Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 33 to 48 of 104

Thread: Is this acceptable?

  1. #33
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked
    90 times in 74 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    TheAnimus

    I indeed found it funny, but then again i do have a sense if humour !!!!

    Wesley

  2. Received thanks from:

    Chris P (07-06-2011),Lucio (07-06-2011)

  3. #34
    Retail Sales Manager Chris P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,699
    Thanks
    767
    Thanked
    515 times in 411 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    wesleyaldred

    I would if I was you...



  4. #35
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by AD-15 View Post
    ....

    WRT this specific situation, do you think I should get into contact with the returns manager by phone? Or do you think, considering the quality of service I've received, I should continue to either press for a refund or ask for the card back free of charge, by email?
    As I said before, being in possession of only part of the facts, and one side of the story, it's hard to say.

    Ultimately, when dealing with any retailer, you are well-advised to be aware of what rights you actually have, what will be required of you to enforce them if it comes to it, and whether you're prepared to take it that far.

    Anything else is down to discussion and negotiation with the seller, and to whatever goodwill they have.

    Many retailers do more than they are actually required to do, or can be forced to either do or be held accountable by a court for failing to do. The best bet, always, with (as far as I'm concerned, no exceptions) is to handle disputes calmly and amicably.

    That's why it's important to know what you are entitled to demand, though it's usually best to not put it in terms of a demand. Sugar, as the old saying goes, works better than vinegar, and as soon as you start in with vinegar, it leaves a very sour taste in the mouth if you then try to resort to sugar.

    Will talking to the returns manager on the phone work? I've no idea. But this thread probably hasn't enhanced the chances of it.

    Are you entitled to require the card returned to you free of charge? I don't know, because I don't know what Scan found wrong with it, if anything. But essentially, I'd guess it comes down to whether the card fails to meet the Sale of Goods Act requirements, most notably "satisfactory quality" and "fitness for purpose". If it doesn't, then you may indeed be entitled to a refund, and/or repair or replacement. But the return of the existing card implies no Sale of Goods Act breach, in which case, I'd say Scan's T&Cs determine the return process for the card, and that may well include the cost of return shipping and the cost of the testing process.

    After all, if there's nothing wrong with the card, why should Scan suffer the cost of either testing, or returning it to you?

    This is all about balance.

    The one thing in your favour that stands out at this point is that if this were to go to court over whether the card is faulty or not, for the first 6 months after sale, the seller has to prove (on balance of probability) that it isn't, or the statutory presumption is that it is faulty. After 6 months, that presumption reverses, and it's presumed to not be faulty unless the buyer can prove it is.

    Also, that "faulty" has to be something inherent in the card at time of sale, like manufacturing defect, sun-standard components, design faults, etc. If it's faulty because of something the buyer did, like dropping it or plugging a 110v device into a 240v supply, then the problem wasn't inherent at time of sale.

    Proving that fault will generally require an independent assessment, so it may be that a third-party "expert" has to look at it. That expert is generally paid for by the claimant (you), with the cost recovered from the supplier (Scan, in this case) if you win the case, but the expert is working for the court, not either you or Scan, so don't just go hire one without the court's approval, or it probably won't take the report into account.

    So .... what should you do? I've no opinion, because I don't have all the facts. But your options, as I see it, are :-

    1) Accept what Scan have offered, including paying for the return.

    2) Negotiate with them. They may or may not be prepared to budge. I've no basis for an opinion either way.

    3) If all else fails, and if you feel you've been reasonable as you can be and not reached an acceptable compromise, then go to court and take your chances on winning (and being better off) or losing (and being worse off by the costs of having gone to court).

    One thing you have to decide is how sure you are about being in the right about the card being defective, as opposed to just not liking your machine? An interesting test would have been for you to try it, if possible, in another machine or two before sending it back to Scan. But it's too late for that now.

    Another thing you have to decide is whether you're prepared to face the hassle, and possible costs (which won't be huge, in the small claims court, but it'll be more than that £35) to fight it if it comes to that.

