I actually found this one an interesting example, it is a little extreme but in no way unique. I thought it would make a good example of what goes on in the background, and also was interested to hear if anyone felt we had got it wrong.
To be clear this issue is now resolved, no members from this site should enter into any correspondence with Belinda Smith & Co relating to this complaint.
It all starts with the following anonymous feedback.
The feedback is provided in full there so we have no contact email for this person (we don't use the phone), and the only other pertinent information is that they came into the site from this search.Originally Posted by anonymous feedback
Some information we have to bear in mind is that without a verified email obtained by registering we have to wonder if any feedback is someone attempting to pass off. We tracked down the website of the firm mentioned at this location and the details all seemed to match.
The other thing we have to be aware of is when Pubs Galore first started we did display phone numbers, it doesn't now. The phone number could potentially appear on a search engine if a 6+ year old page is cached (shouldn't happen) or if a reviewer has placed the number, neither appeared to be the case here.
So this reply was sent (using email address found on their site):
Originally Posted by Pubs Galore
To which the following reply was sent:
From here on out I will omit the standard footer.Originally Posted by BSCO Solicitors
Reply doesn't really help me, so just go with the simple answer (Dave did point out to me after I replied that we don't even have the Packhorse).
To which we receive the following:Originally Posted by Pubs Galore
Followed by a screen shot from that site (which isn't actually showing her number, they have the area code wrong).Originally Posted by BSCO Solicitors
At this point it has become obvious that this is a red herring, to this moment I have no idea how they ended up contacting us through a form on our website, but my reply is short and to the point.
To which I got the reply as commented elsewhere:Originally Posted by Pubs Galore
I did actually reply with the following:Originally Posted by BSCO Solicitors
We got no reply to this and thus I am reproducing it now. I would be interested to hear what people think of us. Any comments about the solicitors will be removed, they wont be passed on and serve no purpose.Originally Posted by Pubs Galore
The correspondence is provided in full with the omission of the standardised footer of the solicitors after the first post.
The obvious comment is that I could have not been as aggressive in my 'aggressive' reply, my defence however is that her reply was the first that didn't actually accuse Pubs Galore of anything.
The other possible comment is that we shouldn't have replied to the original email as there were no contact details. I think one of the things that many of our users find attractive about this site is that we are trying to take matters relating to it seriously though.
This correspondence in total wasted over a man hour of work between me and Dave that could have been usefully/profitably spent in other pursuits.
The other 2 things is to once again say, you can understand how other sites give up and don't reply to correspondence, and this is an example of why we have shied away from phone numbers on our site.