Terrible Quality Control, Dismissive Director & Breach of Consumer Rights
I strongly advise anyone to avoid A&A Crack & Sons.
My experience has been a nightmare, highlighting a complete failure in quality control, customer service, and—most seriously—a direct breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
To add context, before any samples or orders could be made, the company insisted I set up a customer account with them. This becomes highly relevant later.
I purchased a full hide of British Racing Green Restoration Upholstery leather. The hide arrived with two massive, prominent lines running straight down the middle. When I queried this, I was told:
"These are natural full-grain leather skins, which feature distinct natural markings... variations and natural markings can be present throughout the skin."
This is a blatant excuse for a quality control failure. These were deep lines right in the centre of the hide that made it completely unsuitable for my project.
I immediately asked to return it and find a replacement. I was told by Rhianna that they would offer a full credit, and that:
"As for a replacement skin, unfortunately we do not have any suitable skins here for the panel required."
They refused to help me source an alternative, and later refused to send quotes and samples for other green leathers. Left with a looming deadline, no replacement, and no help, I was forced to keep the hide and cut my piece from the very edge—wasting half of the hide.
The "Credit" vs. "Refund" Gaslighting:
Because the hide was faulty, I asked for a refund. Instead, they tried to trap my money by offering a store credit when they clearly couldn't offer a replacement either. What use is a store credit to a customer if you have nothing suitable to sell them?
When escalated to the Director, Karolina Crack, she was caught tripping up on her own correspondence, and her response was shocking. When I advised her that I had spoken to a family member in the legal profession who confirmed their stance would not stand up in court, Karolina tried to rewrite history by claiming:
"Whilst the wording states 'credit', the intention was to refund to your original payment method."
The previous written correspondence clearly states a "credit" was being issued, not a refund. It is genuinely shocking that a company Director would try to claim a store credit was a refund. It is legally inaccurate and a clear attempt to mislead a consumer. A credit leaves my money in their bank account; a refund returns it to my card.
Karolina then had the audacity to accuse me of declining a refund, stating: "I cannot find any correspondence in which you requested a refund and this was refused." I did not decline a refund—I declined their useless store credit.
Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality. The Act gives consumers a 30-day short-term right to reject faulty goods and receive a full refund to their original payment method.
By offering only a store credit instead of a refund to my card, and by failing to provide a suitable replacement, A&A Crack & Sons has breached consumer rights law. A company cannot force a credit note on a customer when they are legally entitled to a refund for faulty goods.
The Director's Contradictory Excuses & Fake Quality Control:
When I pointed out the faults and asked her to offer a resolution for the half of the hide I wasted, Karolina refused, claiming:
"Regarding the hide, it was assessed by the owner and considered to be within our accepted quality standards..."
Here, Karolina trips up again by contradicting her own team's previous written correspondence. It directly opposes their own email from 7th October, where Rhianna told me:
"my director will review the condition and we will decide if the collection charge will be refunded as well."
They cannot claim the owner pre-inspected and approved the hide before it was sent out, when their own staff was asking me to send it back so the director could inspect and review it.
More Concerned with Reputation than Resolution:
Karolina also had the nerve to state: "I’m not sure your response to her was entirely fair," and complained about my "references to legal action" and "intention to leave a negative review." It became abundantly clear that the Director was far more worried about protecting the company's reputation from a bad review than she was about diffusing the situation and making things right with me, the paying customer (they clearly broke the law). She dismissed the entire situation by saying: "Perhaps we are not suited to work together any longer," while offering to send samples for "future projects" with zero compensation for the wasted leather.
Take your business to a supplier who actually abides by the law.