Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:08/21/2024

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Initial Interest and Purchase:July 8, 2024:****** ***** expressed interest in purchasing and leasing a refurbished Olympus DS-2000 Delta *** Analyzer in an email to **** ******** at The XRF Company.July 18, 2024 (9:38 AM):**** ******** provided a breakdown of the costs for the Olympus DS-2000 Delta *** Analyzer. .July 25, 2024: paying a $1,000 downpayment.July 31, 2024 (11:00 AM):A training session on the *** Analyzer took place, led by **** and *****. The session lasted for 20 minutes.August 3, 2024 (12:21 PM):**** ******** sent an email to ****** ***** attaching a return label.August 4, 2024:**** ******** explained in an email that the ***** HW FAIL" error oTroy suggested that ****** file a claim with the insurance from PEAC/******, who guaranteed the lease. He also offered to assist with the claim if necessary.August 8, 2024:oReturn of Analyzer: oDissatisfaction Expressed: ****** ***** sent an email to **** ******** stating her dissatisfaction with the analyzer. She informed him that the unit had been returned and requested the cancellation of both the deposit and the *********** Concerns:August 9, 2024:oCarrie ***** contacted ***** ***** at ************** regarding the lease on the analyzer.****** responded that ************** is only a third-party financing provider and that the terms and conditions are between ****************** and ************************, owned by ******************************** also mentioned that ************** cannot void the contract until they receive full reimbursement from ******************************* advised ****** to contact **** ******** regarding the return of the unit.Current Situation:As of the last communication, **** ******** has refused to cancel the lease, despite having the unit in his possession. ****** ***** no longer feels comfortable doing business with The XRF Company and has requested the cancellation of the lease. The situation remains unresolved.

  Business Response

  Date: 08/21/2024

  
  
  A Refurbished device was purchased from the Manufacturer (factory checked and certified) by ******************** and was sent to ****************** on behalf of *****************, who ****************** used to purchase and finance the payment for the device.  ***************** issued a Purchase Order to ******************** to satisfy the payment for the full amount, less $1000 downpayment) of the device for ******************. $1000 downpayment was sent to ******************** by *******************

   The device arrived on 7/30/2024 and was received by ***** of C ***** Group.  ******************** performed the scheduled virtual training on the device with ***** (from C ***** Group) on July 31st @ 10am ET, where he expressed gratitude, and confirmed that the analyzer was in good working condition (which is documented by the machine's data log).  

  On 8/2/2024, ***** called ********************'s **** ******* @ 12:32PM CST, stating the analyzer stopped working after he was testing a gold sample that had a rough surface and penetrated the thin film and the detector and that the analyzer was unresponsive. At that time, **** ******* instructed ***** that the device had to come in for evaluation, since broken film usually means broken detector.  
  

  Upon receipt of the device, ******************** shipped it to the Manufacturer's Factory for evaluation.  After evaluating, the Manufacturer informed ******************** that they checked the logs and the temperature errors started Aug 1st, which is the date that the *** Analyzer sustained damages.  The plastic protection film was ruptured and the detector was damaged on August 1, while in the hands of C ***** Group.  This is indicative of user-inflicted damage of the *** Analyzer and this is what caused the **** HW FAIL message.  
  
  **** ********* of ******************** explained to ****** ***** of C ***** Group that the analyzer sustained user-inflicted damage and that the damage needed to be reported to C ***** ***************** company or to Peac ******, who requires property insurance, for any equipment leased from them.  They waive the insurance requirement for any of their customer's who provide proof of property insurance.  

  **** ********* contacted PEAC ****** and explained that C ***** Group had damaged their device and advised them to speak with ****** ***** and help her file a claim with their insurance, or hers.  The device was in the possession of the manufacturer for evaluation and returned to ******************** today, 8/21/2024.  The device will be sent via ***** to ****** ***** and C ***** Group overnight.  