    You also have to accept (and so do Scan) that both sides may well consider themselves hard done by in this situation. Just because you feel they're wrong, or unreasonable, or whatever, doesn't mean that either they are, or that they see it that way. That is, after all, why we have courts.

    Whatever you do, I'd suggest doing all you can to be reasonable before going to court, because if either side aren't, it's very likely to cost them in court. Courts generally don't like being jerked around by one side or the other being stubborn or obstinate, or unreasonable. Believe me on that one, because that comes straight from the horses mouth, as it were.

    Were it me, I'd hope to not have got into this situation, specifically, not having argued it out in public like this. But that aside, I'd probably write a letter detailing an overview of the time line (i.e. a summary of what happened, and when). Then I'd explain what I wanted to see to resolve the situation. Keep it brief, and polite and respectful. Throwing insults or brickbats won't help, and may well hurt.

    That letter needs to be brief, but summarise the situation, the essence of your main complaint and what you see as a reasonable solution. Don't include very like gripe and moan, just he core of the problem.

    And, were it me, I'd probably explain why I feel the £35 charge was unreasonable or excessive (assuming I did), and suggest an alternative .... like meeting them half-way.

    If they were to have offered that to you, would you accept it, or do you feel it's unreasonable enough to be prepared to go to court?

    Because, if you aren't prepared to compromise, and if they aren't either, then either you'll end up dropping it and paying the £35, or you'll end up going to court. An agreement at something between £0 and £35, and what happens with the card, are the only available ways to avoid court.

    The golden rule is always to negotiate, and if you can reach a point where both parties will compromise, even if they don't like it much, then problem solved. If not, court it is, and it's then in the lap of the Gods (or a judge, anyway). But I wouldn't want to be the one trying to explain to a judge why he's arbitrating over half of £35. He's all to likely to knock both of your heads together.

  5. #36
    Senior Member AD-15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,248
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked
    71 times in 34 posts
    • AD-15's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage II Extreme
      • CPU:
      • i7 920 @4.45GHz!!!! (No HT)
      • Memory:
      • 3x2GB G.Skill Trident
      • Storage:
      • 1x 160, 1x 250 (Both 16MB cache SATA2 WD)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 460 1GB @ 815, 1013MHz
      • PSU:
      • 850W Corsair HX Series Modular
      • Case:
      • Corsair 700D
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22" Dell E228WFP

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Saracen, thanks again for your fantastically informative posts.

    I did call Consumer Direct this morning, and they, with very similar wording, suggest writing a letter. They told me it's likely that I would also have legitimate claims under the Sale of Goods act (fit for purpose, satisfactory quality etc...). They told me also to mention the delays and the poor customer service.

    They did also mention the "burden of proof" to prove any return is not faulty lies with the seller (although I think the assistant told me it was 3 months, not 6).

    They also mentioned taking it to small claims court as a last resort if the letter does not resolve the situation, or a compromise cannot be reached.

    One thing you have to decide is how sure you are about being in the right about the card being defective, as opposed to just not liking your machine? An interesting test would have been for you to try it, if possible, in another machine or two before sending it back to Scan. But it's too late for that now.
    This is the main reason behind my complaint that Scan mentioned nothing about there possibly being something wrong with my diagnosis of an issue. Like I said, I received no correspondence regarding that. Literally, only two automated emails regarded my RMA, and then a third confirming collection.

    Were it me, I'd hope to not have got into this situation, specifically, not having argued it out in public like this.
    Sure, but that is the reason I posted here instead of the thread I made on Scan's support forums. I did not intend to get any Scan reps involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by wesleyaldred
    Thanks for the post, however, this has been discussed at great length with the customer during the many calls and emails.

