TopmaQ Reviews

Show reviews that mention
option water pumps express warranty disputes tribunal taifu puel electrical safety reason customer problem fact
Filter review
Recently went into their store to purchase a few linear actuators. When purchasing the guy told us if they were the wrong ones and we need to go bigger it wouldnt be a problem bring the receipt in and they would happily return the items (and we pay the difference for...
View full review
View full review
ID
#3258927 Review #3258927 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Christchurch, South Island
Loss
$160
Preferred solution
Let the company propose a solution

Was a customer

I would avoid. I purchased via Trademe, and chose the most appropriate shipping method ( North island, only other option was south island ). Buyer refused to deliver without me paying a further $80, implied I chose the incorrect shipping option ( there was nothing else that was appropriate ) and communication very unpolite. Topmaq, your staff had set up the pricing incorrectly. I checked the only applicable option. Then when I request a refund, they won't process it untill the item is returned to them. I made no error here, yet they want me to wear any and all their errors. Atrocious customer service Tim. You should be ashamed. Buyer, Beware.

User's recommendation: Avoid at all costs.

View full review
ID
#3076308 Review #3076308 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Hamilton, Waikato
New Reviewer

Shortchanged on length

TopmaQ - Shortchanged on length
Ordered 2m of flexible dust extraction, when it arrived the natural usable length was 1.5m I complained that it was short Topmaq said it was policy to stretch fully before cutting! Of course when fully stretched it is no longer flexible and impossible to use in that condition.

User's recommendation: Check before you buy.

View full review
ID
#2661402 Review #2661402 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Preferred solution
Deliver product or service ordered

This review is from a real person who provided valid contact information and hasn't been caught misusing, spamming or abusing our website. Check our FAQ

Verified Reviewer
New Reviewer
Bought lots of these guys in the past at their Hamilton store & great place to buy until you have to return an unused & undamaged item within a couple of days in original packaging with an original receipt. Bought a pallet jack which looked great in the...
View full review
View full review
ID
#2628703 Review #2628703 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Pros
  • Great prices and ok quality products usually
Cons
  • Friendly until you want to return an item with receipt
Loss
$30
Preferred solution
Full refund

Did not honour Guarantee

Purchased a water pump from them, it ran for one hour stopped and would not restart. Rang Company about concern and was told they would get back to me, and arrange for pump to be collected and either repaired or replaced. This was three weeks ago, have not heard from them since.WtfBullshit

User's recommendation: They could have been more honest and helpful. Why offer a warranty if they have no intention to impliment.

View full review
ID
#2449490 Review #2449490 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Auckland, Auckland
New Reviewer