  ****** ***** has threatened ******************** with legal suits, criminal prosecution, and social slander.  ****** ***** has also cancelled the $1000 deposit.  The ***

  
  
   Respectfully,
  --
  **** *********
  ********************
  **************************************************************************
  ************
  *******************************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/22/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  
  
  Subject: Response to Business Message for Complaint ID ********
  Dear Dispute Resolution Department,
  Thank you for forwarding the response from The XRF Company (********************) regarding my complaint. I would like to address several inaccuracies and clarify my position.
  Condition Upon Receipt: While The XRF Company asserts that the analyzer was in good working condition upon receipt, this is not accurate. The device displayed the ***** HW FAIL" error shortly after being put to use. This issue was present before any potential user-inflicted damage could have occurred, which suggests that the analyzer was not fully operational from the outset.
  Training and Communication: During the virtual training session, my team expressed gratitude as a matter of courtesy, not as an affirmation that the machine was in perfect working order. The training lasted only 20 minutes, which is insufficient time to fully test and identify any issues with such complex equipment.
  User-Inflicted Damage: The claim that the damage was user-inflicted is highly questionable. The analyzer showed signs of malfunctioning before any potential damage could have occurred. Additionally, the fact that the protective film was ruptured during normal use indicates that the equipment may not have been adequately prepared for practical application.
  Insurance and Return Policy: I returned the device under the two-week return policy, which I believe should take precedence over any claims of damage. I reject the assertion that this issue should be handled through an insurance claim, as the equipment was not in proper working order upon receipt.
  Legal and Financial Actions: The statement regarding legal threats and the cancellation of the $1,000 deposit is misleading. I canceled the deposit in response to the failure of The XRF Company to provide a working analyzer and their attempt to shift blame for a pre-existing issue.
  Given these points, I maintain that The XRF Company is responsible for providing either a fully operational analyzer or a full refund. I appreciate the BBB's assistance in resolving this matter and look forward to their continued support.
  Thank you for your time and consideration.
  Best regards,
  ****** *****
  C ***** Group 
  Regards,
  
  
   
  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/22/2024

  MESSAGE FROM CONSUMER:
  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  Dear Dispute Resolution Department,
  Regarding the Condition Upon Receipt: As evidenced with the copy of the Purchase Order from the manufacturer, the analyzer was purchased and factory-checked and certified from Evident Scientific and delivered to ******************** a few days prior to transferring ownership and physi***ly shipping to the customer.  The device was used during the training on 7/31/2024, which during the training, it passed the *** checked and DID NOT DISPLAY the ***** HW FAIL".  The ***** HW FAIL" is associated with damage to the detector which sits right behind the plastic covering that the customer punctured when testing sharp-edged samples.  It was only after the customer's employee misused and damaged the analyzer on August 1, did the ***** HW FAIL" message appear.  This is in line with the machine's data log and supported by evidence from the manufacturer.  This issue WAS NOT present before any potential user-inflicted damage could have occurred, as it was purchased, checked, by the manufacturer prior to and after the customer's usage.  Our ********************** also checked during the training and no error messages were present during that time, which is also confirmed by the data log.

  Training and Communication: If the machine wasn't working during the training, the data log would show that.  Further, the customer would not have expressed gratitude and would have notified us that it wasn't working.  The training is offered as a courtesy and to affirm the customer's satisfaction with the product.  It is scheduled to last as long as the customer requires assistance with learning the basics of the analyzer, which in this case was 20 minutes.  The customer successfully tested jewelry, which is documented with the data logs, and did not request or require any additional time for support and training, which again is offered as a courtesy along with manuals and videos.  

  User-Inflicted Damage:  The claim that the damage was user-inflicted is supported by the data logs and statements from the manufacturer during the evaluation from the manufacturer.  It isn't the opinion of the business but fact from the statements from the customer, the data logs, the condition prior to delivery from the manufacturer, etc.  The protective film is a covering for the detector and is not supposed to be ruptured in normal application, as things are not supposed to be pushed into the area beyond the plastic to rupture it and damage the detector, especially rough and sharp-edged items.

  Insurance and Return Policy: The analyzer was damaged.  We do not accept damaged equipment returned to **, as explained to the **** ****** Leasing Company and the customer.  The analyzer belongs to the customer, and we only suggested insurance filing as a remedy to help the customer, it is up to them to repair it or claim against their insurance.  We don't really care how they resolve.  They can also pay to repair directly with the manufacturer.  

  Legal and Financial Actions: The customer has bullied, communicated legal threats, threatened to ruin our name and commit slander against us. 

  Given these points, I maintain that our company, is not willing to accept a damaged analyzer from the customer or **** ****** leasing ********************.  If we are forced to do so, then the return of the analyzer from the Leasing Company, should include a deduction for the ~$8000 repair price for the analyzer for damage that was inflicted by the enduser and the $1000 credit card reversal for the deposit that was initiated by the customer.

