Section 75 advice relating to a graphics card RMA.

Trundlebelly

I purchased a computer graphics card in November using my credit card; the card was £600, so above the threshold for section 75 cover.

Unfortunately, on the 5th Feb, the card developed a fault during use. There was an electrical arc sound, and smoke came from the back of the card; the card still appeared to function. I was unable to see any burned components, but most of the circuit board is covered by a backplate, which, if I removed it, would void the warranty.

I contacted the retailer (Scan Computers), and they agreed to take it back under RMA (Return Merchandise Authorisation). They are not authorised to disassemble the graphics card, but ran some benchmarks and said it passed. Since it had smoked, they recommended that it go back to the manufacturer (Sapphire) for more in-depth testing and repair. It was sent back to Sapphire on the 16th Feb.

Scan later updated me, after some chasing, that the manufacturer had tested the card on the 10th March, said no fault found and that they would be returning the card to Scan. I asked Scan to obtain the engineer logs, which they managed to do; these showed that Sapphire had only performed the same rudimentary benchmark testing and had neither disassembled the card to look for damage nor performed any kind of electrical testing, which would have revealed the cause of the smoke.

So far, I have not been able to obtain any tracking information as the manufacturers are not replying to Scan and state that they do not deal with end users.

I am concerned that I am being sent back a graphics card with a faulty component, which has not been properly tested or repaired, and if used, would fail in a short time, potentially causing damage to other components in my computer when it does fail, or an electrical fire.

Can anyone help with information relating to my rights in this situation, or the likelihood of being refunded under section 75?

victor2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6661301/section-75-advice-relating-to-a-graphics-card-rma

I purchased a computer graphics card in November using my credit card; the card was £600, so above the threshold for section 75 cover.

What makes you think it is not covered by Section 75?. See here: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

Of course, proving it's faulty is another matter…

TadleyBaggie

I think they mean it is above the £100 minimum.

victor2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81937448#Comment_81937448

Apologies, I misread the OP.

Trundlebelly

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81937327#Comment_81937327

This is what I'm unsure about. It technically meets the criteria for a section 75 claim, but ultimately, it comes down to the fact that any claim I make is based on my statement that it caused the power supply to activate its over-current protection and shut down the system, then when it was supplied with power again, I saw the smoke come from the card.

Two companies have tested the card using the same methodology, which is too basic to reveal any damage hidden under the backplate and said no fault was found.

The fact that smoke has come from the card, but it still functions, shows that a component has failed in a non-critical area, and the remaining components are still able to allow the card to function, but are likely to be under additional stress and may be operating outside of their normal specification.

To use an analogy, it's a bit like driving a car with a flat tyre; it is still able to move, but will eventually cause damage. Their "test" is like watching to see if it is able to move to determine whether the tyre is flat or not.

victor2

How long is the warranty on the card? It is surely at least a year. If the manufacturer says there's nothing wrong with it, then all I think you can do is continue to use it, maybe even push it to its limits, and see if it fails. If it does, make a warranty claim then.

eddddy

Taking a few steps back…

• Section 75 makes the credit card company jointly liable for breach of contract or misrepresentation.

• It sounds like you're saying that you believe that the graphics card was not of "Satisfactory Quality" and/or not "fit for purpose" - which is a breach of implied contract terms.

• So you want to make a claim against the credit card company for breach of contract

• Credit card companies are not experts on graphics cards, so they won't want to make a decision on whether the graphics card is of "Satisfactory Quality" and/or "fit for purpose"

• Instead, they will probably ask you to get a report from an independent expert confirming that the graphics card is not of "Satisfactory Quality" and/or not "fit for purpose"

• If the expert's report supports your view, the credit card company will probably refund the cost of getting the report, plus the cost of the graphics card

• If the expert's report doesn't support your view, the credit card company are unlikely to refund the cost of getting the report, or the cost of the graphics card

Trundlebelly said

I am concerned that I am being sent back a graphics card with a faulty component, which has not been properly tested or repaired, and if used, would fail in a short time, potentially causing damage to other components in my computer when it does fail, or an electrical fire.

Presumably you have said this to the supplier - i.e. you have put them "on notice".

So if something "bad and expensive" happens, you would attempt to claim back all your resulting losses - and having put the supplier "on notice", you've strengthened your case.

(If, for example, your computer catches fire and is a write-off because the graphics card wasn't of satisfactory quality - you would attempt claim the cost of a replacement computer from the graphics card supplier, or potentially from the credit card company, under section 75.)

