Misrepresentation of facts and shocking customer service
This review concerns Tokyo Foxtrot’s public reply to my previous feedback, not the return itself. They begin their response with “whilst we welcome constructive feedback,” but then go on to evade accountability and accuse me of misrepresenting the truth. I have no issue with my statements being scrutinised — in fact, I will happily upload all evidence, including delivery and processing confirmations, to prove exactly where their claims are false.
1. They claim my return was processed within their timeframe.
I have documented proof that my parcel was received and signed for on 4 August. Their own returns email states: “please allow up to 3 business days for your return to be processed”. My refund was not confirmed until 9 August — six days later. To then publicly claim a senior manager processed my refund “to go above and beyond” is not just misleading — it is insulting. This delay breaches their own stated timeframe and arguably falls foul of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), which prohibit misleading actions likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision. When a business sets a clear processing time in writing, they are bound to honour it. Anything else is a misrepresentation.
2. They claim I posted multiple grievances on multiple platforms.
This is untrue. I posted one review here on Trustpilot and one on the site they requested feedback through — both entirely within my rights under the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which protect consumers from retaliation for leaving honest feedback. Two reviews after a poor experience is not “multiple grievances to spread disrepute” as they allege.
3. They accuse me of failing to contact them directly.
In reality, I emailed them on 8 August requesting information about a missing refund despite my order being received and signed for on the 4th. If they cannot follow up on a direct enquiry of this nature, why would I expect them to address more serious issues like their return fees and timelines?
4. They imply contacting them might have changed their response.
In their reply, they state “you did not contact our team regarding any of these grievances.” Are they suggesting that, had I emailed them about the cost, their response would have been different? Would they have offered to waive some of the charges? If so, this raises fairness concerns under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (requirement for terms and practices to be fair). Selective fee waivers to quiet individual complaints create false positives and undermine equal treatment of customers.
5. They prioritised public image over actual customer service.
They responded to this negative review within 2 hours, yet have ignored my email sent four days ago. That speaks volumes — reputation management came before genuine resolution.
Their response to my review attempts to undermine me as a customer and frame me as the problem, rather than address the facts. A legitimate business should respond professionally, not distort timelines, misstate facts, or use public replies to cast doubt on an honest customer’s credibility.
I will not be shopping with them again, and I urge other consumers to note the tone, tactics, and selective transparency they use when faced with legitimate criticism.