   

  I appreciate the BBB's assistance in resolving this matter and look forward to their continued support.
  Thank you for your time and consideration.
  Best regards,
  **** *********
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/04/2024

  
  Better Business Bureau
  
  Re: Complaint ID ******** Response to XRF Companys Claims

  
  Dear Dispute Resolution Department,
  I appreciate the opportunity to respond to **** ********** message regarding the return of the Olympus DS-2000 Delta XRF Analyzer. Below, I outline the reasons for the return and address the claims made by *** **********
  Condition Upon Receipt and Initial Issues: The analyzer displayed an INIT HW FAIL error shortly after it was received and during its initial use. Despite claims that the device was fully checked and certified before shipment, this error suggests that there were pre-existing issues with the equipment. At no point during training were any sharp-edged samples used that could have caused damage to the detector. The training itself lasted only 20 minutes, which is insufficient time to fully grasp the functionality of such specialized equipment, and this limited session did not reveal the true condition of the analyzer.
  Training and Usage: The training on July 31, 2024, was brief, lasting only 20 minutes, and the error did not manifest during that brief session. The suggestion that we punctured the detector during training is inaccurate and not substantiated by any direct evidence other than a supposed data log. The issue arose immediately after training when the analyzer was being used under normal conditions for testing, well within standard operational guidelines. The manufacturers logs are being used to blame us for damages that were not inflicted by our use but rather indicate an underlying defect.
  Claims of User-Inflicted Damage: We categorically deny any misuse or mishandling of the analyzer that would have caused the damage claimed by *** ********** We followed all standard operating procedures for the equipment, and at no point were items improperly introduced to the analyzer in a way that would puncture protective films or damage the detector. The assertions made by *** ********* are unsubstantiated and mischaracterize our use of the equipment.
  Insurance and Return Policy: We returned the analyzer because it was not functioning as promised. The suggestion that we should file an insurance claim is inappropriate given that the fault lies with the defective equipment received. The analyzer was returned in the same condition as received, barring the operational errors that occurred during normal use. We dispute any responsibility for repairs, especially since the equipment was defective upon receipt.
  Legal and Financial Actions: At no point did we engage in bullying, legal threats, or slander. We sought legal advice to resolve this matter fairly and without further conflict. Our request was simple: we returned defective equipment and expect a fair resolution, including a refund of the deposit and lease cancellation. Any claim of bullying or slander is unfounded and does not reflect our professional approach to resolving this issue.
  In summary, we returned the analyzer due to its malfunction and did not cause the damage claimed by the XRF Company. We seek resolution through a refund of the deposit, lease cancellation, and any necessary corrective action by the company responsible for supplying faulty equipment. We appreciate the BBBs involvement in mediating this dispute and look forward to a fair and amicable resolution.
  Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
  Sincerely,
  ****** Peele 
   

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/13/2024

  Dear Dispute Resolution Department,
  I appreciate the opportunity to respond to **** ********** message regarding the return of the Olympus DS-2000 Delta XRF Analyzer. Below, I outline the reasons for the return and address the claims made by Mr. ************* style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, Verdana, sans-serif;">Condition Upon Receipt and Initial Issues: The analyzer displayed an INIT HW FAIL error shortly after it was received and during its initial use. Despite claims that the device was fully checked and certified before shipment, this error suggests that there were pre-existing issues with the equipment. At no point during training were any sharp-edged samples used that could have caused damage to the detector. The training itself lasted only 20 minutes, which is insufficient time to fully grasp the functionality of such specialized equipment, and this limited session did not reveal the true condition of the analyzer.
  

   

   

   

  Although the training was brief, it clearly met its purpose, which was to confirm the analyzer was in good working condition, which your employee agreed and expressed gratitude for receiving.  The error would not manifest itself during the training session, as communicated and confirmed by the manufacturer, errors only ocurred the following day, due to a punctured detector which happened during testing sharp object, as your employee communicated. The punctured detector is fully substantiated by the manufacturer's data log.  Your employee categorically admitted to testing sharp objects during the triage call between him and Mr. ************** The machine was functioning, as promised, and confirmed by your employee after the training.  You personally threatened to contact all of the manufacturers in the industry, you threatened with contacting every agency possible, and you threatened to soil our reputation IF we did not replace the analyzer you broke with a new one.  My son and my wife were witnesses to this conversation and are available to support the claim.  

  In summary, you returned the analyzer that you leased from PEAC ****** due to damaging it, then threatened and bullied our company to replace it with a new one, which we refused.  You then contacted the LEASING COMPANY, PEAC ****** and tried to get them to cancel your LEASE, which they refused, after understanding the that you damaged the equipment.  The evidence from the manufacturer supports all claims that I make. 
  Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
  Sincerely,
  **** *********