GameSeek Ltd

GameSeek Ltd Review

Reviews: 1

1 RATING
(1)

Total views: 4331

Published: 13 June 2019

Posted by: Anonymously

On 30 December 2014, I received a WiiU game from GameSeek (ordered through Play.com) that appeared to be used, damaged and contained the following text on the game box: “not to be sold separately”. The game was listed as NEW and was supposed to be sealed (wrapped) and to contain a Nintendo Club PIN. I immediately contacted the seller, filled in the returns form, returned the wrong item and requested a replacement. I also made photos of the item I had received and saved the original receipt. Last week, the seller received the returned item (I could see it using my tracking information that I have for the package). After contacting their customer service via email, it has been promised that a new (fully sealed) item will be sent out to me and that the shipping costs (€11) will be refunded. Unfortunately, I have not received any comfirmation yet that the replacement item had been shipped and the return costs have not been refunded. I keep contacting the seller via email but always get some promises in return while no action is taken or my emails are simply ignored. It is my second (and last) terrible experience with this seller and all I would like to receive is an item that I am entitled to get (new, sealed and not damaged, which may be sold individually) and the refund for the return costs. I cannot believe that this shop treats its customers in such a manner and not think that we may be treated this way. Recently, I have received an email from GameSeek stating that the item they had received from me is not theirs. I suppose they are implying that I sent them a game I had bought somewhere else. Considering its price, it would make no sense at all. On Play.com, I can see that other customers have similar experince with GameSeek. It is very inappropriate what they are doing: they sent me a used and damaged item that may not be sold individually and now are claiming that the item is not theirs. I cannot believe that they can do it. I am very disapponted. GameSeek took my money, did not sent me a replacement item (or issued a refund) and did not refund shipping costs for returning the damaged and used product. They violate consumer rights and do not take any responsibility for their own actions. I think that people customers should be aware of the unusual practices of GameSeek and stay away from them. I would recommend everybody to avoid this store if you don’t want to be treated in a very inappropriate manner and to hear false accusations that they had not sent you the item that you received from them.

Rate and Write a Review on GameSeek Ltd

Sending

Sam Shapiro aka Samuel Shapiro infringing privacy

Sam Shapiro, sometimes known as Samuel Shapiro, is an operations assistant who may continue to infringe individuals’ privacy by searching

ILYLaw.com – Arizona’s Worst Lawyer

ilylaw.com About Izzy Yetnikoff Izzy Yetnikoff of ILYLAW.COM is an awful lawyer and a horrid human being and has made A TON of enemies and

Has paranoia issues affecting her corruption

Kelyali Infante-cruz, or Kelyali Infante, is a neurotic actress who believes she is being observed at home or at work. THIS WAS NOT A GOOD

Scam

This is not a job.  It is a MLM pyramid schemes.  They just want to get a hold of your family and friends insurance policy for ”.  “

nina chabria has issues at work

nina chabria was advertising on Craigslist. A sincere and normal post. When sending emails, nina chabria uses scripts. She was once

Corrupt human resources manager

Catherine Collado, or Catherine Logrono, is a dishonest Human Resources Manager at ABM Industries who is orchestrating layoffs by changing

Ponzi Lawyer

Ponzi Lawyer Padowitz makes dirty deals behind your back. Kenny Padowitz laundered cash for Scott Rothstein. His accomplice and campaign

Defaulting on invoices / abuse of suppliers – a warning to the industry

We are a consortium of suppliers to David Neikrug and Optimatum Solutions. We are preparing a class action law suit against Mr Neikrug and