64% cut from Partial Refund while in Warranty

Otter23

DullGreyGuy said:

Otter23 said:
2) This is the part im a little unsure of, from my understanding, I can invoke the SoGAct regarding warranty and a "reasonable" expectation from a product.

SoGA only applies to small businesses now, for consumers it was replaced with the CRA in 2015. You are however mixing things up... statutory rights and warranties are independent in the UK. The former are defined by law (CRA mainly these days) and cannot be changed by the merchant. The later are defined by the T&Cs of the warranty and can be much more generous than your statutory rights or less... in many cases they are simply different and one can be better in some circumstances and the other in other circs. 

Under statutory rights, the item is over 6 months old and therefore the duty on you is to prove the item is faulty/not satisfactory quality rather than this being either user damage and/or reasonable wear & tear. Some would consider having to send an item off at no/minimal cost preferable to having to find an appropriately qualified engineer to inspect the item and write a report on it.

The CRA gives the retailer 3 statutory options (repair, replace (with identical replacement) or refund), as two grown ups you are free to come to any other agreement that you are both happy with, like switching it for a different item, but they cannot force you to accept it if you dont want to. 

Thank you for the clarification, regarding the replacement:
Would it have to be 100% identical So a FTW3 for a FTW3? Or could they reasonably offer another brand of the same GPU?
Does the term "replacement" mean that can include a used product that would be 3rd hand if I took it?
Another poster stated above: "Guidance notes on the CRA say if the item was new then a replacement should also be new".

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Otter23 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Otter23 said:
2) This is the part im a little unsure of, from my understanding, I can invoke the SoGAct regarding warranty and a "reasonable" expectation from a product.

SoGA only applies to small businesses now, for consumers it was replaced with the CRA in 2015. You are however mixing things up... statutory rights and warranties are independent in the UK. The former are defined by law (CRA mainly these days) and cannot be changed by the merchant. The later are defined by the T&Cs of the warranty and can be much more generous than your statutory rights or less... in many cases they are simply different and one can be better in some circumstances and the other in other circs. 

Under statutory rights, the item is over 6 months old and therefore the duty on you is to prove the item is faulty/not satisfactory quality rather than this being either user damage and/or reasonable wear & tear. Some would consider having to send an item off at no/minimal cost preferable to having to find an appropriately qualified engineer to inspect the item and write a report on it.

The CRA gives the retailer 3 statutory options (repair, replace (with identical replacement) or refund), as two grown ups you are free to come to any other agreement that you are both happy with, like switching it for a different item, but they cannot force you to accept it if you dont want to. 

Thank you for the clarification, regarding the replacement:
Would it have to be 100% identical So a FTW3 for a FTW3? Or could they reasonably offer another brand of the same GPU?
Does the term "replacement" mean that can include a used product that would be 3rd hand if I took it?
Another poster stated above: "Guidance notes on the CRA say if the item was new then a replacement should also be new".

As DGG mentions they can offer and you can accept if you chose to, guidance simply means someone's thoughts on the matter, thoughts here are free and amateur   You would hope those on a government website are credible but ultimately it's a court's decision. 

Showing the company the info on your rights might help with the negotiation leading you to get what you are entitled to but the ultimate entitlement is reduced refund/price reduction.

One of your posts mentions "Finance credit", if you paid with credit you might have S75 cover and it's worth having a chat with the credit provider, although they will likely want something that shows the product has an issue, usually by way of an independent inspection. 

MattMattMattUK

Your major issue is going to be that you modified the card, you took it apart and added a third party cooling solution. Any modifications at that kind of scale are going to become an issue when trying to return, even more so if you then claim that there was an intrinsic fault before you took the card apart, but you did not notice until you attempted reassembly, it just sounds like you messed up. 

As others have said it is down to you to prove an inherent fault, which is going to be difficult to impossible. 

MattMattMattUK

Otter23 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Otter23 said:
2) This is the part im a little unsure of, from my understanding, I can invoke the SoGAct regarding warranty and a "reasonable" expectation from a product.

