Warranty help please

Daytona_nev

djpleasure wrote: »

it maybe a £40 mouse, but yes, out of principle I would consider the civil route.
I have since contacted eBay, explained situ and requested contact information for the seller. Failing that, I have his real name and know the area he lives, name is unusual, so getting the info should not prove too tricky.

Dunno what you seriously expect to happen, anyway,

Fill your boots,

Good Luck!

Sssssss

I would email someone high up in LOGITECH, a company this size is not going to want hassle over a 40quid mouse and should arrange a replacement to be sent out, regardless of right or wrong or SOGA etc. etc.

Plus you have said it's a common fault so LOGITECH need to be held accountable.

It's called good customer service, you just need to get in touch with someone with some level of authority in the company.

Google for the name of the CEO, MD etc. failing that you'll find some sort of email address on the website send your email to them marked for the attention of the The BIG BOSS.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

Sssssss wrote: »

I would email someone high up in LOGITECH, a company this size is not going to want hassle over a 40quid mouse and should arrange a replacement to be sent out, regardless of right or wrong or SOGA etc. etc.

Plus you have said it's a common fault so LOGITECH need to be held accountable.

It's called good customer service, you just need to get in touch with someone with some level of authority in the company.

Google for the name of the CEO, MD etc. failing that you'll find some sort of email address on the website send your email to them marked for the attention of the The BIG BOSS.

He doesnt have any claim against Logitech

The warranty is supplied to the original customer only, he wasnt that, Logitech will tell him where to go.

Sssssss

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

He doesnt have any claim against Logitech

The warranty is supplied to the original customer only, he wasnt that, Logitech will tell him where to go.

maybe by law but sometimes companies have been known to use common sense if you get your problem high enough in the management chain. Also bear in mind this is a common fault with one of their products.

djpleasure

i have asked them to deal with the matter, i feel as item was brand new, it should not matter my purchasing source. The mouse was only introduced in august 06, so well within the 3 year warranty, although i purchased 19th feb 08.
I have stated to them that I will never purchase from them again if this is their way of dealing with issues. It is bad policy, as more and more people purchase new logitech items from eBay, it is still revenue for them. I have asked for them to deal withit, even if just as a gesture of good will. I mentioned I posted the issue on a high traffic consumer website and that a positive result would look better for them, especially as it is a known common fault. I have also asked that if the cs can not deal with this to my satisfaction, forward to the ceo or md, if they dont, i will do so personally.

Logitech may tell me where to go, it would be a bad move, bad publicity, poor customer relations, i'll then never purchase or recommend another Logi product.

At the end of the day it does not always have to be about law/regulations, sometimes people, companies do the right thing......we will see, i'll report back the results. Thank you for the support

baddiebasher

Daytona_nev wrote: »

Wrong!

My post is totally realistic given the circumstances.

The OP cannot claim via paypal due to expired time limits. The Ebay listing has expired and there are no details. Therefore, little to no recourse via the Ebay/Paypal services.

The OP has already said they cannot get in touch with the seller, if this remains the case they have no rights to a warranty.

Unless they can get in touch with the seller (unlikely) and get the original receipt ( Highly highly unlikely ) then they're stuffed.

To suggest taking down the civil law route over a £30/40 mouse is quite frankly ridiculous. Getting the OPs hopes up when the circumstances suggest they've got little to no chance helps no-one and just wastes their time.

Sorry, but you really need to ensure your posts are realistic!

You seem to have conveniently ignored a certain point by the previous poster to me who happened to also mention

"whilst you do have legal remedies you might get nowhere easily."

And the issue here is MIGHT. I am sick to death of people who just say "oh you have no rights, you are stuffed". The post that I was referring to did NOT say that. What was said was the rights that the seller has and a statement that there may be difficulties. That is usually the case with any claim.

