Prink Ltd Reviews 

Antwoord van Prink Ltd

Geüpdatet op 15 jun 2026

I am disappointed that you chose to leave a negative review without first following the installation advice I provided.

You are, of course, entitled to leave any review you wish. However, I cannot agree with a review that suggests the cartridge is incompatible when my recommended fitting instructions have not been followed.

I have spent over 25 years building this business and take customer concerns seriously. In this case, however, I stand by my advice. We have sold this cartridge for more than seven years and it is the correct model for your printer. It does not require forcing into place when installed correctly. As explained, firm downward pressure should be applied only to the area marked "Push".

I am so confident that these cartridges are correct that if you follow my instructions and still cannot get the cartridges to fit then I am prepared to arrange for a technician to visit your home and install them for you. If the cartridges fit and function as expected, I would simply ask that you amend your review to reflect the outcome.

I remain willing to assist if you would like to revisit the issue and follow the fitting instructions provided.

Response to update:
I'm pleased to hear that your machine is back up and running again.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to follow my suggestions and to update your review.

Antwoord van Prink Ltd

Geüpdatet op 19 jun 2026

UPDATE TO ORIGINAL REPLY:

It is highly unreasonable to expect a supplier of a £10 consumable product to effectively provide an extended warranty for a decade-old printer and to fund investigations into faults affecting it. No company would provide an extended warranty for such a machine, not even Canon themselves. However, we are so confident that our cartridges did not cause this unrelated error code on a printer that is 9 years out of its warranty period that we are prepared to contribute 50% up front towards the cost of an inspection by a suitably qualified independent technician, chosen by mutual agreement and whose findings will be accepted by both parties.

If the inspection concludes that our cartridges directly caused the fault, we will refund the cartridges, pay the remaining 50% of the inspection cost, and compensate the customer for the fair market value of the printer immediately prior to the failure.

If, however, the inspection concludes that the fault was most likely caused by printhead failure, age-related wear, contamination, maintenance issues or any other cause unrelated to our cartridges, we would expect the customer to reimburse our contribution to the inspection cost and amend this review to reflect the independent findings.

We have already passed this offer on to the customer. However, as expected, we have received no response, which further reinforces our position.

This offer remains open should the customer wish to replace speculation with objective technical evidence.

ORIGINAL REPLY:

We care very much about our customers, which is why we assess every claim on its merits. However, we cannot accept liability for an unrelated fault in a printer that is 9 years out of warranty simply because our cartridges were installed when the fault occurred.

The error code (1403) relates to printhead recognition issues, not cartridge faults. The printhead is a separate, replaceable component of the printer with a finite lifespan and is entirely independent of the cartridges supplied.

It appears the buyer has Googled for a possible cause and copied/pasted the answer that suited his agenda. A more plausible explanation is that a 10-year build-up of paper dust, fluff, ink and other debris around the printhead contacts was disturbed during cartridge installation, resulting in a short circuit affecting the printhead and potentially the cartridge chips as well.

The only way to determine the precise cause of the fault would be through an independent engineer's inspection. However, we are not prepared to fund this for a printer that is over 10 years old (9 years out of warranty) and worth less than the £10 cartridges purchased. Given the age of the machine, the possibility of an unrelated failure occurring at any time cannot reasonably be discounted.

No evidence has been provided that the cartridges were defective or caused any damage. No engineer's report, manufacturer diagnosis or technical assessment has been supplied—only the customer's assumption.

In the absence of any technical evidence, these allegations remain speculation. We cannot accept liability for the failure of a component in an ageing, obsolete printer based solely on coincidence and assumption, and I am amazed that this buyer has the brass neck to expect us to do so.

It is unreasonable to expect a supplier of a £10 consumable product to effectively provide an extended warranty for a decade-old printer and to fund investigations into faults affecting it. No company would provide an extended warranty for such a machine, not even Canon themselves.

A good week before this review was posted, we invited the customer to return the cartridges for testing and offered a full refund, including return postage, if a fault was identified. The cartridges have not been returned. Our offer to test the cartridges remains open.

Antwoord van Prink Ltd

14 jun 2026

We are sorry that the customer was dissatisfied with their experience, but this review does not fully reflect what occurred.

The order was dispatched on the day it was placed and delivered within the advertised 2–4 clear working day timeframe selected at checkout. Faster delivery options were available but were not chosen.

The customer subsequently contacted us claiming that two cyan cartridges had been supplied and that the yellow cartridge was missing. The photograph provided appeared to show two cartridges with labels that did not match the labelling of our LC1100 cartridges, and we therefore wrongly concluded that two of the cartridges shown had not originated from us.

Upon closer inspection, it became apparent that both parties had overlooked the fact that one of the cyan cartridges and the magenta cartridge shown in the photograph were actually our LC970 cartridges, which look very similar but use different label designs. Once this was identified, we immediately contacted the customer, apologised and arranged for the correct replacement items to be sent.

While we regret the initial misunderstanding, the matter was resolved as soon as the discrepancy was identified and replacement cartridges were dispatched without delay.

Antwoord van Prink Ltd

Geüpdatet op 17 apr 2026

This review was posted by an individual who left a one-star rating for a company after failing to win their prize draw, despite purchasing just a single ticket with odds of 1 in 15,000 so we encourage readers to view this reviewer’s public Trustpilot profile and previous reviews to gain context on their reviewing history and the background behind this feedback

We’re disappointed to read this review, as it omits some key points.

To investigate the issue, we made a very simple request for a single photo showing the cartridges installed alongside the printer error message — a routine and necessary step in diagnosing faults.

Despite the simplicity of this request and the reviewer claiming to have a degree in computer science, it took over 20 emails before the image was eventually provided. This understandably delayed any progress. During that time, the tone of communication we received was expletive ridden and at best unhelpful.

We are always happy to assist and resolve genuine issues efficiently. However, even the simplest of processes do rely on clear communication and timely cooperation.

Antwoord van Prink Ltd

Geüpdatet op 12 apr 2026

For transparency, we believe it is important for readers to be aware of relevant context: this reviewer’s Trustpilot history shows that 80% of their reviews are negative, with only one positive review ever posted. This pattern is worth noting when assessing the fairness of the comments made.
We would encourage readers to view this reviewer’s public Trustpilot profile and previous reviews to gain context on their reviewing history.

It is also important to make clear that the initial complaint was submitted before the estimated delivery timeframe had even elapsed.

Regarding the order in question, it was placed on a Friday evening, after our advertised daily dispatch cut‑off time. As per our policy, it was dispatched the next working day — Monday — using the delivery method selected at checkout (Royal Mail 48). We do offer faster services at extra cost but these were not chosen. A dispatch confirmation email was sent at the time of dispatch.

Royal Mail 48 is an economy service with an estimated delivery window of 2–3 working days. It is not a guaranteed service, and during this period there were publicly reported delays due to the recent severe weather.

A follow‑up message was then sent to us less than 24 hours after the estimated delivery date, but the order number and return email address provided were different and did not match the details used at checkout, which prevented us from locating the order immediately. Before we had the opportunity to respond, a negative review was posted under a different name to the one given on the order, and a chargeback was raised with the payment provider citing non‑delivery — despite the fact that Royal Mail does not class this service as delayed or lost until 10 clear working days after dispatch.

We are always willing to resolve any delivery issues promptly and professionally, and we would have been happy to assist further had we been given the opportunity. We remain available should the reviewer wish to continue this matter directly so it can be resolved properly.