SoGA only applies to small businesses now, for consumers it was replaced with the CRA in 2015. You are however mixing things up... statutory rights and warranties are independent in the UK. The former are defined by law (CRA mainly these days) and cannot be changed by the merchant. The later are defined by the T&Cs of the warranty and can be much more generous than your statutory rights or less... in many cases they are simply different and one can be better in some circumstances and the other in other circs. 

Under statutory rights, the item is over 6 months old and therefore the duty on you is to prove the item is faulty/not satisfactory quality rather than this being either user damage and/or reasonable wear & tear. Some would consider having to send an item off at no/minimal cost preferable to having to find an appropriately qualified engineer to inspect the item and write a report on it.

The CRA gives the retailer 3 statutory options (repair, replace (with identical replacement) or refund), as two grown ups you are free to come to any other agreement that you are both happy with, like switching it for a different item, but they cannot force you to accept it if you dont want to. 

Thank you for the clarification, regarding the replacement:
Would it have to be 100% identical So a FTW3 for a FTW3? Or could they reasonably offer another brand of the same GPU?

It could be of comparable spec, so they could offer one brand of 3080 for another 3080, but they could not offer a 3080 as a replacement for a 3080Ti. They can also choose to offer a refund instead, with the amount reduced for usage. 

Otter23 said:

Does the term "replacement" mean that can include a used product that would be 3rd hand if I took it?
Another poster stated above: "Guidance notes on the CRA say if the item was new then a replacement should also be new".

Yes they could offer a used product, you can choose to accept it or not, however if you reject that offer then hey can offer a refund instead.

tightauldgit

Otter23 said:

RefluentBeans said:

So - just so I'm clear on the pricing - the retailer sold you the card for £1400 - and then now is saying that they are offering a refund for £509 (36%) after 23 months. I'm guessing they took what remained of the warranty and offered you that. You've now found that similar cards (albeit not actively searchable) are retailing for £650. I don't think that markup is unfair - they will probably refurbish these cards which has some cost to it. 

It sounds like they offered you a refurbished card but you're skeptical because of the owner's use beforehand (and risking presumably heavy usage by miners who have sold their cards now that cryptocurrency is no longer as profitable). 

What would you like their solution to be? It sounds like you are asking for a like-new product or a repair on the card. Neither of which they are entitled to give you. You certainly won't get a new card after 23 months, and there is nothing forcing them to offer you a repair. They can give you a repair, replacement (of equivalent quality) or refund (which they can adjust depending on usage). 

The retailer can also refer to the manufacturer to get their professional opinion on whether this is intrinsic or user error - this is not malicious.

It sounds like they know this fault exists (like you stated), they offered an immediate solution as the likelihood is the manufacturer would take it back as it is a known issue, and gave you what they consider a fair price (or a refurb model). You've rejected that, and so now they are going along with the warranty procedure that may afford you a repair, or refund (which may be higher, lower, or equivalent to the current offer). 

The things I would ask, to better understand your position:
1. Is this offer of money via the warranty or consumer rights from the retailer
2. 3 years is likely not the expected lifetime of the product - so you may be able to get a better refund amount if they can acknowledge that. 
3. See if the refurb comes with any warranty, and what that warranty is - if it comes with a warranty of 13 months (to match your current warranty) then I don't really see why you wouldn't go for that. If its shorter, try and get the warranty to match your current warranty. 

So they're not even matching the market value on ebay by this estimation then? Scan do not do repairs, hence why I said it's a undersell on the partial refund. It's age old trick, they take your product, send it to manufacturer to repair/replace, offer you a paltry sum to buy you out, resell the card they get back from manufacturer for profit. Hence why when I asked for a fairer sum, they reverted to, go deal with EVGA, not out problem.

Yes I am skeptical because they can't tell me a single thing about this cards history, like it could be a brand new but open box, which I would take, but when the price is £350 less on the store than another refurbished card, that gives credence it's a heavily used product, and GPUs don't exactly have MOT history on them. one of the reps even said "oh the price might be for the condition of the card".

I would want a fair price, I don't expect to go out and buy the latest top end model, I would even swallow having to pay a tad to get a equivelent product, or be offered a swap like my 3080ti > 4070 (which is still below the performance of my card). Instead I get offered a huge cut to the value which falls below 2nd hand market on used products.

