Scan offers £25+vat for a graphics card which fails after just less than 2 years

[TAKTAK]

why are you all bashing SCAN?

i thought it was manufacturers problem after the first year...

also, SCAN don't do the tests on XFX cards... they send them off to XFX twice per week (hence the waiting period of 3-5 days) so that XFX can test them and repair/replace....

i'm pretty sure it would be XFX that are offering the £25 compensation and not SCAN...

to get anywhere you need to start bashing XFX NOT SCAN.

get in touch with XFX explain whats going on, and as staffsMike says, if they decline to give you a replacement then quote that they are offering GTX280 customers (with more money than sense to buy a card instantly....) a refund as a gesture of goodwill.

but for the first year i would deal with SCAN, after that go straight to the manufacturer...

and DO pull XFX up on it!!! they offer a warranty... they have to uphold the warranty!!!

[looney]

Originally Posted by Blitzen

I am going to get pulled for this but.......this is a blatant rip and dont stand for it.

If the card is discontinued, and its not possible to repair, you should be entitled to a replacement of similar standard.

Unfortunately, if XFX (poor company) only offer £25, then Scan will pass this onto you.
I would persue this further if i were you as the premium that XFX, and therefore Scan charge, should cover this card for a reasonabl amount of time.

It may be 2 years old but that is what a warranty is for and if it fails, you should get more than £25.

This is the second thread like this in a few weeks and it stinks of bad customer relations.

Have to agree, whats the point of a warranty then? one reason i bought my bfg card was cos of the long warranty, which is supposed to give a peace of mind

unless this is a xfx thing, who dont really have a good reputation for customer care.

hope u get a proper replacement.

[GoNz0]

im glad i read this thread, im about to get screwed with a 9800gtx in place of my 6 month old 8800GTX, its sod all use to my SLI setup and i dare say i will get an offer under £100, yeh its not there fault i got SLI, but its not my problem that they cant supply the same card within the initial years warranty, i already downloaded the small claims paperwork ready for the fight that will no doubt happen.

so what if its EOL, im about to get royally stuffed no matter what. its only 6 months old ffs

[Koolpc]

Originally Posted by GoNz0

im glad i read this thread, im about to get screwed with a 9800gtx in place of my 6 month old 8800GTX, its sod all use to my SLI setup and i dare say i will get an offer under £100, yeh its not there fault i got SLI, but its not my problem that they cant supply the same card within the initial years warranty, i already downloaded the small claims paperwork ready for the fight that will no doubt happen.

so what if its EOL, im about to get royally stuffed no matter what. its only 6 months old ffs

Can't see that happening. Not with a 6 month old card. You have a years warranty from the place where it was bought.

[GoNz0]

well from what scans already told me the best i can expect is a 9800GTX that performs less than my card and now costs almost a 1/3rd of the price so the equivalent or better than policy doesn't seem to apply here, if they dont offer £200 or more im taking them to small claims as they didn't even reply to my pm after that.

we shall have to see what happens with this one.

i already said a 9800gtx is not acceptable

[SiM]

Originally Posted by TAKTAK

and as SiM says

What are you smoking? I haven't posted in this thread yet...

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by TAKTAK

why are you all bashing SCAN?

i thought it was manufacturers problem after the first year...

No, it isn't.


With any complaint over "faulty" goods, there are always two aspects :-

1) Any warranty that's been offered

2) Legal rights.

Manufacturers (or shops) can offer warranties but aren't obliged to. If they do, and if the consumer knew about it, then the consumer can rely on it and whoever offered it can be held to honour it by law.

But .... the general situation is that it's the retailer that's responsible, not the manufacturer.

However, the consumer protection legislation that holds the retailer responsible does have limitations. The two major ones are that you can only take legal action (which, ultimately, is how you might have to enforce consumer rights) for 6 years, and it only covers goods that did not "conform to contract" at the time of sale.

So ...... when you first buy goods, if they don't conform to contract you can reject them and get a full refund. But you'll have a short period to do that, and it may be just days. You can also also that right in other ways, such as doing anything with the goods that are inconsistent with not accepting them ... such as selling them or customising them.

After that initial period, goods may still go wrong. If they do, and IF the fault existed when you bought them, then you're still entitled to various remedies, including refund (though maybe not full), repair or replacement. The question is, did the fault exist (i.e. was it inherent in the goods) at the time of sale?

So it comes down to the nature of the fault.

If goods last a period, then fail, did they fail due to damage caused by the user? Or to fair wear and tear? Or to a short life being implicit in the nature of the goods ... I mean, how long do you expect a banana to last?

Generally, with electrical goods, a "reasonable life" would be several years, perhaps up to 10. If the goods fail before that time, and if the reason was, perhaps, sub-standard components that just didn't last the time they should, or a design fault, then they didn't conform to contract.

But then the issue is proving why the goods failed.

For the first 6 months after purchase, there is a statutory presumption that the fault was inherent at time of sale .... unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

After 6 months, that burden reverses and it's assumed that the fault was not inherent, unless the buyer can prove it was.