    There is no point in spending more time stating everything again that has already been discussed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris P
    Without knowing what actually has been discussed with the customer via the open query you are not in a position to make these ridiculous comments.
    Thank you for taking the time to reply to this thread (although - I would ask that similarly swift responses be made to official OLQs submitted using your own web form ), however, I don't feel those comments are fair. I spent a great deal of time and money trying to get into contact with you to discuss the return, but, in addition to very poor actual response times, the replies I've received are always one of two lines in length and never discussed or even acknowledged any of my concerns regarding the quality of service I have received. I do also believe that I've posted every detail about the case, and everything that has been discussed via the open query, so I don't understand how the TheAnimus's comments are ridiculous.

    As I have been advised by Consumer Direct (and Saracen ), I'll be sending in a letter instead of continuing to have any OLQs ignored, or wasting money on 0871 numbers.
    Last edited by AD-15; 07-06-2011 at 08:00 PM.
    Industrial espionage is simply the sincerest form of flattery......

  6. #37
    Mostly Me Lucio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tring
    Posts
    5,163
    Thanks
    443
    Thanked
    448 times in 351 posts
    • Lucio's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • AMD FX-6350 with Cooler Master Seldon 240
      • Memory:
      • 2x4GB Corsair DDR3 Vengeance
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Toshiba, 2.5" SSD, 1TB WD Blue WD10EZEX, 500GB Seagate Baracuda 7200.11
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 270X 4GB
      • PSU:
      • 600W Silverstone Strider SST-ST60F
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF XB
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 64Bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 2032BW, 1680 x 1050
      • Internet:
      • 16Mb Plusnet

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by wesleyaldred View Post
    TheAnimus

    I indeed found it funny, but then again i do have a sense if humour !!!!

    Wesley
    Thanks for making me laugh

    If there is one man @ Scan who I'd vote for as "Not having a sense of humour" it's you mate! You're always so serious on the forums!

    (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
    (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
    (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")


    This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!

  7. #38
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,460
    Thanks
    613
    Thanked
    1,648 times in 1,309 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by ad-15 View Post
    wasting money on 0871 numbers.
    Same here.

    01204 474747


  8. #39
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by AD-15 View Post
    ....

    They did also mention the "burden of proof" to prove any return is not faulty lies with the seller (although I think the assistant told me it was 3 months, not 6).
    ....
    If you remember that correctly, it's a tad worrying.

    The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 amends the provisions of the 1979 Sale of Goods Act. It's one of several amendments over the years, but section 5 embeds several new sub-sections to the old s48 (48A to 48F), one of which is 48A(3) and (4) ....

    (3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

    (4) Subsection (3) above does not apply if—

    (a)it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;

    (b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.
    i.e. the burden of proof is on the supplier for 6 months .... with the exceptions noted in (b). For instance, don't take a 5 month old banana back to Tesco and complain they've breached "satisfactory quality".

  9. #40
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by AD-15 View Post
    ....

    As I have been advised by Consumer Direct (and Saracen ), I'll be sending in a letter ....
    Just be be fussy, I didn't exactly advise that. I make no claims to being a lawyer or giving legal advice. It's a forum, and I'm discussing and giving my opinions.

    I did say "if it were me ...." that that's what I'd do. And have done in the past (but not with Scan).

    Again, as a general principle, I'm not in favour of the "see you in court" approach. It tends to polarise positions and can make a reasoned agreement that much harder. But sometimes, it's the only way. For instance, one company I'd done some work for denied it'd even been done. It amounted to several thousand pounds. I'd been bounced around from pillar to post for months, given one excuse after another. Realistically I should never have let it drag on that long. I suspect they thought that if they dragged it out long enough, I'd give up and go away. So instead, I got the court claim forms, filled them in with the details of the claim, and faxed them to the company MD. The fax included details (dates, times and names) of calls, and copies of several letters, including the one where they denied ever having received the work. It also included categoric proof that they had both received and used the work. And I gave them 48 hours to settle, or the claim would be going in and they could add the cost of the claim to what it was going to cost them. I had a banker's draft delivered by motorbike courier the following morning ... and the manager that had been jerking me around left the company not ling after that. Whether that fact was related I don't know, but I do know the company MD wasn't best pleased to get my fax.

