SUPPLIED BADLY OUTDATED COURSE VERSION.
Having purchased an Ozone mastering course for the "greatly reduced" price of $62, it turned out to be an older version of the program: version 10 - which was already out of date by a couple of years at the time of sale. Yet, no clear indication was made of this anomaly at the point of purchase. I emailed Streaky with a polite request for it to be upgraded to the (then) current version: Ozone 11 - which I had already owned for some time by then. I received no reply from Streaky (though he continued to send me more marketing and promo items via the same email address). On later looking back over the various emails he had sent since my purchase, I then discovered one I'd missed, stating he would like to give me a newer version of the course: on the basis that I merely write a course appraisal. Amounting to a contract, this offer had no date limit and I duly complied*, trusting he too would comply with his own contractual part of the offer. Yet again, though, I received no reply and no updated version (*despite having supplied him with a positive, professional write-up). I now also note he is offering a course version of Ozone 12 at the same discounted price. Yet he has consistently ignored my requests for access to a version of Ozone 11, which is my consumer right - said version being current at the time I made my purchase. Not only disrespectful, then, but potentially in contravention of digital trading standards under deceptive trading protocols - not to mention failing to fulfil his side of a written email contract, pitched on his own terms. As an individual with some experience in this area, on principal alone, I intend to rigorously pursue issues around legality that "Sneaky's" nonchalant, indifferent attitude has brought to fruition. A shame that such an otherwise worthy professional would behave so disreputably. But I see I'm not alone in this respect.






