PROBLEMA CON AGUA MICELAR CONTAMINADA

Reclamación contra Sence Essentials por agua micelar con partículas y posterior problema ocular Quiero dejar constancia pública de mi experiencia con un agua micelar de Sence Essentials y, especialmente, de la forma en la que la empresa ha gestionado posteriormente mi reclamación. Compré un agua micelar de la marca y, al utilizarla, observé que el producto presentaba grumos o partículas visibles en el interior del envase, algo que considero anormal en un producto cosmético destinado a la limpieza facial y al uso alrededor de los ojos. Después de utilizar el producto, sufrí conjuntivitis y dos orzuelos, con molestias e inflamación, y tuve que recibir tratamiento médico con corticoides. Ante esta situación, me puse en contacto con la empresa para comunicar lo sucedido y solicitar una solución. La respuesta de la empresa ha sido, en todo momento, que sus muestras de retención y sus controles de calidad no presentan anomalías y que consideran mi caso un "incidente aislado". El problema es que sus análisis no corresponden al envase concreto que yo utilicé. La propia empresa reconoce en sus correos que, para determinar el origen de las partículas, sería necesario examinar la botella concreta que tengo en mi poder. Sin embargo, pese a ello, continúan presentando sus análisis de muestras retenidas como argumento para concluir que el producto no era defectuoso. A mí no se me ha aportado ningún informe técnico independiente que permita comprobar las conclusiones que afirman, ni se me ha demostrado que el contenido de mi botella concreta estuviera en condiciones adecuadas. Por este motivo, considero que su investigación no resuelve el problema que yo he planteado: que mi botella concreta presentaba partículas visibles y que posteriormente sufrí problemas oculares tras utilizarla. Además, me resulta especialmente decepcionante la atención recibida como cliente. Después de explicar que había tenido problemas en los ojos y que había necesitado tratamiento, esperaba al menos algún tipo de gesto comercial, disculpa o propuesta para intentar solucionar la situación. Sin embargo, durante todo el proceso no se me ha ofrecido ninguna compensación, sustitución del producto, reembolso ni siquiera un producto de cortesía. La empresa me ha solicitado que envíe la botella para analizarla, pero después de la forma en la que se ha gestionado mi reclamación, no me siento cómoda entregando el único producto que conservo como prueba del problema. Especialmente cuando previamente ya se me ha indicado que sus análisis de muestras retenidas no han encontrado ninguna anomalía. No estoy afirmando que pueda demostrarse con absoluta certeza que el producto causó mi problema ocular, pero sí considero legítimo reclamar que la empresa tome en serio una incidencia en un producto cosmético que presentaba partículas visibles y que fue utilizado alrededor de los ojos, así como que ofrezca una respuesta y una solución proporcionadas. Mi experiencia con la atención al cliente ha sido muy negativa. Considero que la empresa se ha centrado en defender que sus controles internos fueron correctos, pero no ha aportado una solución real al problema concreto que comuniqué ni ha mostrado ningún gesto hacia el consumidor afectado. Por todo ello, dejo constancia pública de mi reclamación y de mi disconformidad con la respuesta recibida. He conservado los correos electrónicos intercambiados, fotografías del producto y documentación relacionada con el problema ocular, y estoy dispuesta a aportar dicha documentación a los organismos de consumo que correspondan. Solicito que la empresa reconsidere su posición, dé una respuesta adecuada a lo ocurrido y ofrezca una solución o compensación razonable por las molestias ocasionadas. A día de hoy, considero que mi reclamación NO ESTÁ RESUELTA.