Consumers Need to be Warned

TopmaQ - Consumers Need to be Warned
TopmaQ - Consumers Need to be Warned
TopmaQ - Consumers Need to be Warned
TopmaQ - Consumers Need to be Warned
TopmaQ - Consumers Need to be Warned
TopmaQ - Consumers Need to be Warned
TOPMAQ ..... LOWBALL - A company to avoid, like the plague!! This is a description of issues an ("ex"!!) customer of TOPMAQ (New Zealand) faced arising from his purchase of 'TAIFU' branded Chinese manufactured Water Pumps and the unbelievable legal mis-adventures that stemmed from the dodgy products sold by this company. First, it is important for the reader to have a brief understanding of the New Zealand legal system. These type of typical consumer complaints fall under the 'Consumers Guarantee Act' which is effectively, the 'umbrella' implied warranty that covers any goods or service purchased in New Zealand by private (i.e. not business) consumers. In addition, there is the express warranty offered by the vendor as described in their Terms of Trade (the latter does not over-ride the C.G.A. Typically, when issues of faulty products come up if the matter cannot be resolved within the terms of the express warranty (becoming frequently common these days!) then the matter can be arbitrated. For these types of low-value, small claims New Zealand by-passes the more formal court which is reserved for large commercial claims and provides to agrieved consumers what is called the "DISPUTES TRIBUNAL" which is essentially a 'stripped-out' version of the larger court, i.e. no 'wigs and gowns' and NO lawyers meaning a minimal fee for applicants. Unfortunately, the trade-off is less robust 'Wild West' type of process with little 'over-the-shoulder' scrutiny. There is huge scope for manipulation and as you might expect, quite a few resultant travesties and no proper right of appeal or remediation. Generally though, if the complainant is taking a case against an individual or a small business it tends to go reasonably OK. ... however, in this case the counter-party was TOPMAQ, a larger national chain head-quartered in Christchurch specialising in engineering/tools/agricultural machinery products. The subject product: two water pumps purchased by the complainant a year apart. The first, A TAIFU (PUEL 4570) Automatic Domestic Water-Pump purchased in November, 2017 performed reliably at first, then in less than a year the 'honeymoon' was quickly over. The litany of problems the new owner faced with this pile of junk boggles the mind: serious rusting occured (Huh?? ... meant to be 'designed' and made from materials intended for exposure to water!) in less than a year! ....... the pressure-switch fell-off, loose from its fitting ....... and worse still, persistent and increasing symptoms of pressure pulsations, in the end explained by the impeller separating from the motor shaft! Unbelievable!! I have had a chance to inspect this pump and believe me, it beggars belief that this product is allowed to be sold (and still is!) and imported. The second pump, a TAIFU (PUEL 4580) Deep-Well Pump, brand-new out of the box contained an Ejector-Head kit which upon attempting to assemble, proved to be physically impossible using standard plumbing fittings due to a design/manufacturing defect. Alternative (and unnecessarily expensive) pipe-fittings also yielded a frustrating failure to correctly assemble. The fundamental problem was that the supplied connector-pipe was the wrong length. TOPMAQ (and the manufacturer) are in a state of denial, largely through bloody-minded ignorance born of engineering illiteracy. It is worth mentioning and indeed, is a pivotal point that an attarctive price was not the sole criterion that persuaded the purchaser to buy these pumps. No, not at all. He was greatly influenced by extensive "CE" marking all over the pump (including 'shimmery' 3-D holographic labelling!) and their packaging. It subsequently transpired that all these markings were entirely fake and deliberately intended to deceive consumers into believing that they were purchasing a genuinely CE-compliant product when in fact, the labels were a cynical ploy by the Chinese manufacturer to append the corrupted "China Export" re-interpretation to narrowly 'skate' under the threshhold of legality but with the full cooperation of the New Zealand importer/distributor, TOPMAQ. The purchaser then embarked on what turned out to be a hugely draining and ultimately fruitless and time-wasting trail of e-mail correspondance in an attempt to resolve all the issues with both pumps. All to no avail, leaving his only available option of mounting a Disputes Tribunal case. Subsequent events proved this path to 'justice' to be nothing more than a sick joke perpetrated on him by a process that in this particular case had clearly been manipulated. It consumed 6 wasted months with nothing to show for it at the end. The verdict (incredulously): "CASE DISMISSED". The details of the Adjudicator's so-called 'judgement' fail to withstand any close scrutiny with a mountain of physical and dcoumentary evidence that completely contradict every one of her points of judgement, in some cases 'inconvenient truths' were merely ignored to make everything 'fit'! In other words, a complete sham. One very significant issue arose in the final lead-up to the closing re-hearing that commands a special mention. So that we keep things all 'chummy' here I will refer to the principal (representing TOPMAQ), the company Director as his disgruntled customers refer to him as; "the Junk Guy (or sometimes, Mr. "Junk Galore") or just plain 'ol "JG", submitted a forged product compliance certificate, supposedly issued by Italian Mechanical Testing Laboratory, EnteCerma that purported to prove that the product fully complied with a variety of local New Zealand and inernational technical standards. Of course, this is a criminal offence under New Zealand law as it is in most civilised countries. Incredibly, the so-called adjudicator merely brushed this aside and ignored it and issued no rebuke to JG, "Jerky Grief" much less than pursue the matter with the New Zealand police as should have occurred. This further testifies to the manipulated nature of this case as it is otherwise quite inexplicable and definitely, abnormal. For readers interest the forgery of Certificate No. 2T160606.ZTPDU00, referred to (above) can be verified by running its' reference number through EnteCerma's online Test Certificate verification facility: entecerma.it /certificate.php ...... with the result "Certificate Not Found". ..... Ohh-hh, and what is the purpose of this document? Good question! Not required for importation purposes nor even a regulatory requirement. No, the reason is that TOPMAQ sell many products powered by mains electric motors for which electrical safety is a paramount requirement. If any of their low-quality products were to electrocute anyone, New Zealand's Department of Labour and Police would come knocking on the door wanting answers. TOPMAQ, of course will just reach into their file extract the relevant bogus certificate and claim (and maintain) that their products fully comply with all relevant electrical safety standards. Great way to make a buck, eh? ..... but never mind the poor widow and the fatherless children left behind. Lesson; don't expect a lesson in ethics and morality from low-life *** My review of all the facts of my correspondant's case leads me to concur entirely with him that the DT case was entirely rigged and manipulated at Ministry of justice level, i.e. behind-the-scenes collusion. I also concur with the opinion and advice that one should steer well clear of this low-rent company and its products. There are plenty of other vendors out there selling good quality products that behave ethically and genuiunely value your custom. Spend all your money there and DON'T buy TOPMAQ rubbish!

