Freecom Quattro External Hard Drive warranty. Repair but why not refund?

JoeSaponic

Hello Everyone,

I bought this device from an Amazon [UK] Marketplace business seller on the 21st July 2012. Last Tuesday [27th August] the drive developed mechanical failure.

I've performed various tests and am satisfied it's the disk and not the computer [a Mac Pro early 2009 running Snow Leopard 10.6.8 if that helps].

The retailer says I am now outside his 12 month parts and labour warranty and have to approach the manufacturer.

The manufacturer, or the official agent in England [Freecom is Germany based], offers repair, replacement where repair is impossible or, failing that, a 'credit note'. No refund.

My questions are:

1] Doesn't failure within a warranty include the choice of a refund? But if so who is then liable for it?

2] How can 12-month re-seller warranty [parts and labour] fall short of the manufacturer's 2 year warranty this way, leaving buyers in limbo?

Thank you for your advice. Repair, if possible, would be preferable in many ways and for obvious reasons. My dilemma, probably one for another thread admittedly, is the impression I have of this Freecom agent:

http://www.ingramuk.com/warranty/display.asp?id=f5i9d7

From the email evidence after getting in touch I sense it may be a family sized tech-firm or even a corner shop, not a big distributor where they probably deal with lots of returns a week and therefore couldn't care less what's on the drive.

Joe

visidigi

Ingram Micro are not a two bit family operation...in fact they are a distributor of note to the industry in the UK, they back many more warranties than you can imagine.

There is no refund as you didn't buy from the manufacturer, in any case, any resolution through SOGA is up to the retailer/manufacturer to choose, and they can refuse any that is disproportionately expensive, which a refund would be.

to answer your questions specifically...

1. No. The warranty is down to whoever offers it, in this case the manufacturer.
2. I do not follow? The option to repair or replace is there if the device is sent to the repair agent.

wealdroam

JoeSaponic wrote: »

1] Doesn't failure within a warranty include the choice of a refund? But if so who is then liable for it?

I don't know. Every warranty is different and is in addition to your statutory rights.
Manufacturer's warranties rarely include the option of a refund... after all, you haven't paid the manufacturer any money to be refunded.

JoeSaponic wrote: »

2] How can 12-month re-seller warranty [parts and labour] fall short of the manufacturer's 2 year warranty this way, leaving buyers in limbo?

As above, warranties are in addition to your statutory rights.
A warranty does not even need to be offered.
The terms of any warranty are decided by whoever is offering the warranty.

Limbo?
Perhaps you could consider exploring Sale of Goods Act options.


Anyway, back to the refund under warranty... are you suggesting that you should be able to get a full refund of the purchase price?
Prices of hard disks have fallen over that period, and why should you expect free use of the product for that period?

Jakg

Remember also that a repair may be significantly cheaper than a refund (although in practice I don't think anyone repairs external hard drives - they'll just return them to the manufacturer for an exchange in return for the faulty unit)

JoeSaponic

visidigi wrote: »

Ingram Micro are not a two bit family operation...in fact they are a distributor of note to the industry in the UK, they back many more warranties than you can imagine.

There is no refund as you didn't buy from the manufacturer, in any case, any resolution through SOGA is up to the retailer/manufacturer to choose, and they can refuse any that is disproportionately expensive, which a refund would be.

to answer your questions specifically...

1. No. The warranty is down to whoever offers it, in this case the manufacturer.
2. I do not follow? The option to repair or replace is there if the device is sent to the repair agent.

Thanks for helping. I'm sure many qualify as 'distributor of note to the industry' but reputations have nothing to do with size. Size matters because big operations deal with hundreds of returns weekly and haven't time to ferret around one's personal banking details. The same might not be true of small firms. I'm grateful for the reassurance though.

