Faulty Item Dispute

ta2

I bought a USB drive from Scan.co.uk. As with most people, I'm sure, I have had many USB drives in the past. This particular drive which I bought is an EXTREMELY tight fit, and in some cases (for example mine and my friends macbook), the amount of force required to fit it in is so much that I fear I am going to break the port on the machine.

I sent this back as an RMA. They found "no fault" with it, so I phoned them up. The woman on the phone said they would charge me £20 for testing it and £10 to send it back. I said that was absolutely ridiculous because the "testing procedure" was sticking it in a USB port to see if it would fit. They agreed to waive the testing fee and send it back for simply the delivery price of £10. I agreed to pay the £10. With regards to the fault, if you google "Super Talent Pico-C tight fit" (can't post links yet), you will see many other people have had the same issue as me.

This is what their T&C's state:

Insofar as it may be established that there was no defect in the goods at the point of delivery to you, we reserve the right to charge you 10 as a contribution towards the cost of inspecting and testing the goods.
.....
.....
insofar as the age or condition of the goods is such that we are unable to accept their return, we will redeliver the goods to you. You agree to pay to us the reasonable cost of re-delivering the goods to you.

I have to say I think £10 is an unreasonable fee to charge for returning what is small enough to go insured for the price of a first class stamp.

So now I am stuck with a USB stick which I am afraid to use because I don't want to damage my laptop, and I am out of pocket an additional £10 because of their exorbitant "redelivery" prices.

Do I have any rights which I can exercise in this situation to get my money back? The goods are not of satisfactory quality to say the least.

j.baker

when did you purchase the device? Did you contact scan within 7 days to return the device?

ta2

Purchase: 8th Feb
Notify of fault: 15th Feb

They said "Please be aware that any items returned and tested as not faulty or subject to a testing and returns charge." so I was apprehensive to send it back.

Request RMA: 9 Mar
Receive RMA: 11 Mar
Send Item: 15 Mar
Receive response: 19 Mar

mad-mark_2

Sounds like a simple Distance Selling Regs issue. You can return any item purchased over the web or phone, and you can't be charged a fee. You are responsible for the return postage (sounds like a jiffy bag and a stamp will be sufficient) but then you should be refunded the full amount you originally paid, including any outbound postage costs. You just have to notify them of your intent to return the items within 7 working days from receiving the item, which it sounds like you've done.

If you are returning the item because it is faulty, then you can also claim for the return postage, but it might be simpler just to return the item as unwanted at your expense and then get a full refund. If they start to mention extra fees involved, usually a mention of the Distance Selling Regulations will remind them of their obligations...

Edited to add: To be fair, their Ts&Cs do state the correct Distance Selling Regs requirements, as long as you notify them within 7 working days. Their extra "Code" after that I think is meant to apply after the 7 day period, and is basically saying that they might still replace a dodgy item up to 28 days later, but might charge you if there was nothing wrong with it. But that doesn't apply to your case, as you were well within the 7 days, so just say that you want to cancel the order and look forward to a full refund (including that £10 charge if they've already taken it!)

ta2

Thanks for your reply. I have already done what you said, with the aforementioned results. After I receive the faulty item back again do you suggest I send them an email citing DSR?

mad-mark_2

Ideally do it before they send you the item back. It'll save you another stamp, and the possibly tricky situation of now being outside the 7 days. You'll have to refer to your original email in which you hopefully stated that you wished to return the product. That should be sufficient as your notice of intent to return to item.

But yes, mention the DSRs. Read the first bit of their Ts&Cs and they are quite nicely written. That's the bit you wanted to follow from the beginning really.

ta2

How's this:

Dear Scan,

Having paid the exorbitant fee you charge for the return of "not faulty" goods, I received this Super Talent Pico-C 16GB USB drive back today. As I alluded to on the phone, the USB device is physically defective and non-conformant to the official USB specification.

After you failed to do so at my express request, I have taken the liberty of looking at the official USB specification myself, which can be found here: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/ "Universal Serial Bus Revision 2.0 specification" (links to: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_122909-2.zip)

Inside this archive you will find the file "usb_20.pdf". On page 127 of this PDF (or page 99 if you read the numbers on the page), you will see the official physical specifications of a USB connector. As can be seen at the top left, the outer width of a USB connector is 12.00 (+/-) 0.10 millimeters. This results in an upper limit of 12.10 millimeters, beyond which a device cannot be said to be a USB device as it does not meet the specifications. I have measured the device you supplied to me, and it measures 12.50 millimeters on my digital vernier caliper, which has an accuracy of +/- 0.03 millimetres, meaning the device is at least 12.47mm in width. This is far beyond the official limit of 12.10mm. For comparison, I measured another USB device I own, which was shown to be 12.06mm by the same set of calipers, well within the specification.