    So, by and large, I don't advocate threatening legal action, but sometimes it's unavoidable. It's also worth noting that consumers threaten retailers with court on a fairly regular basis, but I wouldn't mind betting that a very small proportion actually mean it and would follow though. It's a pain in the rear to do, and it's a nuisance to go through with the hearing. And most people don't follow through.

    But it cuts both ways. The consumer has to decide if he really feels the has a case, and is prepared to go to the hassle, and perhaps the cost, of fighting it. But the seller also has to decide if it's worth the hassle of defending it.

    So, if you threaten court, you have to decide if it's a bluff or if you really mean it. If it's a bluff and a retailer calls you on it, well, there's really nowhere to go from there. So threatening it is a last-ditch gambit.

    If, on the other hand, you are really prepared to go to court, then warning the retailer that you've reached that point is not only a reasonable thing to do, but pretty much mandatory if you're going to take all reasonable steps, as the court expects, before going to court. So the retailer has to decide if a given threat is a bluff, or a final warning.

    And from a retailer's perspective, is it worth fighting over, in your case, £35? Probably not. Is it worth fighting over half that? Even less so. But .... nor can a retailer just give in every time they get what they feel is a final warning not a bluff, if they think they have a case. If they were to do so, all a consumer would have to do to win a totally unjustified claim was to make a right pain of themselves, and then threaten court. So, I know of some retailers (and I don't know about Scan) that decide how to respond to court threats on how they perceive the merits of their case, not on what it'll cost of the avoidance of hassle.

    So you might find that a serious threat of court action does the trick, but it might not. You might find that receiving the court paperwork will do it, or they might hold on. If they hold on, they might choose to settle right before the case is heard or simply not show up. I've known all of the above to happen. Or, if they feel they're in the right, they may well defend the case on principle, and if so, may win.

    In other words, it's hard to "game" this process. personally, I usually don't use the court threat unless I really mean it. Over the years, I think I've only seriously used that threat four times, and it has, so far, resulted in a settlement four times out of four. But I meant it on all four occasions, and it wasn't always about money but about the way I was treated. The fifth, if there ever is one, may be different, and it may go all the way.

    My point, though, is that all this is discussion and opinion, not advice. I can tell you what I've done in some similar situations, but not advise you on what to do in yours.

  10. #41
    Retail Sales Manager Chris P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,699
    Thanks
    767
    Thanked
    515 times in 411 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    AD-15

    09/05/11 - Fault Reported
    10/05/11 - RMA Issued
    10/05/11 - Further RMA Information sent through
    11/05/11 - Reply from the customer to confirm collection info required.
    11/05/11 - Reply to confirm collection had been booked for the next day ( 12th )
    16/05/11 - Buy now the card has already been tested with Supersonic Sledge. We asked for the customer to provide details on how he would like us to re-test the item in question and provide any given timescales that the fault may appear during use.

    16/05/11 - E-mail received by reply

    21/05/11 - As the card had already been tested once and found not to exhibit the issues originally reported the re-test was scheduled for the 21/05/11
    24/05/11 - Card had been re-tested and again not found to be faulty
    25/05/11 - Complaint escalated
    26/05/11 - Confirmation from Wesley the on line RMA system provides the RMA updates as they happen
    28/05/11 - Re-stock requested
    31/05/11 - Advised the card is not in a re-stockable condition
    31/05/11 - Reply received with complaint at length
    06/06/11 - Confirmation standard NFF charges would apply

    Regards

  11. #42
    Senior Member AD-15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,248
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked
    71 times in 34 posts
    • AD-15's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage II Extreme
      • CPU:
      • i7 920 @4.45GHz!!!! (No HT)
      • Memory:
      • 3x2GB G.Skill Trident
      • Storage:
      • 1x 160, 1x 250 (Both 16MB cache SATA2 WD)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 460 1GB @ 815, 1013MHz
      • PSU:
      • 850W Corsair HX Series Modular
      • Case:
      • Corsair 700D
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22" Dell E228WFP

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen
    Just be be fussy, I didn't exactly advise that. I make no claims to being a lawyer or giving legal advice. It's a forum, and I'm discussing and giving my opinions.
    No worries, I do understand that. Just poor wording on my behalf. I do appreciate your input though, so thanks again.
    Industrial espionage is simply the sincerest form of flattery......