MattMattMattUK

GPUs are complex, precision engineered parts, if something in the card had arced like that the card would be dead. They will have stress tested so that they can see it still functions under maximum load and thermal stress using a synthetic benchmark, likely a 3D Mark test to measure performance and FurMark for stress testing, which push beyond any real world usage outside of crypto mining which no one does with GPUs anymore.

The other and more likely thing is that it could be a different component, cable or dust arc, where dust sucked into the case shorts a non-critical component or in a non-damaging way, creates a bit of smoke and freaks people out. This can happen on cases without dust filters, or on those that do but the dust filters are not cleaned regularly.

With regard to the S75, you have a card which has been tested twice to an acceptable (by the manufacturer) level and deemed to have no fault, unless you can find an independent third party to say there is a fault, which is highly unlikely, then you have nothing to claim about.

To use an analogy, it's a bit like driving a car with a flat tyre; it is still able to move, but will eventually cause damage. Their "test" is like watching to see if it is able to move to determine whether the tyre is flat or not.

Your analogy is incorrect. What you have is a situation where you felt a bump, asked for the tyres to be inspected, they were inspected and found to be safe, including putting them on a balancing machine and checking alignment. Now you want them taken off the wheels and checked internally, only from their view they do not even know if there was a bump, or if that bump was even anything to do with the tyres, or if it was a suspension issue, or just an uneven road surface.

born_again

Question

Are you 100% sure that it was the graphics card?

As smoke would leave burn marks on the board. Which would easily be seen.

As to S75, there is no breach of contract misrepresentation here. As item has been tested by supplier (who your claim is against) & manufacture to back up their testing that nothing is wrong with the card.

Your only hope would be a 3rd party independent test. You would have to pay for this, but would get it back if won S75.

MyRealNameToo

How did you see it is the graphics card that was the source of the smoke? Graphic cards are normally inside the computer and most computer cases arent transparent. If you just saw the smoke coming from the back roughly where the card is then thats a very poor sign as the computer will have multiple fans, some potentially on the card itself which are designed to draw air out of the computer so it wouldnt be a strong correlation to where the smoke came from.

How old is the computer overall? Do you clean inside it regularly? I know I once did have arcing but it was just some dust bunnies that got burnt and nothing was damaged in the computer.

Ultimately you can make a S75 but the first thing the bank are going to do is ask for an engineers report on the item and whilst at present you have two both are saying its not faulty.

Trundlebelly

Thanks for all of the replies; there are some very interesting points raised.

The card has a 2-year warranty. This is what I thought I would need to do but I was concerned about what would happen when it failed and damaged other components.

@eddddy Your comment is particularly interesting. I have indeed said this to the supplier but I did not know that this would be the case and that any damage caused by the graphics card failing would also be covered. This is very reassuring to know.

@MattMattMattUK Generally speaking, it is the case that a component will fail short and cause the card to be dead. There are many smoothing capacitors etc., particularly on the reverse of the card, where failure would still allow the card to function. If you are interested and look on youtube you can find videos where SMD capacitors are physically desoldered from the card but it continues to function, can output a display and run games, this is either due to the quality of the incoming power from the PSU or other components of the card being able to (temporarily) compensate for the missing component.

That it was dust is highly unlikely as the system was a very recent rebuild, the case is fully filtered and clean and the source of the smoke was not in an area where there is direct airflow as it was in the middle of a PCB, also this would not have caused an overcurrent protection shutdown by the PSU.

I see your point about my analogy not being great. My point is that they have not actually inspected the card but the fact remains that the manufacturer did not inspect the card. The engineer's report makes no statement about visual inspection or any form of disassembly, as the majority of the card is obscured from view by the backplate; it would have been impossible for them to see any burned component which may have caused the smoke.

I have been building PCs for decades and have fitted water blocks to GPUs in the past. Removing the backplate and cooler is 5-10 minutes of a job and something I would have fully expected them to do as part of their testing, also something Scan stated would happen if it was sent back to them. Neither Scan nor I would be authorised to do this as it would void any warranty.

@born_again and @MyRealNameToo to answer your questions, I am 100% sure it came from the graphics card, I built the system myself, the power supply has a switch on the top which is visible at the top right of this photo, the case does not have an external power switch due to the unusual mounting location of the PSU so I needed to reach inside the case to cycle the power.

I saw the smoke come from the left side of the opening in the backplate of the card when power was restored to the computer, as I had the side panel off in order to turn the power back on.

Ultimately, I think I now understand my position on this. It is reassuring to know that, if the card does fail and causes further damage I could potentially claim for any other damaged components as well, I don't feel as though I could ask for an independent inspection as any disassembly by a third party rather than the manufacturer would render the warranty void which brings me back to either asking Scan to take some other action or to use it and see if it fails/deteriorates in the future.