Dear Sir/Madam, We would like to respond to the complaint submitted by Ms. Julia regarding Sence Clear Cleansing Water 400 ml. From the moment the complaint was received, we have taken the matter seriously and have investigated it in accordance with our product quality and consumer safety procedures. The complainant reported that visible particles and lumps were present in a bottle of Sence Clear Cleansing Water and further stated that she experienced eye-related symptoms after using the product. Following receipt of the complaint, we requested and reviewed the information provided by the complainant, including photographs and the batch code of the product concerned. The reported product originated from batch number 0000645978, manufactured on 25 August 2025. Upon receipt of the batch information, the manufacturer conducted an investigation into the reported batch. The investigation included: Review of the complete manufacturing documentation relating to the reported batch; Review of equipment and pipeline cleaning records associated with the production process; Examination of retained samples from the same production batch; Assessment of the retained samples for visible particles, crystallisation, precipitation and other foreign matter; Verification of relevant physicochemical parameters, including pH measurements; Examination of a retained sample from an earlier production batch for comparison purposes. According to the manufacturer's findings, all reviewed cleaning operations had been performed in accordance with the approved procedures and no deviations were identified. The retained samples from batch 0000645978 were found to be clear and transparent. No visible precipitation, crystallised lumps or other foreign matter were observed. Furthermore, the analysed physicochemical parameters remained within the approved product specifications. The pH values were confirmed to be compliant with the established specification range. In addition, a retained sample from an earlier production batch was examined and was likewise found to be clear, free from visible particles and compliant with the product specification. Based on the available evidence, the manufacturer found no indication of a batch-related manufacturing defect or formulation issue. The investigation did not identify any evidence suggesting that the reported issue was representative of the production batch as a whole. Furthermore, to date, no other comparable complaints concerning visible particles, crystallisation, contamination or similar quality concerns relating to batch 0000645978 (or other batches) have been reported to us. Accordingly, we have found no indication of a broader quality or safety issue affecting this production batch. We would also note that the investigation findings were consistent across all retained samples examined and no evidence was identified indicating that the reported observations were representative of the production batch. At the same time, we fully acknowledge that the complaint concerns a specific bottle purchased by the complainant. For that reason, we explained throughout the correspondence that the condition of the individual bottle could only be assessed through examination of the actual product itself. The manufacturer expressly advised that a detailed laboratory examination of the complained bottle would be necessary to determine the origin of the reported particles and to assess the condition of the contents of that specific bottle. We therefore invited the complainant to return the product for further assessment. However, the complainant subsequently informed us that she was unwilling to provide the bottle for examination and preferred to retain the product herself. As a result, the manufacturer was unable to perform any laboratory assessment of the actual product that is the subject of this complaint. As a result, the only item capable of providing direct information concerning the condition of the individual bottle was not made available for further investigation. We would also like to emphasise that, while we do not dispute that the complainant experienced the symptoms she describes, the investigation did not identify any defect within the investigated production batch. Furthermore, because the individual bottle was not submitted for examination, no determination could be made regarding the condition of that specific product. Consequently, based on the information available, we have been unable to establish that the product was defective or that the symptoms reported by the complainant were caused by the product. Nevertheless, we have investigated the complaint thoroughly, reviewed all information provided, engaged with the manufacturer, and offered the complainant the opportunity for further product assessment. For these reasons, we respectfully disagree with the allegation that the complaint was dismissed or insufficiently investigated. The matter was reviewed carefully and in good faith, and the conclusions communicated to the complainant were based on the available evidence. Yours faithfully, Customer Care Team Maxbrands Marketing B.V.

I strongly disagree with the response submitted by Sence Essentials / Maxbrands Marketing B.V. and would like to clarify several points. First of all, I never stated that I categorically refused to send the bottle for examination. What I stated was that, after the way my complaint had been handled, I had serious concerns about sending the only physical evidence I have to the same company that was already telling me that its own retained samples showed no problems. I did not feel that I had sufficient guarantees that the examination would be independent or that I would be able to verify the conclusions reached afterwards. This is an important distinction, because the company now presents the situation to OCU as though I simply refused to cooperate with the investigation. That is not an accurate representation of what happened. I have repeatedly cooperated with the company. I provided photographs, the batch information and a detailed description of the problem. I have also kept the bottle precisely because it is the physical evidence of what I reported. Furthermore, I have serious doubts about the evidentiary value of repeatedly referring to “retained samples” that are kept and controlled by the manufacturer itself. I am simply expected to accept the manufacturer's statement that these samples were properly retained, correctly represent the batch and have been accurately examined. I have not been provided with independent evidence that allows me to verify any of this. The company repeatedly states that its retained samples were clear and compliant, but these are samples that were never in my possession and are not the bottle I purchased. They therefore cannot establish what happened to the individual bottle that I actually used. In fact, the company's own response confirms this point. They explicitly state that: “the condition of the individual bottle could only be assessed through examination of the actual product itself.” They also state: “the manufacturer was unable to perform any laboratory assessment of the actual product that is the subject of this complaint.” Therefore, their investigation cannot reasonably be presented as conclusive regarding my specific complaint. They have investigated their records and their own retained samples, but they have not investigated the actual product that I reported as containing visible particles. I also find it unacceptable that the company has not provided any independent laboratory report, photographic evidence of the analyses allegedly performed, or any documentation that would allow an independent party to verify their conclusions. I am simply being asked to accept their internal account of what was supposedly examined and what the results supposedly showed. I never claimed that every bottle from batch 0000645978 must have been defective. My complaint concerns one specific bottle which visibly contained particles or lumps. The fact that other samples were clear does not prove that my bottle was clear. Regarding my eye symptoms, I have never claimed that the company has to accept without investigation that its product caused them. I reported that I used the product, that it visibly contained abnormal particles and that I subsequently experienced significant eye problems requiring medical treatment. I believe this is a legitimate consumer safety complaint and that it should be taken seriously rather than effectively dismissed because the manufacturer's own retained samples did not show the same problem. What is particularly disappointing is that, despite the circumstances, the company has made absolutely no goodwill gesture towards me. No refund, no replacement, no compensation and not even an offer of a complimentary product has been made. Instead, after experiencing a problem with a product intended to be used on the face and around the eyes, I have been repeatedly told that the company's own samples were fine and that this is therefore an “isolated incident”. I consider this response extremely unsatisfactory. I am not asking anyone to simply take my word for it. I am asking for my complaint to be treated seriously and for the company not to present an internal investigation of samples under its own control as definitive proof that the specific product I purchased was not defective. I maintain my complaint and consider the matter unresolved. I have retained the bottle, photographs, correspondence and other relevant evidence and will provide them to the appropriate consumer protection authorities if necessary. I sincerely hope that Sence Essentials / Maxbrands Marketing B.V. will reconsider its position and finally offer a reasonable and proportionate resolution to this complaint.

