Scan.co.uk have taken 7 weeks for RMA. What can I do?

kissinger

wealdroam wrote: »

Hmmm...

Some might say that three years is the expected life of the thing, especially as technology moves so fast, and after three years it has very little value... say £10.

What is your value of a three year old motherboard?
Not that it is the same question, but how much would you pay for a three year old motherboard?

Personally I would be inclined to suggest to Scan that £20 would be acceptable... that's if you don't want to wait for the manufacturer.

Well my thinking is that the fairest and most logical way to do it would be to look at what the going rate in the 2nd hand market is for that particular type of motherboard. Which is roughly £50-60.

It's a pretty good motherboard. An Asus 'RoG' board, which are their high end boards.

wealdroam

kissinger wrote: »

Well my thinking is that the fairest and most logical way to do it would be to look at what the going rate in the 2nd hand market is for that particular type of motherboard. Which is roughly £50-60.

It's a pretty good motherboard. An Asus 'RoG' board, which are their high end boards.

And as I said, all you have to do is convince Scan.

Good luck with that.

onomatopoeia99

My own experience of Scan is they are not fast at RMA refunds, but they do get there in the end. They offered me a new alternative replacement on a graphics card (which was actually better than the failed item), but since I had had to buy a new one in the meantime I took the proportional refund - I think it was about 60% of the purchase price after just under a year of use. Whole exercise took over a month though.

kissinger

wealdroam wrote: »

And as I said, all you have to do is convince Scan.

Good luck with that.

I don't think it works like that. If it was 100% up to the retailer they would just give you a penny and send you on your way.

bod1467

In which case you'd be at liberty to raise a small claims action against them for the balance of what you deemed a reasonable refund. (You'd need to gather evidence to support your determination of what is reasonable).

If they won't play ball, send them a Letter Before Action to advise them of a pending claim should they not provide a reasonable refund. That will likely get them onside to give you the refund. (You may also find yourself banned as a future customer, but maybe that's not a problem).

kissinger

bod1467 wrote: »

In which case you'd be at liberty to raise a small claims action against them for the balance of what you deemed a reasonable refund. (You'd need to gather evidence to support your determination of what is reasonable).

If they won't play ball, send them a Letter Before Action to advise them of a pending claim should they not provide a reasonable refund. That will likely get them onside to give you the refund. (You may also find yourself banned as a future customer, but maybe that's not a problem).

I might do that. I wonder what evidence would be considered valid though? E.g., 2nd hand prices? Maybe if I could get some info on typical motherboard life spans?

wealdroam

kissinger wrote: »

I don't think it works like that. If it was 100% up to the retailer they would just give you a penny and send you on your way.

So how does it work then?

I am pretty sure that is exactly how it works... negotiation.
You don't like their offer, so suggest an alternative.

kissinger

wealdroam wrote: »

So how does it work then?

I am pretty sure that is exactly how it works... negotiation.
You don't like their offer, so suggest an alternative.

No my point is that the law is what is important because that's what determines the negotiating strength of the respective parties. If the law states that it's up to the retailer to decide what is a 'fair' refund, then I would have to take whatever they propose.

If on the other hand the law specifies some way of calculating how much an item depreciates over time then the retailer would have to give me, at a minimum, whatever that calculation is.

vuvuzela

kissinger wrote: »

No my point is that the law is what is important because that's what determines the negotiating strength of the respective parties. If the law states that it's up to the retailer to decide what is a 'fair' refund, then I would have to take whatever they propose.

If on the other hand the law specifies some way of calculating how much an item depreciates over time then the retailer would have to give me, at a minimum, whatever that calculation is.

The law doesn't specify anything. With quality varying so much between price ranges and manufacturers, there is simply no way that a legal framework could ever be drawn up to say xx category of item should last 6 years, so in year 3 depreciation would be 75% etc.

wealdroam

kissinger wrote: »

No my point is that the law is what is important because that's what determines the negotiating strength of the respective parties. If the law states that it's up to the retailer to decide what is a 'fair' refund, then I would have to take whatever they propose.

If on the other hand the law specifies some way of calculating how much an item depreciates over time then the retailer would have to give me, at a minimum, whatever that calculation is.

As Vuvuzela says, the law does not say either of those things.

It is for the two parties concerned to reach agreement, and if they cannot manage that then ask a county court judge to help you... as suggested earlier by Bod1467.