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

agrinnall

JoeSaponic wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that it's scandalous that a product should fail at all during it's guaranteed life, well, there are very few (if any) products that don't have some risk of failure, and if a manufacturer was absolutely certain that a product would never fail then there wouldn't be any need for a guarantee. And from what I can see from what you've posted, Freecom are fulfilling their side of the guarantee by offering repair, replacement or credit note, any of which should put you in the position you were in (apart from data loss) before the failure, so I can't quite see what your issue is.

JoeSaponic

agrinnall wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that it's scandalous that a product should fail at all during it's guaranteed life, well, there are very few (if any) products that don't have some risk of failure, and if a manufacturer was absolutely certain that a product would never fail then there wouldn't be any need for a guarantee. And from what I can see from what you've posted, Freecom are fulfilling their side of the guarantee by offering repair, replacement or credit note, any of which should put you in the position you were in (apart from data loss) before the failure, so I can't quite see what your issue is.

The issue in the quoted passage is the nature of the bargain itself, which I consider sleight of hand. It's quite simple: if the risk of failure during guaranteed life is too great manufacturers shouldn't offer a guarantee. A refund furthermore - full restitution - should be a natural concomitant of any warranty stating the length of time an item is considered seaworthy by its makers. It needn't be a first resort necessarily, and giving suppliers a chance to make good is reasonable enough in most circumstances, but here we have a retailer offering one type of guarantee and a manufacturer offering another. Standard practice or not this is a discrepancy. I'm saying it's morally dubious and shouldn't be allowed since I have no chance of a credit note or even partial refund because it exists. Credit notes derive from retailers where repair is impossible and replacement unwanted. Here the reseller's 12-month warranty was expired, permitting him to wash his hands of it and direct me to Freecom. Freecom offers no credit notes. Freecom offers repair or replacement. Repair or replacement might not appease those who's experience undermined any faith they might have had in the product. We must deal with the world as it is, of course, not as we would like it to be, which is why my opinions don't necessarily matter. I doubt there's anything more I can usefully add. Hopefully that's a bit clearer. Thanks for replying.

wealdroam

JoeSaponic wrote: »

The issue in the quoted passage is the nature of the bargain itself, which I consider sleight of hand. It's quite simple: if the risk of failure during guaranteed life is too great manufacturers shouldn't offer a guarantee. A refund furthermore - full restitution - should be a natural concomitant of any warranty stating the length of time an item is considered seaworthy by its makers. It needn't be a first resort necessarily, and giving suppliers a chance to make good is reasonable enough in most circumstances, but here we have a retailer offering one type of guarantee and a manufacturer offering another. Standard practice or not this is a discrepancy. I'm saying it's morally dubious and shouldn't be allowed. I have no chance of a credit note or even partial refund because it exists. Credit notes are available from retailers where repair is impossible and replacement unwanted. Here the reseller's 12-month warranty was expired, permitting him to wash his hands of it and direct me to Freecom. Freecom offer no credit notes. They merely offer repair or replacement. We must deal with the world as it is, of course, not as we would like it to be, which is why my opinions don't necessarily matter. I doubt there's anything more I can add. Thanks for replying.

So once again you have totally ignored the possibility of any remedy under The Sale of Goods Act.

As you say, there is no point in going round in circles, you are clearly not interested in any resolution other than the impossible one you are looking for.

I'll leave you with this quote:

Know who's responsible

When returning items, beware shops trying the oldest trick in the book: saying they're not responsible for the shoddy goods and you must call the manufacturer. This is total nonsense!

If a company fobs you off by saying “go to the maker instead”, it's wrong. It's the retailer's job to sort it.
It doesn't matter if it's an iPod from a high street shop or a designer frock from a department store. If something's broken, torn, ripped or faulty, the seller has a legal duty to put it right as your contract is with them.

From:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

frugal_mike

JoeSaponic wrote: »

Here the reseller's 12-month warranty was expired, permitting him to wash his hands of it and direct me to Freecom.

Just in case there was any confusion about wealdroam's last post, I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the above quote is wrong. Warranties are irrelevant, your statutory rights remain. The retailer most certainly cannot wash their hands of any inherent fault in a product they sold.

JoeSaponic

wealdroam wrote: »

So once again you have totally ignored the possibility of any remedy under The Sale of Goods Act.