All you said was taht the OP was stuffed. That is not helpful in the slightest. And "Paypal time limits" mean diddly squat. Do you think they can override the law so easily?
I would suggest that, before you start giving practical advice, you have a look at what the legislation requires first, and then fit that in with any practical advice.

markelock

d.edna wrote: »

You wouldn't be recommending fraud now would you

I'm like a modern day robin hood. without the bow and arrow, just the green tights.

it shouldn't matter who held the contract in my eyes. he owns it, and presuming he doesn't take it para-gliding at weekends, he has a right to expect it to work.

just my opinion.

Daytona_nev

baddiebasher wrote: »

And the issue here is MIGHT. I am sick to death of people who just say "oh you have no rights, you are stuffed". The post that I was referring to did NOT say that. What was said was the rights that the seller has and a statement that there may be difficulties. That is usually the case with any claim.

All you said was taht the OP was stuffed. That is not helpful in the slightest. And "Paypal time limits" mean diddly squat. Do you think they can override the law so easily?
I would suggest that, before you start giving practical advice, you have a look at what the legislation requires first, and then fit that in with any practical advice.

Erm What?

The earlier post clearly stated the rights of the OP and whilst there were legal remedies they are likely to get nowhere easily.

How the hell do you interpret that as refering to the rights of the seller? I suggest you re-read it!

The "paypal time limts" refer to his rights of recourse under paypal and was not referring to his rights under the law.

You certainly either like to take things out of context or have trouble understanding simple concepts.

Just because my post isn't what the OP wanted to hear doesn't mean it's not helpful. Given the circumstances it's totally realistic. It's also impractical to send people off on wild goose chases in attempts to recover their losses.

The OP has no rights with logitech, his rights against the seller are doubtful.
Just because the auction stated "brand new", chances are this was a second hand mouse that was 'hardly used' and he has no recourse whatsoever.

So exactly what legislation definately applies here? given we have no certain facts about the seller!

djpleasure

The OP has no rights with logitech, his rights against the seller are doubtful.
Just because the auction stated "brand new", chances are this was a second hand mouse that was 'hardly used' and he has no recourse whatsoever.

Initially I was not getting involved with the debate side of this thread, but now I change my mind, especially after the last post highlighted above.

Everything you state is not realsitic, it is just pure negative annd unhelpful, this may lead to some just giving up without so much as a minor fight.
The last emssage is just works on assumptions and as you put it...chances are! To correct you.....the item was purchased as buy it now and BNIB, the seller sells constantly new i.t equipment. The above also insults my intelligence, like I cannot differentiate between a new mouse and a hardly used one. Especially as the box seal was intact, if the seller was like that, I am sure he would not have 100% feedback either.

You can not work on assumptions, also being competely negative is not helpful at all, even though YOUR thoughts are it is realistic.

In the past I have been very successful in regards to getting refunds, replacements etc, even when the situation is not straight forward, quite often the case is dealt with out of good old goodwill.

I would appreciate in future if you just do not bother offering me advice as I feel it is somewhat tainted, however I appreciate the other help I have received.

baddiebasher

Daytona_nev wrote: »

Erm What?

The earlier post clearly stated the rights of the OP and whilst there were legal remedies they are likely to get nowhere easily.

How the hell do you interpret that as refering to the rights of the seller? I suggest you re-read it!

The "paypal time limts" refer to his rights of recourse under paypal and was not referring to his rights under the law.

You certainly either like to take things out of context or have trouble understanding simple concepts.

Just because my post isn't what the OP wanted to hear doesn't mean it's not helpful. Given the circumstances it's totally realistic. It's also impractical to send people off on wild goose chases in attempts to recover their losses.

The OP has no rights with logitech, his rights against the seller are doubtful.
Just because the auction stated "brand new", chances are this was a second hand mouse that was 'hardly used' and he has no recourse whatsoever.

So exactly what legislation definately applies here? given we have no certain facts about the seller!

1. apologies for saying rights of seller - i meant buyer.

2. the rest of it. Try reading Sale of Goods Act, Consumer Protection Act and Regulations and Orders under the Acts as well as case law involved, and then come back and ask me what it has to do with it.