Yeah they refer to the manufacturer after I pointed out the ridiculous offer.

1)They said the offer was based on "time used/Warranty remaining"
2)I know for sure a high end GPU like this should last far longer than 3 years, that's just what EVGA supply. I have a 2070 in my partners PC that is almost 6 years old and that is fine.
3) It was with the remaining warranty, but again, when Scan are trying to sell this card for cheaper than the lesser XC3 model which is listed as £1150, that tells me I might get something that has been abused.

I think you might be confusing yourself a little. Be careful - the partial refund you would receive if you exercise your consumer rights is a reduction for usage you have had, not necessarily linked to the market value of the item. 

If your item is worth more to you after you get it repaired by the manufacturer than the refund would be then it makes sense to send it to the manufacturer for a repair. You don't need to involve the shop in that at all. 

Anything you can negotiate with the store over and above your statutory rights is entirely up to the both of you to agree.

It's not entirely clear what resolution you are looking for - if you want the card working get it repaired, if you want the market value back then get it repaired and sell it.  

The rest of the discussion about the history of other cards or what may or may not be an adequate replacement seems a bit superfluous. 

DullGreyGuy

Otter23 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Otter23 said:
2) This is the part im a little unsure of, from my understanding, I can invoke the SoGAct regarding warranty and a "reasonable" expectation from a product.

SoGA only applies to small businesses now, for consumers it was replaced with the CRA in 2015. You are however mixing things up... statutory rights and warranties are independent in the UK. The former are defined by law (CRA mainly these days) and cannot be changed by the merchant. The later are defined by the T&Cs of the warranty and can be much more generous than your statutory rights or less... in many cases they are simply different and one can be better in some circumstances and the other in other circs. 

Under statutory rights, the item is over 6 months old and therefore the duty on you is to prove the item is faulty/not satisfactory quality rather than this being either user damage and/or reasonable wear & tear. Some would consider having to send an item off at no/minimal cost preferable to having to find an appropriately qualified engineer to inspect the item and write a report on it.

The CRA gives the retailer 3 statutory options (repair, replace (with identical replacement) or refund), as two grown ups you are free to come to any other agreement that you are both happy with, like switching it for a different item, but they cannot force you to accept it if you dont want to. 

Thank you for the clarification, regarding the replacement:
Would it have to be 100% identical So a FTW3 for a FTW3? Or could they reasonably offer another brand of the same GPU?
Does the term "replacement" mean that can include a used product that would be 3rd hand if I took it?
Another poster stated above: "Guidance notes on the CRA say if the item was new then a replacement should also be new".

If they want to force you to accept the replacement then it has to be identical in terms of make, model and condition (ie if you bought new, it has to be new too).  If thats simply impossible, eg the thing isnt made any more, then they can only force you to accept a (partial) refund or repair.

Statutory rights are about what you can force the other party to do, similar to contractual rights, but often its the case that at the time there is another option which doesnt meet either the statutory nor contractual requirements but as long as both parties agree to it then its not a problem. 

For example we did a deal for a long term service and then had a change of ownership. By the terms of the contract that would enable the customer to cancel it and get a very substantial refund but they said they were happy with the service etc but couldnt ignore the refund option. We came to an out of contract agreement to pay them part of the refund but they continue the service. 

Okell

MattMattMattUK said:

Your major issue is going to be that you modified the card, you took it apart and added a third party cooling solution. Any modifications at that kind of scale are going to become an issue when trying to return, even more so if you then claim that there was an intrinsic fault before you took the card apart, but you did not notice until you attempted reassembly, it just sounds like you messed up. 

As others have said it is down to you to prove an inherent fault, which is going to be difficult to impossible. 

Hasn't @MattMattMattUK hit the nail on the head here?

I don't know if the retailer (and/or manufacturer) are yet aware that the OP carried out this modification (which I understand he subsequently reversed) but if they are aware of it - or if it's obvious that he had done it - aren't they going to wash their hands of this and say the OP caused the fault himself?

