1 reviews | Active since Jul 2015
Unresolved copy count dispute so been handed over
Konica presented us with a ridiculous bill on returning from Dec'14 leave which we paid but lodged a complaint as the meter readings did not tally from Dec'14 - Jan'15. After numerous emails a technician was sent who agreed there was something strange as the readings didn't match but said he didn't know what to do. Also at this time, an imaging unit was needed but we had not settled Feb'15 bill due to our query, they refused to supply us. After more emails & calls requesting a service manager to assist in resolving this issue so we could all move forward, a software technician was sent who also agreed there was something strange as the meter reading was off compared to Data Administrator & machine & readings given monthly. Again, we waited for a resolution which came from the service manager informing us that on checking, the meter readings were off from Aug'14 & adjusted in Jan'15 to make up the copy 'shortfall'. We tried to negotiate a fair settlement but to no avail & so decided due to lack of interest, we would withhold payment of our account on principle. This has now led to final demands. All we needed to pay was the courtesy of a detailed substantiation of the extra charges.
Good day - it was explained to Cosmetiques de France in detail as to the reasoning and possibilities as to why there were discrepancies between the telephonic and technicians readings. This was backed up with job cards and photographs of the readings. Furthermore, the mechanical counter was consistent with the electronic one which ultimately confirms that copies/prints were made on the device, hence the invoice from Konica Minolta is justifiable. Finally Konica Minolta offered to meet with the complainant on the 28th of May 2015 to discuss the matter, however, no response to this was received thereafter.
kind regards
Paul Symonds
Konica Minolta South Africa
Branch Manager - Johannesburg sales office
Good day - it was explained to Cosmetiques de France in detail as to the reasoning and possibilities as to why there were discrepancies between the telephonic and technicians readings. This was backed up with job cards and photographs of the readings. Furthermore, the mechanical counter was consistent with the electronic one which ultimately confirms that copies/prints were made on the device, hence the invoice from Konica Minolta is justifiable. Finally Konica Minolta offered to meet with the complainant on the 28th of May 2015 to discuss the matter, however, no response to this was received thereafter.
kind regards
Paul Symonds
Konica Minolta South Africa
Branch Manager - Johannesburg sales office