  12. #43
    Senior Member AD-15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,248
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked
    71 times in 34 posts
    • AD-15's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage II Extreme
      • CPU:
      • i7 920 @4.45GHz!!!! (No HT)
      • Memory:
      • 3x2GB G.Skill Trident
      • Storage:
      • 1x 160, 1x 250 (Both 16MB cache SATA2 WD)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 460 1GB @ 815, 1013MHz
      • PSU:
      • 850W Corsair HX Series Modular
      • Case:
      • Corsair 700D
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22" Dell E228WFP

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Just thought I'd update this thread with regard to the situation.

    Shortly after starting this thread, I sent in a letter to Scan detailing all the issues I'd had with their customer service on this particular RMA, and how I disagreed with their lack of a diagnosis of an issue.

    I got a response rapidly from them, basically re-affirming their position (asking for the £35+VAT to return the item, and insisting there was no fault). No acknowledgement of any of my other complaints however.

    I sent another email, re-stating my points, and offering to pay testing and collection fees in return for a refund. Got a reply to this, again ignoring my complaints, and rejecting my offer. It stated they would be willing to work on a compromise, but that the card would have to be returned.

    I then responded, to explain yet again, how I felt it was unfair the refund had been rejected due to the state of the packaging (not possible to restock), when I had not been informed of any damage to the item until weeks after arrival at Scan, and I had sent it out in a perfect condition. I got a response this time, saying that the condition of the packaging would not have been noted on arrival, as it was irrelevant considering I had requested a replacement, and not a credit.

    I responded to that to confirm that I had indeed requested a refund right from the beginning, and that it was on the RMA tracker. Scan replied, completely ignoring what I had said, with an offer to reduce the charges to £25+VAT.

    I then repeated what I had said to try and get an answer to my question, but in response I received the exact same email as I had before.

    Once again, I repeated what I asked (re-wording obviously), but got no acknowledgement of the point I brought up. Instead, they said they wouldn't be issuing a refund as the item wasn't faulty.

    Tried again. This time, the reply stated that the condition of the item was noted, and that I could see this on the RMA tracker.

    Replied, pointing out that the person I was in contact with originally claimed that the condition of the packaging of the item was not noted, that no such information was on the RMA tracker, that every CS agent I spoke to over three weeks did not mention a single thing about damaged packaging, and that when they offered a refund assuming the item could be re-stocked, I was told that the condition of the packaging had yet to be inspected. So this was all contrary to what I was now being told (that the packaging was inspected upon arrival and that the information was always available to me).

    Got a response, again ignoring what I had said, but this time putting a deadline on their offer of a reduction in the fees due.

    Once again, I tried to explain my point more clearly. As expected, got a response ignoring my points, saying they did not want to discuss the issue any further.

    At this point, I didn't have a clue why Scan were persistently ignoring my requests for an explanation, and considering also the other issues I'd had, I was advised by Consumer Direct to get a letter before legal action sent out. Did that, got a response the next day.

    Firstly, the response insisted that the condition of the item was noted on arrival. So completely ignored all the points I'd raised that seem to contradict this. Secondly, the response was a notification that the fees had gone back up to the original amount, and that my online Scan account/free carriage were suspended. Wasn't surprised at the latter (although not an action I'd entirely expect from a business keen to retain a customer), but the former simply did not make any sense.

    I could tell I was not going to get any response from Scan on this, so I got back to Consumer Direct, informing them I was not able to make further progress. They told me that my local Trading Standards office would be in contact with me to advise me on legal action, and that while I waited, I should try to continue to resolve the situation amicably.

