I write to address the comments made by annettes46 on 26 November 2019. I apologise for the delay in addressing this comment however I have only just recently become aware of it.

Pacific would not normally go into this sort of detail in a public forum however annettes46 has chosen a public forum to malign our company and the company deserves a right of response. Whilst annettes46 has chosen to attack our company in public, care has been taken in the comments below to protect the privacy of annettes46.

From the content of this comment we know that annettes46 applied in August 2019 to join Pacific as a contract typist. The application process to join Pacific as a typist contractor is on-line. Pacific receives numerous on-line applications and over time our experience is that the motivations and interests for applicants can change very quickly as an application lodged with Pacific is often one of many lodged with other companies at the same time. Our experience is that if another application bears fruit, the interest of the applicant in a position with Pacific can wane very quickly. We therefore do not follow up individually once an applicant steps outside our range of expected responses as generally it is wasted effort as the applicant has moved on. For this reason, we also set time parameters for responses at various stages of our process and, if someone does not respond within those time frames, our prima facie assumption again is that they have moved on.

A brief summary of facts relating to annette46 is this:
On 28 August an application was received and normal processing was commenced.
On 12 September 2019, the applicant contacted Pacific and advised that they were unable to commence a scheduled trial as a family matter has come up and that she would be able to complete the trail on or after 1 November 2019.
On 13 September 2019 we contacted her and advised that we had deactivated your account for now as we receive hundreds of applications per week and holding applicants long term on the system results in a huge backlog. The applicant was asked to recontact when she was ready to trial.
We then heard nothing further until 13 November. By this time (now almost 8 weeks later and almost 2 weeks after she said she would be ready), we had finalised our end-of-year intake training group. When contact was made by the applicant on 13 November 2019, the applicant was advised in an email dated 16 November 2019 that As we are approaching year end, we do not have any openings available at the moment. You are welcome to re-apply from February 2020.
The applicant was unhappy with this advice and advised Pacific in an email dated 26 November 2019 that she believed Pacific had now "renegged" (sic) on our undertaking.
Pacific notes that annettes46 has posted this complaint on this public forum on 26 November 2019 and states I have since sent further communication to the company with no response. Pacifics records clearly show that an email was received from annettes46 on 26 November 2019 it was replied to within 8 minutes of receipt. Pacifics reply was as follows: When we received your email on 13 Nov, we had closed our applications for the year. We started our final batch of trainees on 4 November. Your original email had said 'on or around' 1 November. If I had known you would have been contacting mid-November I would have told you it was too late at the point when you contacted in September. The applications and training process takes approximately 6-8 weeks in total to complete, and work slows down a little over the holiday season and the beginning of January, so the first week in Nov is the absolute last date we accept applications.
Pacifics records show therefore that there was no unanswered correspondence unless annettes46 posted this review immediately after sending her email to Pacific on 26 November and before Pacific had sent a reply 8 minutes later. If that is the case, annettes46 has made no effort to correct the false impression she has created in her post to this forum that Pacific was ignoring her.
It is also noted that annettes46 subsequently lodged a fresh application with Pacific on 28 January 2020. Based on review of her application against the merits of others, annettes46 was advised on 30 January 2020 that Pacific would not be proceeding with her application.

As a final comment, Pacific receives many hundreds of applications each year. We appreciate the time and effort people take in making an application and that for many people it is a stressful process. We try to be sensitive to these issues and give clear guidance wherever we can. I understand that annettes46 is frustrated that she perceives she missed a window of opportunity but at the time advice was given on 13 September 2019 it was given with the best of intention but also awareness that in many cases we never hear from people again. In these circumstances we must always deal with the known applicants on hand at the time we are making decisions and this is what we did in the first week of November when we were making our decisions about the final intake for the year and there had been no contact back from annettes46.

I write to address the comments made by bluesparky in September 2016. I apologise for the substantial delay in addressing this comment however I have only just recently become aware of it.

Pacific does apply a sticker to the back of Dictaphone equipment at the time of sale. The purpose of the sticker is to help a client easily identify "who to call" in the event of a query relating to the product. The stickers are approximately 45mm x 12 mm and are normally located on either the back of the battery cover (located in such a way as to not impede removal of the battery cover in any way) or on the side of the dictaphone (again in a location that does not impede any function). It is our experience that the stickers are very easily removed and leave no residue when they have been recently applied (as in the case of a new piece of equipment). Stickers that have been in situ for a long time may leave a residue which is easily removed without damaging equipment by use of a tissue that has had a small amount of consumer-grade glass cleaning liquid applied to it. Pacific can only apologise if a sticker was accidentally placed in the location that bluesparky has described: it is not our intention and would clearly have been an error.

Pacific has numerous interactions with clients relating to product purchases and the person who took the call mistakenly did not realise the call was presenting a serious concern to bluesparky. Bluesparky clearly has taken offence at the way the question about sticker removal was addressed and for this Pacific offers an unreserved apology.

By way of further comment I can only say that over the last 8 years Pacific has dealt with many thousands of customers relating to product purchases and over this 8 year period the experience reported by bluesparky stands in stark contrast. Pacific has a large repeat purchase relationship with customers who value the professional and personalised attention they receive, though we appreciate it will be of little consolation to bluesparky that the concern expressed represents an extreme outlier to the experience of thousands of others. Again, bluesparky has our apologies.