(I know absolutely nothing about computer tech but the diy modification seems a rather daft, or at the very best risky, thing to have done...)

Alderbank

Okell said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Your major issue is going to be that you modified the card, you took it apart and added a third party cooling solution. Any modifications at that kind of scale are going to become an issue when trying to return, even more so if you then claim that there was an intrinsic fault before you took the card apart, but you did not notice until you attempted reassembly, it just sounds like you messed up. 

As others have said it is down to you to prove an inherent fault, which is going to be difficult to impossible. 

I don't know if the retailer (and/or manufacturer) are yet aware that the OP carried out this modification (which I understand he subsequently reversed) but if they are aware of it - or if it's obvious that he had done it - aren't they going to wash their hands of this and say the OP caused the fault himself?

I agree it's not very clear but I gathered the retailer is now aware of it and that is the reason why they have asked to inspect the card to see whether the OP's mods were responsible for the problem.

In the first post the OP said

I have now been told because I opened my Graphics card up to repaste and use a different cooling solution for 23 months. (The manufacturer allows this) And only now noted the stock fans were faulty after reinstalling the stock fans last week, they now need "manufacturer needs to look at it and make sure your cooler didn't break it" 

Otter23

Okell said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Your major issue is going to be that you modified the card, you took it apart and added a third party cooling solution. Any modifications at that kind of scale are going to become an issue when trying to return, even more so if you then claim that there was an intrinsic fault before you took the card apart, but you did not notice until you attempted reassembly, it just sounds like you messed up. 

As others have said it is down to you to prove an inherent fault, which is going to be difficult to impossible. 

Hasn't @MattMattMattUK hit the nail on the head here?

I don't know if the retailer (and/or manufacturer) are yet aware that the OP carried out this modification (which I understand he subsequently reversed) but if they are aware of it - or if it's obvious that he had done it - aren't they going to wash their hands of this and say the OP caused the fault himself?

(I know absolutely nothing about computer tech but the diy modification seems a rather daft, or at the very best risky, thing to have done...)

Alderbank said:

Okell said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Your major issue is going to be that you modified the card, you took it apart and added a third party cooling solution. Any modifications at that kind of scale are going to become an issue when trying to return, even more so if you then claim that there was an intrinsic fault before you took the card apart, but you did not notice until you attempted reassembly, it just sounds like you messed up. 

As others have said it is down to you to prove an inherent fault, which is going to be difficult to impossible. 

I don't know if the retailer (and/or manufacturer) are yet aware that the OP carried out this modification (which I understand he subsequently reversed) but if they are aware of it - or if it's obvious that he had done it - aren't they going to wash their hands of this and say the OP caused the fault himself?

I agree it's not very clear but I gathered the retailer is now aware of it and that is the reason why they have asked to inspect the card to see whether the OP's mods were responsible for the problem.

In the first post the OP said

I have now been told because I opened my Graphics card up to repaste and use a different cooling solution for 23 months. (The manufacturer allows this) And only now noted the stock fans were faulty after reinstalling the stock fans last week, they now need "manufacturer needs to look at it and make sure your cooler didn't break it" 

To clarify, Scan were made aware of the fact I changed the cooler from the very start.

They offered the refurbished card first, which i declined as they provided no details on it, as I mentioned above. Scan don't do repairs apparently, despite them offering "system built for you".

Then when I asked for a alternative such as a fair partial refund or a exchange to another brand that would be as close to equivalent performance/value, they ignored the exchange and offered a ridiculous cut price refund. And only when I pointed out the refurbished card they offered me was listed on thier website for £800, did they suddenly see my swap of the cooler as a problem. Retaliation for simply highlighting the blatant undercut in the refund they offered. There is simply no way a gpu loses that much value while still in warranty.

I can look on numerous sites and that very same product new ranges from the cheapest cooler model of £999, to the same exact cooler as mine £1,397.


I can't post a link, but a google search of "Scan evga warranty" top most link shows that EVGA allows buyers to "Change your Thermal paste or install another cooler and keep your warranty" on Scans website. And again, Scan only switched the script after I mentioned the switcheroo they were trying to pull off.