    So I continued to fire off emails. This time, I reverted once again to listing all my complaints in detail. So:

    -The excessive delays (before I started sending letters and flaming forums...)

    -How none of my complaints were acknowledged

    -How points I brought up were continually ignored, with Scan instead replying consistently with responses that simply re-affirmed their position on the issue

    -Lack of communicaton on the nature of the RMA request (so maybe informing me before arranging collection/testing etc that it would not be a very clear-cut situation, possible engineers would disagree on severity of the issue etc...)

    -The whole mess with the offer of a refund conditional on the item being re-stockable (so them failing to inform me upon receipt the item was damaged, their contradictions on the condition being noted etc, how the packaging of most of the items I had received from them had been in a pretty poor state anyway...)

    -Refusal to test as I requested, but willing to charge for it

    -Length of downtime as a result of delays


    I got a more detailed response this time (finally). They stated the timeframe was not outside what they would deem reasonable. So...

    -9 days to re-test (despite being told on the first two consecutive days it would take another 24 hours, and on the third day it would take another 48 hours)

    -4 days to look at the box to see if it could be put back on the shelves (despite being told it would only take a day)

    ...were apparently reasonable.

    It's Scan who decide what standards to set themselves, and as there is no rock-solid information about timeframes in their T&C, I couldn't argue about whether the timeframe was indeed reasonable or not. But to be honest, I don't think many consumers would generally find such timeframes to be normal or acceptable. That, and I was repeatedly informed of far short timeframes at the beginning of the whole fiasco anyway, as has been noted in this thread.

    In addition to that, their response stated that their insistence that customers could view information regarding the state of the item online was a mistake, apologising for it, but again persisting with the point that the technicians had indeed noted the condition on arrival and that they themselves could see this information. What use is that to me if I am not informed? That, and it is obvious not a single person I was in contact with at Scan was aware of the condition of the item (and I was told after the conditional offer of a refund that it yet to be investigated anyway). Clearly the statement that the condition was noted on arrival does not fit.

    Now, by this point I'm getting more and more fed up with Scan's responses, failing to address the points I brought up. I knew I wasn't going to get an answer, considering the number of tries I'd made. That, and the downtime had been excessive. Further, the replacement VGA I was using was showing signs intermittently of on-screen corruption. As a result, I wanted to get the card back into my system ASAP. So, I replied, accepting the return of the card to myself, but (after once more detailing all my complaints) stated that I'd be prepared to pay only for the re-delivery of the item to myself.

    Scan accepted this (but, once again, they didn't respond to any of the complaints I had made in the preceeding email), so I made the £10+VAT payment. I made it clear this was a payment under protest, and that once I had proof it was faulty from the manufacturer, EVGA, I would request a refund of the re-delivery amount, the amount I paid for the card, and testing at EVGA.

    I figured this would be the end, as I could get the card back, ship it off to EVGA, get proof of the fault, and then Scan would definitely issue a refund. However, there were even more problems...

    When I called to make the payment initially, it was the 21st June. I was told I would have the card on the 24th at the latest. When I received nothing on the 24th, I phoned, and was told the issue would be investigated. Got an email saying the payment had failed. Now, I can't blame Scan completely for this, as it may have been me who accidentally gave the wrong payment details to the assistant on the phone. However, Scan could at least have informed me immediately that the payment had failed, instead of me finding out only 3 days later. I realise it's my responsibility at the end of the day, but nothing was said on the phone on the first attempt, and in the past, when making orders from Scan's site and the payment has failed, I get a notice immediately in my email inbox. Anyway, I made the payment on the 24th.

    Was told it should be sent out that afternoon, but as I received no notification, I sent an email asking whether the dispatch had indeed taken place. This was ignored. The next day (a Saturday), I phoned in to ask what had happened, and was told I could not be advised as the relevant people were off on a Saturday. In addition, by this point I received an automated "delay notification" from Scan, stating that the VGA I had purchased was out of stock...

