Bloomex New Zealand has responded to a Chris Lynch Media article that highlighted widespread customer complaints about the online florist’s service, delivery standards, and marketing practices.

(Read full response at bottom of article)

The company, which operates across New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, only contacted  Chris Lynch Media, after the article was published, despite multiple phone calls and emails seeking comment in advance.

Repeated attempts to reach its call centre were either ignored, left on hold indefinitely, or abruptly disconnected.

Customers accused Bloomex of creating fake local listings, providing substandard service, and using deceptive advertising.

Since the initial report, more dissatisfied customers have come forward with similar stories.

Bloomex Director of Operations Andrew Lokhonia said the article contained “factual inaccuracies” and “misleading characterisations.”

He denied suggestions the company had misled customers about its physical presence in various towns and cities. “We use location-based landing pages to indicate delivery coverage,” he said. “We do not claim to have a physical presence in every location.”

Lokhonia also provided what he said was the first page of correspondence from the Commerce Commission.

Do you have a similar story? Email [email protected]

 Bloomex’s website includes maps that many customers said gave them the impression they were dealing with a local florist.

The Commerce Commission has confirmed it is investigating the use of similar “fake boutique” websites.

Lokhonia disputed the article’s reference to 55 Commerce Commission complaints, saying the number was 36.

The Commission confirmed it had received 55 enquiries regarding Bloomex and had written to the company reminding it of its obligations under the Fair Trading Act.

While not under formal investigation, the Commission said it is monitoring complaints, particularly in light of the $1 million fine Bloomex Australia received from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for misleading advertising.

Andrew Lokhonia rejected the idea that Bloomex was involved in a broader pattern of customer deception. “To suggest that Bloomex is part of a ‘global trail of scamming complaints’ is inaccurate, defamatory, and unsupported by the facts,” he said.

 

Television New Zealand’s consumer show Fair Go also investigated the company twice  (watch below)

Nonetheless, he said the company had implemented marketing updates following the Australian ruling.

Andrew Lokhonia also addressed specific complaints mentioned in the article.

He said customer Kristen Blaber-Hunt was offered multiple forms of resolution including a refund, a store credit, and a replacement bouquet. He maintained her order was from a “designer’s choice” range, which explicitly states the arrangement will not match the online photo.

“To imply that a bouquet not matching the reference photo constitutes misrepresentation ignores the nature of the product type and contradicts established industry norms,” he said.

He made similar claims about Carmen Everett’s order, saying the bouquet was delivered and a partial refund was processed.

The company also objected to the inclusion of anonymous complaints, requesting that all future claims include names or order numbers to be verified.

“Without verifiable details, these claims cannot be independently confirmed and may mislead readers into believing there are more substantiated incidents than actually reported,” Lokhonia said.

Andrew Lokhonia said “Trustpilot is well known to disproportionately attract negative experiences, particularly in sectors like flowers, logistics, and retail, where emotional expectations and timing pressures are high.”

 

FULL RESPONSE BY BLOOMEX NEW ZEALAND 

 

Hi Chris,
I hope you’re doing well.
My name is Andrew, and I’m the Director of Operations for Bloomex New Zealand. I
recently read your article titled “Furious Kiwi Customers Blast Online Florist Fined $1M
in Australia for Deceptive Conduct.”
While we genuinely appreciate the role of investigative journalism—and we are always
striving to improve our services—there are a number of factual inaccuracies in the
article that we feel compelled to address. We would like to give you the opportunity to
correct these before we escalate the matter to the Commerce Commission, the
New Zealand Media Council, and/or our legal team.
Below, I’ve outlined several statements from your article that are factually incorrect and
require correction.
1. Local Listings
“Fake local listings”
“Despite the website suggesting a local presence, Bloomex is not based in West
Melton.”
These claims are both misleading and factually incorrect in the context of how Bloomex
operates—and how the floral industry functions more broadly.
Our page for West Melton (https://bloomex.co.nz/pages/flower-delivery/west-melton)
does not state or imply that Bloomex has a physical storefront in West Melton. Instead,
like many national florists and delivery networks, we use location-based landing
pages to indicate that we deliver to that area.
Each page clearly states “Flower Delivery in West Melton” beneath the header and
map, indicating delivery coverage, not a local store presence. The accompanying map
is a visual representation of the delivery zone, a practice that is widely used across
the industry. For comparison, Petals.co.nz, a well-established New Zealand flower
delivery network, uses a nearly identical structure on their own West Melton page
(https://www.petals.co.nz/location/west-melton-flowers), including a city-specific URL
and regional delivery message, without claiming a physical presence.
Importantly, nowhere on our West Melton page (or any other) do we describe
ourselves as a “local florist” or suggest that we are based in the listed town. To interpret
these pages as intentionally deceptive is to misrepresent both our stated messaging
and standard e-commerce practices in the floral industry.
We ask that these claims be retracted or corrected to more accurately reflect the nature
and intent of these location-based pages.