Evidence #1, measurement of the faulty device: http://i44.tinypic.com/241o590.jpg
Evidence #2, measurement of my conformant device: http://i44.tinypic.com/302zbtk.jpg

(The fact that the Super Talent Pico-C is standing up proves that it is clamped tightly by the calipers)

This item clearly falls within the "not as described" category of the Distance Selling Regulations, meaning I was fully entitled to a refund upon my original return of the item to you. As a result, I expect you to fully refund me the original purchase price, the return postage price, and the return of "not faulty" goods charge. The breakdown of this is as follows:

Original Purchase: £31.33
Return Postage: £0.61
Return of "not faulty" goods: £11.75

TOTAL: £43.69

Pursuant to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the device supplied to me has not been accurately described. Pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the goods are not of satisfactory quality and do not "conform to contract", having failed to meet the specifications which it claims to. For your own reference, "Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety."

Pursuant to The Distance Selling Regulations 2000, as the item is faulty it is not my responsibility to return the defective item to you. You may collect the faulty item from me at a mutually agreed time. I expect to be refunded the full sum of £43.69 within 30 days of your original receipt of the return of the item (15th March). Failure to do so will result in my contacting the Office of Fair Trading and performing a credit card chargeback.

Regards

techno12

ta2 wrote: »

With regards to the fault, if you google "Super Talent Pico-C tight fit" (can't post links yet), you will see many other people have had the same issue as me.

I've had one of these attached to my keyring for over a year now and it's brilliant, virtually indestructible and looks fab, but I admit that I couldn't get it to fit easily in one particular USB socket on my PS3 and had to apply so much force and gave up. The other PS3 USB socket is fine, as are others on different devices I've tried. I think its design accentuates the slight differences in USB sockets..

I suspect Scan just bunged it in an 'easy' USB socket that happened to work for them, but as it's not fit for your purpose I guess the distance selling regs will apply.

Interesting post about the width mind you, that explains it!

ta2

techno12 wrote: »

You sure you're inserting it properly? I've had one of these attached to my keyring for over a year now and it's brilliant, but I admit that I couldn't get it to fit easily in one particular usb-socket and had to apply so much force and gave up. The socket adjacent to it is fine, as are others on different devices I've tried. I think its design accentuates the slight differences in USB sockets..

Thanks for your reply. Did you read the above post? I have measured it and it's physically too big, that's why it doesn't fit. It is a VERY hard fit in my Macbook, so much so that I am afraid of breaking it (the port). Maybe that's acceptable to some people, but they certainly can't claim it is faultless.

ta2

techno12 wrote: »

I've had one of these attached to my keyring for over a year now and it's brilliant, virtually indestructible and looks fab, but I admit that I couldn't get it to fit easily in one particular USB socket on my PS3 and had to apply so much force and gave up. The other PS3 USB socket is fine, as are others on different devices I've tried. I think its design accentuates the slight differences in USB sockets..

I suspect Scan just bunged it in an 'easy' USB socket that happened to work for them, but as it's not fit for your purpose I guess the distance selling regs will apply.

I was on the phone to them, arguing my case. They tried it on multiple USB ports, but I think these were all the USB extension cables... which are always really loose (usually too loose) anyway. It slips in nicely in the computer on my right, but is a very difficult fit in the computer on my left. Likewise, the computer at uni it doesn't go at all in the bottom of the two ports, and is quite tight on the top port.

I really did try and use it despite it's faults, but I can't risk causing severe damage to my ~£1000 laptop for the sake of a USB drive.

ta2

techno12 wrote: »

Interesting post about the width mind you, that explains it!

LOL... triple post update... Yeah, they can't really argue against this information and shouldn't have put me through all this hassle. If they were a responsible company they would have made damn sure they were right before charging me £11.75 return shipping. They also tried to charge me £20 "testing fee", but I refused on the grounds that it's a trivial task to "test" a USB drive.