    I called on the following Monday (after a second email was ignored) to find out what had gone wrong. The advisor I spoke to insisted (after a hold) that the item was out of stock and that was why my "replacement" had been delayed. I once again explained that my card was the item I should be getting back, and eventually I was told to expect it in a day or two (depending on whether the item could be dispatched that afternoon in time). I did finally (after another week of delays) get the card back the next day.

    The state of the packaging was atrocious. It was battered and torn very badly. Definitely not how I had sent it out.

    Anyway, now I have the card, I can confirm the coil whine is still an issue. I intend to send it off to EVGA, but as I have no replacement VGA just yet this could take a bit longer to get sorted than I expected.

    I have been beyond disappointed with Scan's service and attitude throughout this whole thing. Their lack of an acknowledgement of my complaints may just be a result of the size of their company and the workload their staff now have. I don't remember having so many problems with Scan's service when I first started purchasing from them in 2005 (I've had other issues with delayed/lack of responses with other RMAs/enquirys recently). Any responses I do get are clearly rushed these days. But this is still not a reasonable excuse.

    Some of the issues I've had this time may well have been mis-understandings, but I don't feel this is an excuse at all, considering I've offered countless opportunities to address them (e.g. the repeated attempts to get more detailed answers by email).

    What annoys me most about this situation, is their attitude despite the amount of money I've spent with them, consistently. I've boughly literally every last bit of computing equipment I have (save some of the more specialist stuff like certain water cooling hardware) from Scan. Internal components, peripherals, software, cables, routers, printers, speakers, optical media - everything. There's a forum moderator here (can't recall who) from Scan, with something along the lines of "a customer is not just another invoice, but a part of the Scan family" in the forum signature. In light of recent CS problems, I find that statement is insanely off the mark.

    On point of principle, even if it costs me, I'm never spending a penny at Scan again.

    Most of you are probably thinking I've been excessively stubborn in this situation, but considering Scan's equal lack of give and take despite claiming to be oriented around quality customer service and despite my continued (big) custom...

    I've learnt my lesson now anyway (not to bother with buying from Scan again), I have my card back, and I have the offer of a refund now in case the manufacturer agrees the card is faulty (once I manage to track down a back up VGA, I can get this one sent off), so the situation can be resolved.
    Last edited by AD-15; 11-07-2011 at 03:20 AM.
    Industrial espionage is simply the sincerest form of flattery......

  13. #44
    mmh
    mmh is offline
    Full Stack Operator mmh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, Stourbridge
    Posts
    1,804
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked
    95 times in 56 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    well, I've read the whole thread, and well, although I've never been a Scan customer, I can categorically declare that I never will be one either.

    Quote Originally Posted by wesleyaldred View Post
    Thanks for the post, however, this has been discussed at great length with the customer during the many calls and emails.

    There is no point in spending more time stating everything again that has already been discussed.

    Wesley
    "We can't defend our actions, we know we're crap, just stop talking about us"

    honestly.... this guy has given every bit of information he can, and your side of the story is to say "we're not discussing this"... bad form.

    again, I never have, never will be a Scan customer. you can count on that (unlike Scan's response times and promises)!
    : RFNX Ste | : stegough | www.stegough.com

  14. #45
    Real Ultimate Power! Grey M@a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    4,625
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked
    156 times in 139 posts
    • Grey M@a's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 7
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K (With H100i cooling)
      • Memory:
      • Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB DDR3 (2 x 8GB)
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 Pro 128GB SSD, 1TB Cavier Black WD HD, 4TB Cavier Black WD HD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI R9 390X Gaming Edition 8GB
      • PSU:
      • SuperFlower Leadex GOLD 850W Fully Modular
      • Case:
      • Corsair 650D
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" LG 24GM77-B 144Hz
      • Internet:
      • 100MB Virgin Media Cable

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    To be honest mmh, I have been a Scan customer myself for many years, but with the sheer lack of respect from Scan staff on these forums towards customers, deleting threads because they are getting too much heat. As with The Animus, the reply from Wesley and then followed up by the sarcasm of ChrisP I can safely say I would love to know how you would fair in customer service rewards if everything that has been said on here is ever taken into account.