MattMattMattUK

Otter23 said:

Okell said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Your major issue is going to be that you modified the card, you took it apart and added a third party cooling solution. Any modifications at that kind of scale are going to become an issue when trying to return, even more so if you then claim that there was an intrinsic fault before you took the card apart, but you did not notice until you attempted reassembly, it just sounds like you messed up. 

As others have said it is down to you to prove an inherent fault, which is going to be difficult to impossible. 

Hasn't @MattMattMattUK hit the nail on the head here?

I don't know if the retailer (and/or manufacturer) are yet aware that the OP carried out this modification (which I understand he subsequently reversed) but if they are aware of it - or if it's obvious that he had done it - aren't they going to wash their hands of this and say the OP caused the fault himself?

(I know absolutely nothing about computer tech but the diy modification seems a rather daft, or at the very best risky, thing to have done...)

Alderbank said:

Okell said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Your major issue is going to be that you modified the card, you took it apart and added a third party cooling solution. Any modifications at that kind of scale are going to become an issue when trying to return, even more so if you then claim that there was an intrinsic fault before you took the card apart, but you did not notice until you attempted reassembly, it just sounds like you messed up. 

As others have said it is down to you to prove an inherent fault, which is going to be difficult to impossible. 

I don't know if the retailer (and/or manufacturer) are yet aware that the OP carried out this modification (which I understand he subsequently reversed) but if they are aware of it - or if it's obvious that he had done it - aren't they going to wash their hands of this and say the OP caused the fault himself?

I agree it's not very clear but I gathered the retailer is now aware of it and that is the reason why they have asked to inspect the card to see whether the OP's mods were responsible for the problem.

In the first post the OP said

I have now been told because I opened my Graphics card up to repaste and use a different cooling solution for 23 months. (The manufacturer allows this) And only now noted the stock fans were faulty after reinstalling the stock fans last week, they now need "manufacturer needs to look at it and make sure your cooler didn't break it" 

To clarify, Scan were made aware of the fact I changed the cooler from the very start.

They offered the refurbished card first, which i declined as they provided no details on it, as I mentioned above. Scan don't do repairs apparently, despite them offering "system built for you".

Then when I asked for a alternative such as a fair partial refund or a exchange to another brand that would be as close to equivalent performance/value, they ignored the exchange and offered a ridiculous cut price refund. And only when I pointed out the refurbished card they offered me was listed on thier website for £800, did they suddenly see my swap of the cooler as a problem. Retaliation for simply highlighting the blatant undercut in the refund they offered. There is simply no way a gpu loses that much value while still in warranty.

I can look on numerous sites and that very same product new ranges from the cheapest cooler model of £999, to the same exact cooler as mine £1,397.

You are misunderstanding how the process of estimating value for a partial refund works, it does not mean you get the cost for buying a new one now, it means the value of the product at it's current age, second hand, and with any wear and tear or damage caused by the user, also accounting for cutting age and expected minimum life (normally counted as the warranty period). The amount it costs to buy a new one now is entirely irrelevant. On that basis their offer looks entirely reasonable. 

Otter23 said: 

I can't post a link, but a google search of "Scan evga warranty" top most link shows that EVGA allows buyers to "Change your Thermal paste or install another cooler and keep your warranty" on Scans website. And again, Scan only switched the script after I mentioned the switcheroo they were trying to pull off.

You are confusing two things, consumer rights which stem from the CRA and these are against the retailer, and a warranty, which is a contractual, often discretionary agreement with the manufacturer. Scan mention the EVGA warranty on their website but they are not responsible for, nor are they in any way bound by the warranty. You can make a claim under the CRA against Scan, they should give you a response in accordance with the CRA, which from what you have written they appear to have done. You could try and claim under the warranty with EVGA, it appears that them wanting to make sure the issue has not been caused by you damaging the card is part of them going down that route, but you appear to be blocking them making that assessment so you are blocking any progress on that route either.

You have a choice, accept the partial refund which is fair under the CRA, accept the warranty claim process and see if EVGA can resolve it, or been being stubborn and get nowhere.