Nah mate sent them this.
"This email is in response to our phone conversation yesterday regarding my public notice advert which I had payed £137 to yourselves. When I originally contacted Newsquest on June 2nd I phoned and emailed requesting to place a public notice advertisement and heard nothing back until I emailed again on June 16th. I was contacted and spoke to one of your staff and they said they have received my email and will place my advert to appear on Monday 20th at no time was I sent a proof before it went to print. On Monday 20th I bought the Bolton News to find my advert address had the spelling mistake of Cribb instead of Gibb. I phoned your company the same day, only to be told that I would have to pay once again another £137 to re-place the advert. Which I find wholly unacceptable as I feel your member is at fault. If the person responsible for placing the advert was unsure of the wording which she was because she told me on the phone that she had asked her colleague her opinion.Then why couldn't she have phoned me, or performed as simple google search, and sent me a proof by email. This would have solved any confusion. The nature of the advert is to gain the operators license which cost £300 to apply then another £300 once granted,the wording of the advert has to be perfect or they simply decline and the whole process starts again which is very time consuming and whilst the said vehicle is not allowed access to the roads it is costing my company more expense.
As a service provider operating under the
Supply of goods and services act 1982. I am requesting that you refund my £137 or re-place my advert at no cost to myself or my company.
I look forward to you response within 7days otherwise I will be left with no option to forward this email to Chris Hughes and send a paper copy by post to your offices, his offices & Bolton News offices.
Newsquest's Mission statement
Newsquest's objective is to have market-leading brands disseminating local information in a number of different and simultaneous ways, which reflect the views and aspirations of the communities they serve. Our multi-media brands must be the authoritative source of information that customers can trust; being willing to listen but not afraid to question.
Newsquest is market-led and technology-driven and with all its products - both print and electronic - the company's aim is always to provide optimum service to customers.
Regards"
got this in reply.
"Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your email.
Please find the following response in reply to the points you have raised;
I understand you originally contacted Newsquest on June 2nd and emailed your public notice, I believe you spoke to Sharon Ellis who confirmed that your email had not been received and asked if you could send again, which you did. Upon receipt of your email Sharon contacted you and confirmed when the notice would appear and informed you of the charge. You say that no proof was offered, we do not generally offer proofs to customers unless requested, however if you had requested one we could have arranged for you to receive a copy.
As a publisher, we understand the importance of printing adverts correctly and of the regulations surrounding public notice applications and therefore, if we are in any doubt as to the details sent to us, we query the information before publishing the notice. However, on this occasion, the form that was received by ourselves clearly read Cribb and not Gibb, which you acknowledged when you called to advise us of the error. I do not feel that this is the salespersons fault as I stated to you when you rang to complain, furthermore there would have been no reason to look on Google for the spelling as the form clearly read Cribb.
You mention in your e-mail that Sharon asked her colleague for her opinion on the spelling of the name Cribb; whilst this is correct, this occurred after your call alerting us to the issue with the spelling of Cribb/Gibb. This was discussed with me, at which point I confirmed that the spelling on the form appeared to read Cribb. As stated previously, there was no query at the time of booking the notice as the form read Cribb.
All advertisements are accepted in good faith and that the information contained within them is correct and we cannot be held responsible for mis-printing information which is incorrectly supplied to us. However, as a gesture of good will, the offer to re-run the notice at 25% discount still stands.
I look forward to receiving your comments"
She just a cow who probably looking after one of her mates.
Complained to them today and they are adamant they read Cribb instead of Gibb and said I would need to fork out anouther £137 but could offer me 25% off to place anouther ad. I told them this was not right and I would find out where I legally stand. So here I am on scaffolder forum. Surely I must have some rights as I have paid for something I am not happy with. Tried looking online for some info but it's a bit of a grey area.