So, when goods fail (unless it's VERY soon after purchase), you can either rely on either a shop or manufacturer warranty, subject to whatever degree of protection is offered and any limitations placed on it, or you can rely on your legal rights. But those rights apply against the shop and (except for enforcing any warranty offered by the manufacturer) not against the manufacturer.

And to get satisfaction under your legal rights, you might have to PROVE that the fault was due to something inherent when the goods were sold.

That is why most people go the the retailer with problems .... because that's where the law of the land puts the primary responsibility, and it does so for, potentially, up to 6 years. But what it does not necessarily mean is that the retailer has to repair or replace goods. It very much depends on what happened to the goods.

Also, the retailer can't fob you off onto the manufacturer by washing their hands of responsibility, but they can point out that the best course of action might be from the manufacturer, especially if that involves a warranty above and beyond your consumer rights, and they can offer to deal with the manufacturer for you. You can, if you wish, avail yourself of this and then revert to your consumer rights if you don't get a satisfactory resolution.

We all, as consumers, have some fairly strong rights and protections, but they are NOT as strong as many people think. If shops, for instance, think that goods fail because they've been improperly used or somehow damaged by the consumer, then if they're more than 6 months old, they're entitled to decline to repair or replace, and it's then up to the consumer to prove that the goods were inherently faulty. That probably means getting them tested, and probably by an independent engineer.

[rabbid]

so does the upshot of that basically mean that if we don't buy something from a place and/or manufacturer that has an excellent CS reputation, then after 6 months we can potentially be shafted? The onus (and consequently expense) for independent testing being on us? Along with subsequent time, expense and effort spent in pursuing claims?

[Blitzen]

Originally Posted by rabbid

so does the upshot of that basically mean that if we don't buy something from a place and/or manufacturer that has an excellent CS reputation, then after 6 months we can potentially be shafted? The onus (and consequently expense) for independent testing being on us? Along with subsequent time, expense and effort spent in pursuing claims?

Thats about the strength of it.....yep

[akaneria]

I even spoke to xfx, with my situation, they just kept saying its scan responsibility!
And they are right, its the responsibility of the supplier where you brought it from!
I spoke with consumer rights, and they said that they would forward it on to trading standards, but TS would only do somthing if they had a resonable amount of complaints, so all of you out there, refer it to trading standards!!!!

[EzyRyder]

Originally Posted by Disturbedguy

To be honest I don't how you can claim the card as being faulty.

The card has worked for almost two years, therefore it has developed a fault and was not sold to you faulty. I don't see how you can expect to receive more compensation as for one the card isn't produced any more and two as already stated the card wasn't sold to you faulty, it developed a fault.

Am pretty sure SCAN wont replace like for like, as any card you replace it with now, will more than likely be more powerful and better, therefore its not like for like imo.

You always come up with the same sort of statement, it's always right that the consumer gets ripped off like in this case.

[TAKTAK]

Originally Posted by SiM

What are you smoking? I haven't posted in this thread yet...

good point... it was Mike

Originally Posted by Saracen

No, it isn't.


With any complaint over "faulty" goods, there are always two aspects :-

1) Any warranty that's been offered

2) Legal rights.

Manufacturers (or shops) can offer warranties but aren't obliged to. If they do, and if the consumer knew about it, then the consumer can rely on it and whoever offered it can be held to honour it by law.

But .... the general situation is that it's the retailer that's responsible, not the manufacturer.

However, the consumer protection legislation that holds the retailer responsible does have limitations. The two major ones are that you can only take legal action (which, ultimately, is how you might have to enforce consumer rights) for 6 years, and it only covers goods that did not "conform to contract" at the time of sale.

So ...... when you first buy goods, if they don't conform to contract you can reject them and get a full refund. But you'll have a short period to do that, and it may be just days. You can also also that right in other ways, such as doing anything with the goods that are inconsistent with not accepting them ... such as selling them or customising them.

After that initial period, goods may still go wrong. If they do, and IF the fault existed when you bought them, then you're still entitled to various remedies, including refund (though maybe not full), repair or replacement. The question is, did the fault exist (i.e. was it inherent in the goods) at the time of sale?

So it comes down to the nature of the fault.

If goods last a period, then fail, did they fail due to damage caused by the user? Or to fair wear and tear? Or to a short life being implicit in the nature of the goods ... I mean, how long do you expect a banana to last?

Generally, with electrical goods, a "reasonable life" would be several years, perhaps up to 10. If the goods fail before that time, and if the reason was, perhaps, sub-standard components that just didn't last the time they should, or a design fault, then they didn't conform to contract.

But then the issue is proving why the goods failed.

For the first 6 months after purchase, there is a statutory presumption that the fault was inherent at time of sale .... unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

After 6 months, that burden reverses and it's assumed that the fault was not inherent, unless the buyer can prove it was.



So, when goods fail (unless it's VERY soon after purchase), you can either rely on either a shop or manufacturer warranty, subject to whatever degree of protection is offered and any limitations placed on it, or you can rely on your legal rights. But those rights apply against the shop and (except for enforcing any warranty offered by the manufacturer) not against the manufacturer.