I think perhaps your answer ignores consumers unwilling to accept a solution involving the very model that caused the complaint. That is why I asked about a refund and whether or not one is provided for in law. There must come a point where one simply cuts one's losses. One cannot go on having the item repaired/replaced indefinitely just to suit the convenience of commerce. Excluding refunds at all suggests the opposite.

Since I have a right to replacement, repair or refund in a whole host of consumer provisions why do these not apply to computer peripherals? The drive failed under an active two year manufacturer's warranty. The re-seller, for his part, operates a reduced liability of 12 months 'parts and labour', which in my case has lapsed. The discrepancy is curious and, since it excludes making any sort of financial restitution, strikes me as potentially testable.

JoeSaponic

wealdroam wrote: »

I don't know. Every warranty is different and is in addition to your statutory rights.
Manufacturer's warranties rarely include the option of a refund... after all, you haven't paid the manufacturer any money to be refunded.


As above, warranties are in addition to your statutory rights.
A warranty does not even need to be offered.
The terms of any warranty are decided by whoever is offering the warranty.

Limbo?
Perhaps you could consider exploring Sale of Goods Act options.


Anyway, back to the refund under warranty... are you suggesting that you should be able to get a full refund of the purchase price?
Prices of hard disks have fallen over that period, and why should you expect free use of the product for that period?

It's my statutory rights I'm wondering about. A guarantee is a guarantee. It protects against malfunction [under normal conditions] for the period offered - in this case two years. Somehow the re-seller manages to limit his liability to only one year and sends me back to the manufacturer.

Do I expect to get my money back? Yes [which is to say that a refund should at least be an option]. Why not when the device failed during the very period when protection against failure was guaranteed [a protection built-in to the asking price by the way]?

Depreciation has nothing to do with it so far as I can see. Refunds are not a reflection of the market. Refunds give you back what you paid for whatever it is you bought on the understanding it would work and which has failed to, thereby voiding the contract.

I'll look into the Sales of Goods Act. Thanks for helping.

boo_star

JoeSaponic wrote: »

Thanks for helping. I'm sure many qualify as 'distributor of note to the industry' but reputations have nothing to do with size. Size matters because big operations deal with hundreds of returns weekly and haven't time to ferret around one's personal banking details. The same might not be true of small firms. I'm grateful for the reassurance though.

I think perhaps your answer ignores consumers unwilling to accept a solution involving the very model that caused the complaint. That is why I asked about a refund and whether or not one is provided for in law. There must come a point where one simply cuts one's losses. One cannot go on having the item repaired/replaced indefinitely just to suit the convenience of commerce. Excluding refunds at all suggests the opposite.

Since I have a right to replacement, repair or refund in a whole host of consumer provisions why do these not apply to computer peripherals? The drive failed under an active two year manufacturer's warranty. The re-seller, for his part, operates a reduced liability of 12 months 'parts and labour', which in my case has lapsed. The discrepancy is curious and, since it excludes making any sort of financial restitution, strikes me as potentially testable.

There is no discrepancy here, the retailer offers a 1 year guarantee (although they may be liable for up to 6 years) and the manufacturer, offers a 2 year warranty seperate to this.

The manufacturer can apply any conditions to this warranty, they could require you to ring a premium rate number whilst doing a handstand and reciting your ABC's backwards. Joking aside they are not required to follow things like SoGA because they have no direct relationship with you (although they are required to fulfil their obligation to you in as far as their warranty stipulates it.)

Your issue lies with the retailer here.

Since SoGA requires you to prove an inherent fault after 6 months and you are outside their own (over and above statutory requirement) guarantee you need to get an independent report that states it failed due to an inherent fault.

A 2 year guarantee from the manufacturer may give you limited ammunition but since they're clearly not interested, that's out of the window.

Additionally the "remedy" is up to the retailer. Repair isn't going to happen if its a disk fault so it's replacement or refund (potentially partial) only.

molerat

Any "rights" you have are with the retailer and if you wish a refund you should pursue them under SOGA but they have the right to offer a repair, replacement or refund, choosing the one which is least costly to them. If they chose a refund then the amount offered can be less than the purchase price to account for the amount of use you have had from the item.

