Just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience to mine.
I bought a Living DNA test kit at the beginning of this year and returned my sample on the 2nd March (after a great deal of hassle with NZ Post, who refused to recognise the prepaid envelope supplied, ending with my paying postage myself)
This kit went AWOL so I contacted the help desk in April, who were extremely helpful and also indignant regarding the postage problems. They sent me another kit, and offered me a free book as compensation.
I returned this kit in May, once again having to pay $50 NZ for tracked courier. (A formal complaint to NZ Post has now been made by Living DNA).
I was notified that my kit was received and that testing had started on the 31st May. Expected to be completed by 12th August.
A week or so later, I received another email telling me that testing started on the 23rd June. Expected to be completed 12th September.
I filed the second email, presuming they had just recalculated their dates.
My results came through earlier than expected, on the 25th July and I was very happy with them as they confirmed nearly all of my paper research giving me a few areas I had been wondering about, to explore.
Scotland and Ireland were contrary to expectations, but reading other reviews online, they are constantly updating their database, so will hope for more definition in the future.
On the 18th August, I got another email advising my test results were available, clicked on the link, and was astonished to discover that the first sample ,which was lost in the post, was in fact ,the kit they were referring to in the 23rd June email !
Upon checking, I found that this set of results was slightly different to the results in the second test, and the regional breakdown of areas in the UK not as detailed.
For example, on the second test (first sample), Great Britain and Ireland are grouped together whereas in the first test (second sample), they are separate sub –regions.
I do realise that results from other companies will often provide different results, but I would have expected that two samples from the same person, taken under the same conditions within two months of each other, using the same lab, to be identical.
Am I wrong?
This has undermined my confidence in the accuracy of the first results.
Of course I will contact Living DNA to enquire, but before I do would be very interested to know if this is common. I will attach images.
Thanks
Barbara