Dear Sir/Madam, We have reviewed the complainant's latest comments and would like to clarify our position. We acknowledge that the complainant provided photographs, batch information and a detailed description of the reported issue. This information was taken into account during our investigation. As previously explained, we investigated the complaint in accordance with our obligations regarding product quality and consumer safety. The information provided by the complainant was reviewed, the manufacturer investigated the reported batch, production and cleaning records were assessed, and retained samples were examined. The complainant is correct that the investigation of retained samples cannot establish the condition of the specific bottle purchased by her. This is precisely why we repeatedly explained that examination of the actual bottle would be necessary to determine the origin of the reported particles and to assess the condition of the product concerned. While the complainant had reservations about submitting the bottle for examination, the fact remains that the product was ultimately not made available for further investigation. As a consequence, neither the manufacturer nor Maxbrands MarketingSence Essentials was able to conduct any assessment of the actual bottle that forms the subject of this complaint. We respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the investigation was insufficient. The measures taken were consistent with our responsibilities as distributor of the product and represent the reasonable steps available to us based on the information and materials provided. We would also like to clarify that the possibility of a refund, replacement or goodwill gesture would normally be considered in light of the available evidence and the outcome of the investigation. In this case, the investigation could not be progressed beyond the assessment of the information provided and the batch-related review, as examination of the actual product was not possible. As a result, no product defect could be established and no basis was identified for offering compensation or other remedial measures. We note that the complainant remains free to retain the bottle and provide it to any competent authority should she wish to do so. However, from our perspective, all reasonable investigative steps available to us have been completed. As no further investigation can be conducted without examination of the actual product, and as no evidence has been identified establishing a product defect or batch-related quality issue, we consider the matter fully reviewed and our file closed. Yours faithfully, Customer Care Team Maxbrands Marketing B.V.

Dear Sir/Madam, I remain fully dissatisfied with your response and with the way this complaint has been handled. I would like to clarify once again that I have never categorically refused to provide the bottle for examination. I have repeatedly explained that I have reservations about sending the only physical evidence I have because I do not have sufficient confidence in the independence and reliability of the investigation carried out by your company and the manufacturer. However, since you continue to state that examination of the actual bottle is essential to properly assess my complaint, I am willing to send the product to you for examination. I therefore ask you to provide me with a prepaid shipping label or arrange collection of the product at your expense. I do not consider it reasonable for me to bear any cost associated with sending the product back to you when I am cooperating with your requested investigation into a complaint concerning a product that I purchased and that presented visible particles. If you provide a prepaid shipping label, I will send the bottle so that your manufacturer can examine the actual product. I also want to make clear that sending the bottle should not be interpreted as accepting your previous conclusions or as withdrawing my complaint. I remain fully dissatisfied with the conclusions you have reached so far, particularly because they are based on retained samples and documentation rather than on the specific bottle that I actually used. You have repeatedly stated that the examination of my bottle is necessary to determine the origin of the particles. I am therefore giving you the opportunity to carry out that examination. If you genuinely consider this to be the missing step required to investigate my complaint, I expect you to facilitate it properly. I also expect to receive the findings of the examination of my bottle and the relevant laboratory report once the analysis has been completed. Until the actual product has been examined, I do not accept your decision to consider this matter closed. I therefore ask you to provide the prepaid shipping label and confirm that my complaint will remain open pending examination of the product. I remain dissatisfied with the lack of any goodwill gesture or meaningful resolution despite the circumstances I have reported, but I am willing to cooperate with the further investigation you have requested. I look forward to receiving the prepaid shipping label. Yours faithfully, Julia