PSU failure, under warranty but only offered less than 50% refund, help

Zandoni

daytona0 wrote: »

Well, technically Ebuyer have gone above and beyond in this situation because they were fully justified in asking the OP to prove that it was inherently faulty before they offered a remedy.

Having worked in a similar company I can assure you that the majority of retailers would have done what ebuyer have done here! The only key differences MAY be the amount of money received as refund (we used to knock off 20% for year 1 and then 10% each year, so in this case a 40% reduction in value) and also the returns postage cost which our company tended to cover for the customer. Of course, you weren't returning the item to us without a SOGA report which in itself is a bit of a gamble because it needs to indicate some kind of possible inherent fault.

So all in all the resolution offered by ebuyer here is of minimal hassle for the customer! Just imagine needing to pay for a SOGA report only to find out that a reason such as "dead unit: needs replacing" gets knocked back because it doesn't indicate WHY it happened. You'd be out of pocket to the tune of the SOGA report, and you'd still have the faulty unit!

They would not be fully justified to ask the OP to prove the fault was inherent at all. The OP was claiming under the warranty noT SOGA.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

They would not be fully justified to ask the OP to prove the fault was inherent at all. The OP was claiming under the warranty noT SOGA.

Thats not quite true. OP's warranty with ebuyer had run out. The 5 year warranty was with the manufacturer which required OP to send the goods to the netherlands - op wasnt happy with doing this so approached ebuyer again.

How OP can be claiming under warranty with ebuyer when he has no warranty with them is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain it for me?

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Thats not quite true. OP's warranty with ebuyer had run out. The 5 year warranty was with the manufacturer which required OP to send the goods to the netherlands - op wasnt happy with doing this so approached ebuyer again.

How OP can be claiming under warranty with ebuyer when he has no warranty with them is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain it for me?

It's not certain who the warranty is with, the manufacturer and Ebuyer can't agree.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

It's not certain who the warranty is with, the manufacturer and Ebuyer can't agree.

Really? Because OP told us:

I bought a XFX 750W PSU just over 3 years ago and recently it died after working well, has a 5yr warranty.


I contacted Ebuyer(who I purchased it from) and they said they only cover upto 2yrs warranty and I would have to contact XFX. I spoke to their advisor who referred me back to ebuyer, who then referred me back to XFX. XFX solution was for me to return the item to the Netherlands(which I would have to pay for, they are heavy items), then it would be shipped to Hong Kong, then to china. They advised this could take 2 months, which I thought was unacceptable.

Theres nothing there about ebuyer and the manufacturer disagreeing over who is the warranty provider.

However, OP has said that ebuyer only provide a 2 year warranty themselves. As the product came with a 5 year warranty, imo the logical conclusion is that the manufacturer offer 5 year warranty.


Theres also the fact the manufacturers website states power supplies have a 5 year warranty.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Really? Because OP told us:



Theres nothing there about ebuyer and the manufacturer disagreeing over who is the warranty provider.

However, OP has said that ebuyer only provide a 2 year warranty themselves. As the product came with a 5 year warranty, imo the logical conclusion is that the manufacturer offer 5 year warranty.


Theres also the fact the manufacturers website states power supplies have a 5 year warranty.

it depends on whether you take Ebuyers word for it because the manufacturer was obviously not too sure.

If the OP wanted to go down the SOGA route then that's a different matter.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

it depends on whether you take Ebuyers word for it because the manufacturer was obviously not too sure.

If the OP wanted to go down the SOGA route then that's a different matter.

Why so obviously? Because they asked OP to go back to ebuyer? They may require ebuyer to action the return - its not necessarily them saying ebuyer is the provider of the warranty, not them.

I imagine if the manufacturer had said it wasnt under warranty, OP would have told us this - given that they told us ebuyer said it was out of warranty with them.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Why so obviously? Because they asked OP to go back to ebuyer? They may require ebuyer to action the return - its not necessarily them saying ebuyer is the provider of the warranty, not them.

I imagine if the manufacturer had said it wasnt under warranty, OP would have told us this - given that they told us ebuyer said it was out of warranty with them.

If the manufacturer required Ebuyer to action the return why didn't they do that?

The OP needs to tell us who suggested the SOGA route.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

If the manufacturer required Ebuyer to action the return why didn't they do that?

The OP needs to tell us who suggested the SOGA route.

Going by OP's post, ebuyer did as this was the basis for them offering 50% refund.

As for your question, perhaps they did? Perhaps thats why - when OP contacted the manufacturer again, they said they'd need to send it to the netherlands etc rather than referring them back to ebuyer like they did the first time?

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Going by OP's post, ebuyer did as this was the basis for them offering 50% refund.

As for your question, perhaps they did? Perhaps thats why - when OP contacted the manufacturer again, they said they'd need to send it to the netherlands etc rather than referring them back to ebuyer like they did the first time?

That's a lot of speculation!

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

That's a lot of speculation!

Speculating on possibilities and declaring speculation as fact are two different things. You seem to prefer the latter rather than the former.