritten note (see Appendix B-III). Not surprisingly, I contacted Mr. Dulevski a week later because there were (and still are) discrepancies with the amended order #57263295.

I immediately contacted the sales department at Dell Computer Corporation when I received the sales invoice that night. I noticed that the extended warranty and other accessories were not listed on my sales invoice (order #57263295) (please see Appendix Q-I and Q-II). A Dell's sales representative, named Frank (his surname was not provided), answered the phone and he had indicated to me that the missing items that I had pointed out, were not ordered.

To add further irritation to this issue, I had indicated to Mr. Dulevski in a previous email correspondence dated February 4, 2004 (see Appendix E-I) that I had ordered a remote control. Frank advised me to contact Mr. Dulevski regarding this issue: therefore, I did so. On the next business day, Mr. Dulevski and I had a telephone conversation in which he had indicated to me that these items were in fact on backorder. Mr. Dulevski had not indicated in any way that these items were not ordered as Frank had mentioned to me.

After discovering this contradiction from Mr. Dulevski, I immediately contacted Ms. Johnson by phone. To my surprise, Ms Johnson answered the phone and I had the opportunity to discuss this matter to her. She had indicated to me that she would investigate into the latest situation regarding the contradiction from the two Dell's sales representatives, Frank and Mr. Dulevski.

Ms. Johnson replied by an email dated February 16, 2004 in regards to the contradiction (see Appendix F-I). She had indicated that these items were in fact ordered and shipped in her email dated February 16, 2004. Her email correspondence dated February 16, 2004 come across both deceptive and inaccurate as she yet again indicated to me in her email correspondence dated March 3, 2004 (see Appendix K-I) that these items would be shipped. In actual fact, I have just received one of the outstanding items, as of the time of writing. This completely contradicts her email correspondences dated February 16, 2004 and March 3, 2004.

After discovering that offer that Ms. Johnson made on February 4, 2004 was false, and that Ms. Johnson was being untruth to me regarding my outstanding issues, I immediately sent an email correspondence on February 17, 2004 (see Appendix G-I). The final email correspondence from the defendant was received on March 3, 2004. The correspondence clearly indicates that the defendant was not interested in resolving with my outstanding concerns.

The defendant has posted on their web site a code of conduct policies indicating a high standard of several key characteristics: trust, integrity, honesty, judgement, respect, courage and responsibility. As noted above, my experience has been a complete contrast to the defendant's so-called corporate behaviour. The defendant has failed to explain why these public policies have not been applied to me.

I have mentioned this to Ms. Johnson in an email correspondence but she has chosen to ignore my concerns and be in non-compliance with Dell's code of conduct. I had requested that my customer file to be transferred to a qualified and experienced senior official at Dell Computer Corporation because Ms. Johnson has not dealt with my concerns in a serious and timely manner. Ms Johnson had immediately denied my request without any appropriate justification. She also had sent an email correspondence to me regarding the customer file transfer (see Appendix C-I).

Ms. Johnson had indicated that she is fully responsible for my customer file until resolution can be reached. Ironically, she then continued to indicate that she is one of the most senior officials at Dell Computer Corporation and reports directly to Mr. Michael Dell on customer relations matters in Canada. Mr. Michael Dell is the Chief Executive Officer at Dell Inc. at the head office located in the Round Rock, Texas, United States of America. I honestly do not understand why the defendant would mislead their customers and violate their own so-called corporate policies. I have enclosed a copy of the defendant's code of conduct in this claim; please see Appendix U-I.

I had indicated to the defendant that I would seek legal action after thirty days from the notice on March 8, 2004 (see Appendix O-I to O-II). Not surprisingly, the defendant has chosen to disregard my email correspondence again and ignored my outstanding issues and concerns.

Toronto, Ontario

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on DELL

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/20/2004 10:07 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/dell-computer-corporation/toronto-ontario/dell-computer-corporation-rip-off-dishonest-fraudulent-unprofessional-and-rude-toronto-92259. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now