About me My work Contact me

Customer reviews for
TheHut.com: Unreliable company with disgraceful service

Posted on Sunday 16th October 2016

Value: ★★★★★ No star (due to advertised an item never in stock)
Customer service: ★★★★★ No star (due to never receive the order)
Overall: ★★★★★ No star (basically SHIT!)

TheHut.com: Unreliable company with disgraceful service

If I could give a minus score, I would definitely do so because this company does not deserve any score above zero!

I ordered a computer with this unreliable company on 19 September. The website said the order would be despatched ‘usually’ within 4 days. Two days later, I received a message from these hopeless people saying the item was out of stock but they managed to source the same item from another so-called ‘reliable’ supplier, so the order would be despatched to me the following week. I waited for a week, I contacted the company to ask when the order would be despatched. They replied to say they were unable to give me a date for when they would have it back in stock (in other words, they still did not have the item and had no ideas when the order would be despatched). I chased the company again two days later, and they still could not tell when the order could be despatched. After two weeks of waiting, I decided to make a complaint and I was told investigations were underway, they would get back to me within 48 hours.

Next day, I received a message from someone called Sarah, Customer Relations Executive. She argued the item was not advertised as in stock (in other words, the company advertised and was selling the item which they NEVER had it in stock!), and the statement of ‘stock usually despatch within 4 working days’ was not a guaranteed timescale. Basically it was just a LIE to make customers like me to believe I would get the item within 4 working days! She claimed she would continue to chase her supplier for the item, to be honest why bothered??

Then on Monday 3 Oct, I received another message from this company saying the next expected delivery was next day, so my order would be despatched within 48 hours, what a pretty lie! I waited until the following Thursday, I wrote to the company to ask where the order was. I was now told the company did not receive the stock from their ‘reliable’ supplier (suddenly the reliable supplier is not that reliable!). What a complete waste of time and space. So I raised another complaint and I was told the same old story that investigations were underway, the company would get back to me within 48 hours.

On Saturday 8 Oct, I received a message from someone called Lizzie, another Customer Relations Executive, saying she has asked her internal Operations Team to investigate the matter urgently.

3 weeks passed by, I wrote to the company on Monday 10 Oct to request for a telephone conversation to discuss the matter. The company’s website does not have a contact telephone number. To be honest, I am not surprised the website has no telephone number because based on the appalling service that I have experienced so far, the company’s telephone line would be melt down from receiving complaints from other customers.

No one from the company phoned me on Monday, so I left another message next day to ask for a phone call. Again, no calls on next day, I left another message to ask for a call. And again, still no calls, another message left on Wednesday.

Then on Friday afternoon 14 Oct at 4.27pm. I received a final message from Lizzie telling me that my order was finally cancelled after a month of waiting. She claimed her supplier was not able to provide it. What a joke! This company is utterly unbelievable!

To start with, the company advertised an item which they DID NOT have in stock, then tricked me to make a purchase by claiming the item would be despatched within 4 working days. When I questioned about this despatch timescale, I was told it ‘usually’ happened but not guaranteed. Well, the computer that I ordered was a standard spec, nothing fancy or special, so I don’t know what unusual happened to make my order could not be despatched within 4 working days as usual!

Then every time when I chased for an update, I was told, at first, the company had found another source for the item in the 2nd week and I would receive the item soon, then later on in the 3rd week the other source didn’t have the item and the company needed to investigate. And finally in the 4th week I was ignored for first 4 days then on Friday late afternoon, Ta-Dah the company admitted they did not have the item and cancelled the order completely. What a pathetic service!

I sent a direct email to Jordan to make a complaint on 5 October and again I have never received a reply from Jordan. This company is well beyond ‘poop’ (really wish I could use the actual word here!!)

Apologies are simply not good enough and acceptable in my case. Four full weeks of waiting and ended up receiving nothing. This company should be awarded the most shameful company of the year. Shame on the person who owns this company, and shame on the people who run this company! Simply disgraceful!

What is the rarest modern British coin? It is not Kew Gardens 50 pence but…

Posted on Saturday 11th June 2016

I have been reading a lot of online articles and seeing a lot of claims on eBay saying the 2009 Royal Mint Kew Gardens 50 pence coin is the rarest coin in the UK, but is that true?

If the argument is based on the mintage figure and the coin must be still in circulation, perhaps it is. But from a collector’s point of view, calling a coin the rarest coin, it is NOT based on whether the coin itself is in circulation or not, but the total amount of the coins were minted.

It is really fascinating to see all media claiming the 200 Kew Gardens 50 pence coin is the rarest coin in the UK, a total of 210,000 were minted by the Royal Mint. But if you take a look of the mintage figures table from the Royal Mint website or go through the shop section on the Royal Mint website, there are plenty of other coins that the Royal Mint has minted are under the 210,000 mintage mark, so in truth the 2009 Kew Gardens 50 pence coins are not the rarest coin in the UK.

Going back to the Royal Mint’s mintage figures table. In 1992, the Royal Mint produced and issued some special dual date 50 pence coins with the EEC single market design. This coin has a total mintage of 109,000, nearly a half less than the 2009 Kew Gardens 50 pence coins. To make the 1992 EEC 50 pence coins more special, the coin itself is no longer in circulation due to the fact that the Royal Mint has changed all 50 pence coins to a smaller size in 1997. So with a coin has just a half of the mintage of the 2009 Kew Gardens 50 pence coin and no longer in circulation, surely that is the rarest!

If people call the 2009 Kew Gardens 50 pence coin is the rarest coin in the UK, then the 1992 EEC has got to be rarest of the rarest coin in the modern British coins history.

It seems very sad to me that a coin truly is the rarest has been forgotten and unloved, while many people would pay silly amount of money for a coin which has a higher mintage. It is just hard to understand. What is the real meaning and definition of coin collection these days? Is it based on a half story that the media have told the public, or the true facts of the coin itself?

The rarest coin was issued in 1992 to mark the EEC Single Market and the UK presidency of the Council of Ministers – perhaps not the most popular of topics, which maybe was the reason so very few were pushed out into circulation. But of course, its lack of popularity at the time, is the very thing that now makes its Britain’s rarest 50p coin.

Just 109,000 were minted, many of them were demonetised in 1998 because it is one of the old-sized 50p coins. Although the true figure of the remaining EEC Single Market 50 pence coins is unknown, without a doubt this is gotta be the most collectable coin in the British numismatic history.

The coin itself was designed by Mary Milner Dickens and pictures the UK’s place at the head of the Council of Ministers’ conference table. The stars represent each of the nations’ capital cities placed in their relative geographical position.


Source: The Royal Mint Limited