2. Commerce Commission
“Triggered a warning from New Zealand’s Commerce Commission.”
“The Commission has received 55 enquiries regarding Bloomex.”
These statements are inaccurate and misleading.
The Commerce Commission has not issued any formal warning to Bloomex New
Zealand. We were contacted as part of a routine engagement, in which they shared a
list of customer complaints submitted over the past three years. This communication
was not a warning, investigation, or enforcement action—something clearly stated
in the correspondence itself, which notes that we are under no obligation to respond.
We have attached the first page of this document for your reference.
The figure you reported—“55 enquiries”—is incorrect. In our direct communication with
the Commerce Commission, we were advised that only 36 complaints have been
received regarding Bloomex New Zealand as of May 23, 2025, since we began
operations in 2023. These include 12 complaints in 2023, 23 in 2024, and 1 in 2025.
During this period, we fulfilled 43,879 orders, which equates to a complaint rate of just
0.0820%. While this is exceptionally low by industry standards, we still take every
complaint seriously and have implemented proactive improvements in response.
In fact, acting on recommendations discussed with the Commerce Commission, we
have recently opened a new production facility in Christchurch to better serve
customers in the South Island. This is part of a broader initiative to enhance product
quality, reduce delivery times, and increase customer satisfaction.
To characterize this engagement as a “warning” is both factually incorrect and
misrepresents the nature of our ongoing, constructive relationship with the Commission.

3. ACCC Statements
“A global trail of complaints accused of scamming customers.”
This statement is both inaccurate and highly misleading.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) did pursue action
against Bloomex Australia in relation to misleading advertising practices, including
the use of online star ratings and pricing representations. However, nowhere in the
ACCC’s official rulings or media releases is Bloomex accused of “scamming
customers.” The matter pertained specifically to breaches of the Australian Consumer
Law, not fraud, and was limited to certain online marketing representations.

Furthermore, the ACCC’s case and ruling applied only to Bloomex Australia. Bloomex
New Zealand has never been the subject of any legal proceedings, formal complaints,
or investigations by any regulatory body—including the Commerce Commission.
Despite the issues in Australia, we took the findings seriously and responded
proactively. Following the ruling, we conducted a full review of our advertising and
marketing practices across all countries of operation and implemented updates to
ensure full compliance with local consumer laws and advertising standards.
To suggest that Bloomex is part of a “global trail of scamming complaints” is inaccurate,
defamatory, and unsupported by the facts. We respectfully request that this language be
removed to reflect the specific and limited nature of the ACCC case.

4. Blaber-Hunt
“Blarber-Hunt said she was repeatedly told she would receive a refund or a resolution,
but after days of trying, nothing has been done.”
“Now I cannot even get through to their phone lines at all.”
These statements are factually incorrect and misrepresent the reality of our interactions
with Ms. Kristen Blaber-Hunt.
Ms. Blaber-Hunt placed her order (#2379361) on July 1, 2025, and it was successfully
delivered by NZ Post on July 2 at 9:33 AM. She reached out to our customer service
team on July 3 with a complaint about the quality of the flowers. Since then, our team
has maintained consistent communication with her across multiple
channels—including live chat, phone calls, and email.
To date, we have offered her three different resolution options:
 A complimentary replacement bouquet, with an optional upgrade and
alternate delivery address
 A full store credit of $109.13 + $20 as a goodwill gesture
 A 50% cash refund of the total order amount
These were offered as early as July 4, well prior to the publication of your article. To
assert that “nothing has been done” is demonstrably false. In fact, the case is still active
and under senior management review as of July 13.
We would also like to highlight that Ms. Blaber-Hunt purchased from our “Birthday
Designer Collection I”, a product explicitly marketed as a designer’s choice
bouquet. The product page clearly states:

“Please note: bouquet will not match the photo and will be designed by our in-house
florists using seasonal blooms.”
This language is standard within the floral industry, especially for designer's choice
products. Several respected florists in New Zealand follow this exact model, including:
 Petals Florist Network – Designer’s Choice Bouquet
 Interflora – Pastel Florist Choice
 The Wild Rose – Florist's Choice
To imply that a bouquet not matching the reference photo constitutes misrepresentation
ignores the nature of the product type and contradicts established industry norms.
While we acknowledge Ms. Blaber-Hunt’s dissatisfaction and are committed to reaching
a fair resolution, your article’s claim that we have refused to communicate or resolve her
issue is false. We remain in active dialogue with her and have already proposed
multiple remedies.
5. Everett
Your article refers to the case of Carmen Everett, implying she received an
unsatisfactory product and was denied an appropriate resolution.
Here are the factual details:
Ms. Everett placed her order (#2321386) on January 27, 2025, for delivery to
Christchurch. The order was processed, dispatched via NZ Post on the same day, and
successfully delivered on January 29 at 11:08 AM.
After the product was shipped—but prior to delivery—Ms. Everett requested a refund,
citing concerns about reviews and product freshness. At that point, as the item was
already in transit, cancellation was not possible. Once the bouquet was received, she
expressed dissatisfaction with its condition and appearance, noting that it did not match
the image and that it lacked Gerberas.
Importantly, Ms. Everett ordered the “Deluxe Designer Collection Mason Jar IV”, a
designer’s choice bouquet. The product page includes a clear disclaimer:
“Please note – actual bouquet will be beautiful but it will not look like picture.”
This disclaimer is not unique to Bloomex—it is a widely accepted industry standard
used by reputable florists offering designer’s choice arrangements, including:
 Petals Florist Network
 Interflora NZ

 The Wild Rose
Despite this, and in the interest of customer satisfaction, our team offered multiple forms
of resolution:
 A $30 store credit (initial offer)
 A 50% refund on the product price (NZ$28), which Ms. Everett accepted in
writing
 A full refund of the delivery fee (NZ$14.95), granted shortly after
In total, Ms. Everett received NZ$42.95 in refunds, and her refund was processed
promptly after each confirmation.
To characterize this as a case where the customer “was scammed” or left with no
support is misleading. We acknowledged her concerns, communicated clearly and
courteously, and processed multiple refunds in good faith—even after a partial refund
had already been accepted.
6. Your use of “Another Customer”
In your article, phrases like:
“Another Christchurch resident told chrislynchmedia.com her mother received flowers
from Bloomex…”
“Customer Carmen Everett…”
“Another customer said she paid extra…”
appear throughout as vague references to “another customer.” This style implies that
there are multiple genuine complaints, but without providing any clear evidence.
According to the article, confirmed cases include:
 Kristen Blaber-Hunt, with order reference and dates detailed.
TikTokFacebook+5Chris Lynch Media+5Chris Lynch Media+5
 Carmen Everett, whose experience and timeline are clearly recounted.
However, beyond these, the remaining claimant references—lacking names, dates, or
order numbers—fall under the ambiguous “another customer” label. Without verifiable
details, these claims cannot be independently confirmed, and as a result, may
mislead readers into believing there are more substantiated incidents than actually
reported.
To ensure fairness and accuracy, we respectfully request that you either:

1. Provide identifiable details (e.g., full names or order numbers) for each
referenced individual, so we can verify and respond appropriately; or
2. Remove the generic “another customer” statements unless you are willing to
confirm their authenticity.
We are fully prepared to address any documented case once grounded in verifiable
information. Until then, including these vague references risks overstating the scope of
complaints and compromising journalistic integrity.

7. Overstatement of Customer Sentiment
“Trustpilot gave the company a rating of just 1.3 out of 5 based on more than 300
reviews.”
While this statement is factually accurate in isolation, it is misleading when presented
without broader context. Trustpilot is well known to disproportionately attract negative
experiences, particularly in sectors like flowers, logistics, and retail—where emotional
expectations and timing pressures are high.
To provide a more accurate and balanced picture of Bloomex New Zealand's customer
sentiment:
 Our Google rating is 3.7 stars across over 590 verified customer reviews:
See live Google rating
For comparison, here are the Trustpilot scores for several established and reputable
New Zealand businesses & 1800 flowers:
 The Warehouse: 1.3 stars
 Chemist Warehouse: 1.4 stars
 1800 flowers: 2.3 Stars
This pattern highlights that Trustpilot alone is not a reliable or representative
indicator of overall customer satisfaction, particularly for e-commerce and floral
delivery services.
We respectfully request that any reference to our Trustpilot score in your article be
balanced by acknowledging:
 Our verified performance on platforms like Google
 The documented tendency of Trustpilot to host disproportionately negative
reviews across nearly all large-scale businesses in New Zealand

Closing Statement
We trust that the above points make it clear: your article contains multiple factual
inaccuracies, misleading characterizations, and a pattern of omission that unfairly
damages our reputation. We are offering you the opportunity to correct these issues in
good faith.
At Bloomex, we remain committed to serving our customers across New Zealand with
transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement. That includes taking criticism
seriously—but also standing up for accuracy when journalism crosses into
sensationalism.
We respectfully request that the corrections outlined in this letter be reflected in an
updated version of the article, or that a right of reply be issued in full. Should this not
occur by (21-07-2025), we will be forced to engage with the New Zealand Media
Council, the Commerce Commission, and/or legal avenues.
We look forward to your prompt response.

Kind regards,
Andrew Lokhonia
Director of Operations
Bloomex New Zealand