Home · Ask Wetzlar
Payment first · then alleged gap · then Q1–Q12
Twelve questions. Written. Numbered. Not Automatische Antwort.
To Customer Care and Complaint Management, Leica Camera AG, Am Leitz-Park 5, 35578 Wetzlar. Consumer T.C. Wu. Satire on the homepage; this page is the demand.
As of 2026-10-24, Leica has still not given a named point-by-point written reply to the numbered questions (alleged / unanswered); a company letter dated 2 October 2026 (Winter / CorporateCommunications) exists but did not answer point by point. Last relevant inbound: CRM auto ticket SC00116909 at about 2026-10-14 19:25 — ticket only / auto-acknowledgement, not a reply. Prior SC00116055 / SC00116056 / SC00116060 (evening of 2026-10-10) remain as background. Gap: itemised answers on orders 1058152 / 1105973 (paid repair characterised as complimentary) and the numbered questions in the 9 October 2026 Day01 notice (reply window about 2026-10-17, now reached with no named point-by-point written reply on file — alleged / unanswered). Timeline · 2026-10-16: a one-to-one letter was sent to Leica Corporate Communications (J. Winter) asking for a written reply by 2026-10-23. The same day, informational (“for your awareness”) notification letters were sent to 11 German/EU bodies. Winter letter note · Trademark / Day01 context. September “no reply” lines below are historical snapshots.
(1) Advertising vs actual product performance — the complainant believes the outcome recorded in this file is inconsistent with the written advertising; no point-by-point answer received as of 2026-10-24. (2) Trademark notice (Alibaba Cloud, 2026-10-08, reference 202610081440795776792) issued by Leica via its agent Marq Vision; the complainant believes it suppresses consumer expression. The company letter of 2 October 2026 (Winter) is acknowledged. The €1,303 + VAT figure is a cost contribution quoted in a company email; it is not proof of payment. · Homepage section
2026-09 · ARCHIVEEarlier status and demand record
This is the status recorded in September 2026. The dates, deadlines and descriptions below are retained as historical text.
Remittance / orders / payment on file — Alleged: money collected, quality warranty not honoured · process-promise gap · deadline 2026-09-30 · lawyerstyle page
DE: Überweisung / Aufträge / Zahlung in der Akte — Alleged: Geld eingezogen, Qualitätsgarantie / Kulanz nicht eingelöst · Ticket-Wand SC00111693–SC00111703 + SC00111762–SC00111765 + SC00112050–SC00112052 + SC00112623–SC00112628 + SC00112630–SC00112633
As of 2026-09-27 · consumer T.C. Wu · orders 1058152 / 1105973 · Brand €1303 · morning Formal Demand kept · afternoon Message-IDs pending send
Lawyer-letter style only — consumer-authored. Not licensed solicitor / law firm. Not adjudicated fraud. Not a criminal conviction.
Lawyerstyle · remittance / warranty Morning Formal Demand Exhibits Emails
1 · Remittance / orders / payment on file (先行)
Verifiable purchase & orders
On-file papers for orders 1058152 / 1105973 and the 2014 Monochrom purchase proof. Brand cost line €1303 + VAT (2019-09-06). This is an estimate / cost contribution, not proof that this amount was paid.
Payment / remittance on file — bank purchase-path PDFs are public (unredacted):
- Bank gallery /bank/
- BANK01 · BANK02 · BANK03 · BANK04
- Leica-emailed estimates / reminders / order confirmations / confirmation of receipt: EX04–EX11 (above). Archive also holds order confirmation 811072.
- Survey email subject refs only (not invoice PDFs): 2009060040 / 2009061250. No separate formal Leica Rechnung/Invoice PDF on file.
Alleged record — not adjudicated fraud; not licensed solicitor. Deadline 2026-09-30.
2 · Alleged pattern
Money / cost-sharing collected — quality warranty / 2014 Kulanz / “permanent solution” not honoured
Alleged consumer characterisation: HQ took (or demanded) money / cost participation and still does not take warranty / quality / goodwill responsibility matching the 2014 public Kulanz. Not a court fraud finding.
3 · Process-promise gap
September record: promised replies and the Q1–Q12 request
The earlier complaint recorded: “Auto-acks promised a reply — no named point-by-point written answer.” Compare that dated claim with the later company correspondence linked above.
Ticket wall: SC00111693–SC00111703 + SC00111762–SC00111765 + SC00112050–SC00112052 + SC00112623–SC00112628 + SC00112630–SC00112633 plus earlier SC00110963 / SC00110964 / SC00111076 / SC00111077. Auto-ack ≠ answer.
The only SKU
Q1–Q12
- How does 2014 “regardless of age” become 2017/2018 fees and a 2020/2019 stop?
- Why 403 on the official 2014 CCD URL — where is the notice now?
- HQ “not acknowledgeable” vs alleged Schmidt HK lifetime CCD coverage?
- What would have made the 18 Aug 2014 Monochrom proof acknowledgeable?
- Was a point-by-point reply to September 2019 ever issued?
- Physical status of 1058152 and 1105973 — date and place.
- Why Europe-only return, not Hong Kong?
- Reconcile March 2020 close of 1058152 with June 2020 order 1105973.
- Last CCD-fit date at Wetzlar vs the June 2020 estimate?
- Remedies: Leica glass, third-party reimbursement, this file’s trade-in, refund, or a reasoned no.
- Why did some official replacements corrode again?
- Will 2014–2020 notices be restored as readable pages?