User's recommendation: Before opening your wallet to these mongrels, first of all check yourself into a psychiatrist to have your head examined!

View full review
ID
#2396491 Review #2396491 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Auckland, Auckland

Consumer BEWARE of these scoundrels!!

TopmaQ - Consumer BEWARE of these scoundrels!!
TopmaQ - Consumer BEWARE of these scoundrels!!
TopmaQ - Consumer BEWARE of these scoundrels!!
TopmaQ - Consumer BEWARE of these scoundrels!!
TOPMAQ ..... LOWBALL - A company to avoid, like the plague!! This is a description of issues an ("ex"!!) customer of TOPMAQ (New Zealand) faced arising from his purchase of 'TAIFU' branded Chinese manufactured Water Pumps and the unbelievable legal mis-adventures that stemmed from the dodgy products sold by this company. First, it is important for the reader to have a brief understanding of the New Zealand legal system. These type of typical consumer complaints fall under the 'Consumers Guarantee Act' which is effectively, the 'umbrella' implied warranty that covers any goods or service purchased in New Zealand by private (i.e. not business) consumers. In addition, there is the express warranty offered by the vendor as described in their Terms of Trade (the latter does not over-ride the C.G.A. Typically, when issues of faulty products come up if the matter cannot be resolved within the terms of the express warranty (becoming frequently common these days!) then the matter can be arbitrated. For these types of low-value, small claims New Zealand by-passes the more formal court which is reserved for large commercial claims and provides to agrieved consumers what is called the "DISPUTES TRIBUNAL" which is essentially a 'stripped-out' version of the larger court, i.e. no 'wigs and gowns' and NO lawyers meaning a minimal fee for applicants. Unfortunately, the trade-off is less robust 'Wild West' type of process with little 'over-the-shoulder' scrutiny. There is huge scope for manipulation and as you might expect, quite a few resultant travesties and no proper right of appeal or remediation. Generally though, if the complainant is taking a case against an individual or a small business it tends to go reasonably OK. ... however, in this case the counter-party was TOPMAQ, a larger national chain head-quartered in Christchurch specialising in engineering/tools/agricultural machinery products. The subject product: two water pumps purchased by the complainant a year apart. The first, A TAIFU (PUEL 4570) Automatic Domestic Water-Pump purchased in November, 2017 performed reliably at first, then in less than a year the 'honeymoon' was quickly over. The litany of problems the new owner faced with this pile of junk boggles the mind: serious rusting occured (Huh?? ... meant to be 'designed' and made from materials intended for exposure to water!) in less than a year! ....... the pressure-switch fell-off, loose from its fitting ....... and worse still, persistent and increasing symptoms of pressure pulsations, in the end explained by the impeller separating from the motor shaft! Unbelievable!! I have had a chance to inspect this pump and believe me, it beggars belief that this product is allowed to be sold (and still is!) and imported. The second pump, a TAIFU (PUEL 4580) Deep-Well Pump, brand-new out of the box contained an Ejector-Head kit which upon attempting to assemble, proved to be physically impossible using standard plumbing fittings due to a design/manufacturing defect. Alternative (and unnecessarily expensive) pipe-fittings also yielded a frustrating failure to correctly assemble. The fundamental problem was that the supplied connector-pipe was the wrong length. TOPMAQ (and the manufacturer) are in a state of denial, largely through bloody-minded ignorance born of engineering illiteracy. It is worth mentioning and indeed, is a pivotal point that an attarctive price was not the sole criterion that persuaded the purchaser to buy these pumps. No, not at all. He was greatly influenced by extensive "CE" marking all over the pump (including 'shimmery' 3-D holographic labelling!) and their packaging. It subsequently transpired that all these markings were entirely fake and deliberately intended to deceive consumers into believing that they were purchasing a genuinely CE-compliant product when in fact, the labels were a cynical ploy by the Chinese manufacturer to append the corrupted "China Export" re-interpretation to narrowly 'skate' under the threshhold of legality but with the full cooperation of the New Zealand importer/distributor, TOPMAQ. The purchaser then embarked on what turned