A student is demanding a lifetime supply of KitKats under the threat of legal action after she bought eight of the chocolate bars and none of them had the trademark wafer inside, reports Daily Mail from UK.
Saima Ahmad, 20, bought the multi-pack from a supermarket for £2 last month, and has now written to manufacturer Nestle claiming that they ignored their duty of care to consumers.
She said: ‘They go about advertising the unique concept of KitKat, but I’m so disappointed by what I have purchased.
‘I’m hoping they will apologise to me and in future focus more on quality of their product. ‘No one else in that industry has that unique concept about mixing the wafer with the chocolate and that’s why I’m a fan.’
Before she wrote her letter, the student did her research and found that others had complained of simi-lar experiences in online forums.
In the letter, she claims that giving her a lifetime supply of the bars will allow her to act as ‘quality con-trol’ for the company. She added: ‘Nestle have a huge following and I don’t think these mistakes are acceptable.
‘I have researched this problem and I found that it wasn’t just a one off and it has happened quite a few times. ‘There are quite a few forums online where people complain of having KitKats without wafer.
Miss Ahmad said that even if the company gives her a lifetime supply, she will never get bored of the bars. ‘They should definitely give in to me. I’m hoping my demand will go higher than the customer service platform.
‘I’d like the CEO of Nestle to respond to my letter because it’s an extremely important issue. I’m trying my luck – if you don’t ask you don’t get.’
Miss Ahmad is so fond of the chocolate bars that if the company offers her a lifetime supply, she insists she will still never get bored of them.
‘They are my favourite chocolate bars, I love them.’ In her letter to Nestle, she wrote: ‘The truth of the matter is; manufacturers owe a duty of care to con-sumers.
‘The specific duty you owe in consistency in your manufacturing process. The failure to take due care in the manufacturing process resulted in a product being defective.
‘As a result I feel as though I have been misled to part with my money and purchase a product that is clearly different from what has been marketed by Nestle.
‘The loss I have suffered is of monetary and emotional significance. ‘I would like a full refund of the defective pack of KitKat I purchased. I have also lost my faith in Nestle.
‘Clearly, if I wanted to purchase a confectionary item that is purely chocolate, I would have purchased a bar of Galaxy.
‘I would therefore like to request a life-long supply of KitKat so that I can act as a means of quality con-trol – it appears you need me more than I need you.’
Miss Ahmad is adamant that she will take legal action if the company does not comply with her demands.
She added: ‘I wouldn’t rule out taking this further if Nestle do not apologise or compensate me ade-quately. ‘As I mentioned in my letter of complaint, an unlimited supply of KitKat would do.’