As you say, there is no point in going round in circles, you are clearly not interested in any resolution other than the impossible one you are looking for.

I'll leave you with this quote:

From:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

frugal_mike wrote: »

Just in case there was any confusion about wealdroam's last post, I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the above quote is wrong. Warranties are irrelevant, your statutory rights remain. The retailer most certainly cannot wash their hands of any inherent fault in a product they sold.

Sorry if I misunderstood Wealdroam - and thank you for chipping in frugal_mike - but I'm even less sure now where this leaves me since boo_star [and others] gave the distinct impression that 1 year seller warranties and 2 year manufacturer warranties were par for the course and that I was very likely stumped. Thus far I fall between the two stools, but if there's anything I can do to persuade the re-seller that his responsibilities do not end with the lapsing of the 12-month parts and labour warranty I'd love to hear it. I've more or less agreed to return it to Ingrams Micro for repair. Nothing has gone yet however and if I think there's a chance of success I'll cancel and approach the seller again. In what way though? What do I say to him?

Boo_star seemed to cover chapter and verse regarding statutory rights. What are they that I might yet resurrect a claim against the re-seller where a guarantee [irrelevant or not] has expired?

Edit: Having just scanned Martin Lewis' advice there is nothing in what he says remotely germane to my position that I can see. Most of it's about returning goods to the high street or the seven-day rule with online purchases. Nothing about whether lapsed guarantees strengthen the seller's hand or are simply, as frugal_mike said, 'irrelevant'. Sorry but I still don't understand what the legal position is that I can quote to provide the trump card with the re-seller.

Joe

Slowhand

As it's more than six months since you bought the drive you need a report from 'an engineer' stating it's an inherent fault. You present this to the seller, who in all likelyhood the will return the drive to the manufacturer for a replacement. Or you can deal directly with the manufacturer yourself under their two year warranty. I know what I'd do.

JoeSaponic

Slowhand wrote: »

As it's more than six months since you bought the drive you need a report from 'an engineer' stating it's an inherent fault. You present this to the seller, who in all likelyhood the will return the drive to the manufacturer for a replacement. Or you can deal directly with the manufacturer yourself under their two year warranty. I know what I'd do.

What? No-one's going to pay for an engineer's report [boo_star referred to this as well] so I'm guessing you'd send it back to the manufacturer - which is exactly what I'd planned to do until wealdroam and frugal_mike implied I was somehow missing a trick. I'll see what they say if they reply again, but I suspect the six-month rule is the important provision here. Thanks Slowhand.

wealdroam

JoeSaponic wrote: »

Edit: Having just scanned Martin Lewis' advice there is nothing in what he says remotely germane to my position that I can see. Most of it's about returning goods to the high street or the seven-day rule with online purchases. Nothing about whether lapsed guarantees strengthen the seller's hand or are simply, as frugal_mike said, 'irrelevant'. Sorry but I still don't understand what the legal position is that I can quote to provide the trump card with the re-seller.

Then you need to read it again. Scanning it clearly hasn't achieved the desired result.

When you have done that, and realise that the only people you need to interact with is whoever sold the thing to you, then you should read MSE's How to Complain article.

Once you understand those, you will be well equipped to get a resolution.

JoeSaponic

wealdroam wrote: »

Then you need to read it again. Scanning it clearly hasn't achieved the desired result.

When you have done that, and realise that the only people you need to interact with is whoever sold the thing to you, then you should read MSE's How to Complain article.

Once you understand those, you will be well equipped to get a resolution.

Seller or manufacturer - it's repair or replacement whoever I send it back to. I can't find any hard information relevant to my position beyond 'don't be fobbed off'.

Edit: Okay - I get the impression I can use a 2 year manufacturer warranty to bolster my case with the re-seller but it'll be a matter of negotiation. Similarly the Limitations Act [or the scottish version since the seller was north of the border] provides for up to five years but again is a matter to be negotiated.

It boils down to much the same thing so far as I can see - repair or replace. I've no need to persuade the re-seller to fulfil options the manufacturer has all ready agreed to cover.

Slowhand

JoeSaponic wrote: »

Seller or manufacturer - it's repair or replacement whoever I send it back to. I can't find any hard information relevant to my position beyond 'don't be fobbed off'.

Your 'rights' are with the seller...but if the manufacturer is offering a more convenient option why not go with it?