And to get satisfaction under your legal rights, you might have to PROVE that the fault was due to something inherent when the goods were sold.

That is why most people go the the retailer with problems .... because that's where the law of the land puts the primary responsibility, and it does so for, potentially, up to 6 years. But what it does not necessarily mean is that the retailer has to repair or replace goods. It very much depends on what happened to the goods.

Also, the retailer can't fob you off onto the manufacturer by washing their hands of responsibility, but they can point out that the best course of action might be from the manufacturer, especially if that involves a warranty above and beyond your consumer rights, and they can offer to deal with the manufacturer for you. You can, if you wish, avail yourself of this and then revert to your consumer rights if you don't get a satisfactory resolution.

We all, as consumers, have some fairly strong rights and protections, but they are NOT as strong as many people think. If shops, for instance, think that goods fail because they've been improperly used or somehow damaged by the consumer, then if they're more than 6 months old, they're entitled to decline to repair or replace, and it's then up to the consumer to prove that the goods were inherently faulty. That probably means getting them tested, and probably by an independent engineer.

So in esscence it IS the retailer/e-tailer's responsibilty to follow through with the manufacturers warranty? and deal with it as the company that sold the product, even though all SCAN would do in the event of a problem arising is send the card off to XFX for testing and analysis?

so as long as you keep hold of recipts you can go back to the place of purchase in the event of a fault occuring from anything other than fair wear and tear, for up to 6 years?

even though the retailer is just an outlet for the product and is in no means connected to the production of the items (in most cases), which lies wholly on the manufacturers side of the wall, therefore any fault which occurs through faulty workmanship is the problem with the manufacturer and not the e-tailer surely?

[Madafwo]

Originally Posted by GoNz0

well from what scans already told me the best i can expect is a 9800GTX that performs less than my card and now costs almost a 1/3rd of the price so the equivalent or better than policy doesn't seem to apply here, if they dont offer £200 or more im taking them to small claims as they didn't even reply to my pm after that.

we shall have to see what happens with this one.

i already said a 9800gtx is not acceptable

Is the the card that you removed the stock cooler from and then put a water block on it? Wouldn't that be classed as a customisation and therefore means the warranty would be void?

The law entitles you to a replacement of either similar or greater specification, unfortunatly you don't really get to decided whats suitable or not, the company doesn't even have to consult you to see if you are happy with it. As long as it meets these criteria they can send it out without even contacting you. EVer sent a hard drive back to Seatgate or someone and recieved a larger capacity? I know I have.

If you issue a small claims proceeding against Scan without going through the proper channels then the outcome most likely wont be in your favour and you will end up having to cover the costs, and you'll end up with a card you don't want and money out of your pocket.

Why not try and discuss it with Scan and see what they say? If you're not getting a reply via e-mail why not give them a call? There is no point in going through with the attitude that whatever they say is wrong, explain your situation and ask what they can do for you.

[Louise Galletly]

Hi just wanted to thank everyone for their useful comments. There's more relevant feedback here in one evening than during 2 months of wrangling with the people at Scan. I have contacted my bank but of course need the sort code and account number for Scan if I am to repay the sum - you can see Scan's plan: keep making it as difficult as possible for the customer and eventually they'll give up. Not this one.
Good idea to contact XFX, will try that too.
As far as Consumer Direct is concerned, I believed that their role was simply to inform the consumer rather than take up issues directly with businesses. Mark at Scan tells me that they are regularly in contact with Trading Standards (Consumer Direct in other words) in Bolton about returns. Doesn't sound too reassuring to me! I have been in touch with CD about 4 times with reference to this matter. They have said that they inform Bolton branch and if enough complaints arise they will investigate. Maybe that time has come.
I forgot to mention that I have sent another recorded delivery letter to Bolton - this time to Elan Raja the Managing Director. I just want to see if he is going to take an interest in how his employees are dealing with the paying public.
The point in all of it is that if we had known when we forked out the original sum of money (and to a 14 year old, as he was at the time, £180 is a considerable amount of money) that we would get 20 months use out of the item, we might have thought twice. You expect depreciation where technology is concerned, but not a shelf life quite that short. There's got to be an element of value-for-money involved. Yes - maybe it's not Scan's problem if they didn't manufacture the card. However, they are passing the thing onto the consumer and taking their cut and on that basis should take responsibility for ensuring customer satisfaction. And, let's face it, it's not just down to the moral fibre of an individual business any more - consumers have protection under the law for just such matters as these.
Will keep you posted but to all of you, thanks.

[Lee @ SCAN]

Please bear with us but the returns manager who would deal with this is not in now till Monday.

As soon as he's back in the office, I'll get him to look at this accordingly.

Best Regards,

[Oldjim]

I hope more happens than in this thread on the 29th June which is still locked

I will bring this thread to the attention of the The Returns Manager, if he is not already looking into this. We will post in reply on Monday, until then the thread is locked.

£110 20months old end of life item RMAed for £20+VAT refund???