Thank you for your reply, Chapman, but it regrettably misrepresents the substance and tone of our prior correspondence. 1. Name Error: Your initial email addressed me as Mr Ashamed. To now claim it w
I purchased a £265 fishing bag from Chapman with high expectations, given the brand’s emphasis on craftsmanship and service. Unfortunately, the product arrived with a defect, which I had no time to return due to imminent travel. I notified the company immediately, expecting a reasonable partial refund—particularly as I was forced to use the bag in its flawed condition.
Instead, Chapman refused to offer any compensation, proposed only a post-travel repair (without a courtesy bag), and handled the matter with increasing defensiveness. Most disturbingly, they addressed me in their reply as “Mr Ashamed”, a deeply inappropriate distortion of my surname. Rather than issue an unconditional apology, they attempted to blame me for a possible autofill error, despite having my correct name on all order records.
This experience has been frustrating, disappointing, and frankly insulting. I expected better from a company that trades on heritage and personal attention. Based on my experience, I cannot recommend Chapman and would advise prospective customers to exercise caution.
⸻
This is your final opportunity to resolve this matter in good faith. I await your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Faramarz Ashtarieh
Order #C2669
Thank you for your reply, Chapman, but it regrettably misrepresents the substance and tone of our prior correspondence.
1. Name Error: Your initial email addressed me as Mr Ashamed. To now claim it was a mere auto-correction from my email is misleading. The responsibility to verify the spelling of a customer’s name—especially for a bespoke brand—is yours, not the customer’s. To suggest you “simply copied it” and then later to say you “accept full responsibility” are contradictory positions.
2. Contradictory Position on Remedy: Your Trustpilot response now claims you offered to “repair or replace the item promptly and at our expense.” This is patently not what was stated in your direct email. You only offered to collect the bag for repair, and explicitly refused a partial refund or any compensation for the inconvenience or defective condition. At no stage did you offer a replacement or acknowledge your statutory duty under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to offer such.
3. Full Refund Offer: The claim that you offered a full refund “regardless of the mark” is again misleading. Your written position was that any refund would only be considered after workshop inspection, and you expressly objected to any refund or compensation without first returning the bag—something I could not do due to imminent travel (a fact I informed you of in advance).
4. Public Review Justification: It is disingenuous to suggest my review was premature. I engaged in written communication with your team for three full days, received no practical remedy, and was left with a defective product just before international travel. Posting a public review is a legitimate consumer recourse when private resolution fails.
To conclude, your Trustpilot response is notably more conciliatory than your private communications. That disparity is troubling in itself. I stand by my review, and reserve the right to escalate further as appropriate.
31 July 2025
Unprompted review