Under the manufacturer warranty, which is additional to your statutory rights with the retailer, you are bound by the conditions of that warranty. Why should they refund cash when they can give a replacement which will cost them a mere fraction of the retail price.

shaun_from_Africa

JoeSaponic wrote: »

Do I expect to get my money back? Yes [which is to say that a refund should at least be an option]....

Depreciation has nothing to do with it so far as I can see. Refunds are not a reflection of the market. Refunds give you back what you paid for whatever it is you bought on the understanding it would work and which has failed to, thereby voiding the contract.

It would be nice for consumers if this was the case (but not so nice for retailers), but it isn't.
Just because something has failed during its life doesn't mean that the original contract has been voided, and this is why the SOGA specifically allows retailers to give a partial refund of the price paid.
The retailer is entitled to make a deduction to account for the time that the consumer has had satisfactory use of the goods.
If this didn't happen and you were to receive a full refund of the sum you paid, you would have had free use of the drive for over 13 months.

JoeSaponic

boo_star wrote: »

There is no discrepancy here, the retailer offers a 1 year guarantee (although they may be liable for up to 6 years) and the manufacturer, offers a 2 year warranty seperate to this.

The manufacturer can apply any conditions to this warranty, they could require you to ring a premium rate number whilst doing a handstand and reciting your ABC's backwards. Joking aside they are not required to follow things like SoGA because they have no direct relationship with you (although they are required to fulfil their obligation to you in as far as their warranty stipulates it.)

Your issue lies with the retailer here.

Since SoGA requires you to prove an inherent fault after 6 months and you are outside their own (over and above statutory requirement) guarantee you need to get an independent report that states it failed due to an inherent fault.

A 2 year guarantee from the manufacturer may give you limited ammunition but since they're clearly not interested, that's out of the window.

Additionally the "remedy" is up to the retailer. Repair isn't going to happen if its a disk fault so it's replacement or refund (potentially partial) only.

This is excellent information. Makes clear what a lot of window-dressing is the average 'guarantee'. Thanks Boo.

molerat wrote: »

Any "rights" you have are with the retailer and if you wish a refund you should pursue them under SOGA but they have the right to offer a repair, replacement or refund, choosing the one which is least costly to them. If they chose a refund then the amount offered can be less than the purchase price to account for the amount of use you have had from the item.

Under the manufacturer warranty, which is additional to your statutory rights with the retailer, you are bound by the conditions of that warranty. Why should they refund cash when they can give a replacement which will cost them a mere fraction of the retail price.

Why would they indeed. That's why I had to know if the law gave them that choice, irrespective of whether or not it should exist. Thanks.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Just because something has failed during its life doesn't mean that the original contract has been voided, and this is why the SOGA specifically allows retailers to give a partial refund of the price paid.
The retailer is entitled to make a deduction to account for the time that the consumer has had satisfactory use of the goods.
If this didn't happen and you were to receive a full refund of the sum you paid, you would have had free use of the drive for over 13 months.

Fair point. And again good information. Scandalous if correct in my view - a two-year guarantee against failure should mean just that and hang the financial inconvenience to sellers and manufacturers - but then my opinion is neither here nor there. It failed after all not just 'during its life' but during its guaranteed life, which I would have hoped meant something else.

There is an authority to these replies [allowing for the usual legal caveats] that encourages me in how best to proceed, so thanks to everyone for your advice. I just hope the !!!!!!s don't ask me to foot the bill for returning it.

No - don't answer that.

wealdroam

JoeSaponic wrote: »

I just hope the !!!!!!s don't ask me to foot the bill for returning it.

No - don't answer that.

Yes, I'll answer that.

Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act includes:

Repair or replacement of the goods
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

But if you are dealing with a warranty... who knows.