out to be a hugely draining and ultimately fruitless and time-wasting trail of e-mail correspondance in an attempt to resolve all the issues with both pumps. All to no avail, leaving his only available option of mounting a Disputes Tribunal case. Subsequent events proved this path to 'justice' to be nothing more than a sick joke perpetrated on him by a process that in this particular case had clearly been manipulated. It consumed 6 wasted months with nothing to show for it at the end. The verdict (incredulously): "CASE DISMISSED". The details of the Adjudicator's so-called 'judgement' fail to withstand any close scrutiny with a mountain of physical and dcoumentary evidence that completely contradict every one of her points of judgement, in some cases 'inconvenient truths' were merely ignored to make everything 'fit'! In other words, a complete sham. One very significant issue arose in the final lead-up to the closing re-hearing that commands a special mention. Jeremy Grieve (representing TOPMAQ) the company Director, submitted a forged product compliance certificate, supposedly issued by Italian Mechanical Testing Laboratory, EnteCerma that purported to prove that the product fully complied with a variety of local New Zealand and inernational technical standards. Of course, this is a criminal offence under New Zealand law as it is in most civilised countries. Incredibly, the so-called adjudicator merely brushed this aside and ignored it and issued no rebuke to Grieve much less than pursue the matter with the New Zealand police as should have occurred. This further testifies to the manipulated nature of this case as it is otherwise quite inexplicable and definitely, abnormal. One very significant issue arose in the final lead-up to the closing re-hearing that commands a special mention. So that we keep things all 'chummy' here I will refer to the principal (representing TOPMAQ), the company Director as his disgruntled customers refer to him as; "the Junk Guy (or sometimes, Mr. "Junk Galore") or just plain 'ol "JG", submitted a forged product compliance certificate, supposedly issued by Italian Mechanical Testing Laboratory, EnteCerma that purported to prove that the product fully complied with a variety of local New Zealand and inernational technical standards. Of course, this is a criminal offence under New Zealand law as it is in most civilised countries. Incredibly, the so-called adjudicator merely brushed this aside and ignored it and issued no rebuke to JG, "Jerky Grief" much less than pursue the matter with the New Zealand police as should have occurred. This further testifies to the manipulated nature of this case as it is otherwise quite inexplicable and definitely, abnormal. For readers interest the forgery of Certificate No. 2T160606.ZTPDU00, referred to (above) can be verified by running its' reference number through EnteCerma's online Test Certificate verification facility: entecerma.it /certificate.php ...... with the result "Certificate Not Found". ..... Ohh-hh, and what is the purpose of this document? Good question! Not required for importation purposes nor even a regulatory requirement. No, the reason is that TOPMAQ sell many products powered by mains electric motors for which electrical safety is a paramount requirement. If any of their low-quality products were to electrocute anyone, New Zealand's Department of Labour and Police would come knocking on the door wanting answers. TOPMAQ, of course will just reach into their file extract the relevant bogus certificate and claim (and maintain) that their products fully comply with all relevant electrical safety standards. Great way to make a buck, eh? ..... but never mind the poor widow and the fatherless children left behind. Lesson; don't expect a lesson in ethics and morality from low-life *** My review of all the facts of my correspondant's case leads me to concur entirely with him that the DT case was entirely rigged and manipulated at Ministry of justice level, i.e. behind-the-scenes collusion. I also concur with the opinion and advice that one should steer well clear of this low-rent company and its products. There are plenty of other vendors out there selling good quality products that behave ethically and genuiunely value your custom. Spend all your money there and DON'T buy TOPMAQ rubbish!

User's recommendation: Don't go near them!

View full review
ID
#2264162 Review #2264162 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Auckland, Auckland
Product
Taifu China Car Water Pump

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content

For more information read Blog article