    In all honesty, in the last few years, Scan really have gone down the ranks from a company once trusted to a company you need to think twice about just in case something goes wrong. It's a shame that the staff who work for Scan who I know or spoken to are being tarred with the same brush due to a pair of boisterous staff who deem their way is the only way.
    Last edited by Grey M@a; 11-07-2011 at 11:45 AM.

  15. #46
    Retail Sales Manager Chris P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,699
    Thanks
    767
    Thanked
    515 times in 411 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Grey M@a

    followed up by the sarcasm of ChrisP
    Followed up with a timeline to show how communication response times were not lacked as stated by AD-15, funnily enough there was no reply to this information....

  16. #47
    JagerBomber Mossy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    0.0
    Posts
    2,618
    Thanks
    191
    Thanked
    173 times in 144 posts

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey M@a View Post
    In all honesty, in the last few years, Scan really have gone down the ranks from a company once trusted to a company you need to think twice about just in case something goes wrong. It's a shame that the staff who work for Scan who I know or spoken to are being tarred with the same brush due to a pair of boisterous staff who deem their way is the only way.
    I really don't think you have grounds to state this people who post on here speak for Scan unfortunately forums are a way of venting frustration all we can do it reply with facts which may seem harsh but sometime just straight to the point. We can write essays stating legal terms and make up occurances but we prefer to state facts and get to the point, it may seem harsh but either way the outcome will be the same.

    People on see the picture painted by the OP sometimes what goes on in the background can not be posted on here hence Scans view may seem harsher than it actually is.

    Regards
    __________________
    Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.

    Error exists between Keyboard & Chair replace User and press Any Key!

    .... Where's the Any Key???


  17. #48
    Real Ultimate Power! Grey M@a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    4,625
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked
    156 times in 139 posts
    • Grey M@a's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 7
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K (With H100i cooling)
      • Memory:
      • Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB DDR3 (2 x 8GB)
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 Pro 128GB SSD, 1TB Cavier Black WD HD, 4TB Cavier Black WD HD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI R9 390X Gaming Edition 8GB
      • PSU:
      • SuperFlower Leadex GOLD 850W Fully Modular
      • Case:
      • Corsair 650D
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" LG 24GM77-B 144Hz
      • Internet:
      • 100MB Virgin Media Cable

    Re: Is this acceptable?

    Chris, the point I think that is being brought into contention is the reply from Wesley not the fact that numerous posts later you post a list of dates when contact/services were made or offered:

    "Thank You for your posts, we will not be waiving the fee's in this instance for you, nor would we be offering a refund on the not faulty card. Also, you did not make any rejection inline with DSR's so you cannot seek that as an option now, whilst Saracen's points are correct re. Packaging inline with DSR's they are of no relevance to yourself in this instance.


    Wesley"

    As others have said, it's not exactly the best PR is it for a company that is so sure of its customer service it shouts it from the roof tops but yet the customer gets a reply as such.

    It could of been handled a little better than, you ain't getting jack so shush kind of way. Wouldn't of taken much longer to post something along the lines of we are sorry for the problems you have experienced with Scan, we have discussed this exhaustively with the customer etc etc.

    I have used Scan for many years myself and never had an issue, but then I have never had to deal with an RMA with yourselves. Also the posts in reply to those that picked up on the poor handling of a response to a customer were met with sarcasm themselves, instead of trying to take a defensive stance, treat the customers with a little more repsect in the first place then there won't be any fallout with replies etc.

    Paul, as with remarks to how a post may be seen or interpreted as harsh, maybe a little more time is needed when replying to the customers on a forum where the tone of voice can not be taken into account.

    I am sure as a customer yourself and you were told, thank you for the posts but you aren't getting a refund on a card we deem not faulty. Technically the card may not be faulty, I know I have had cards that had the whine and worked for years, but never had a card that whined so loud I could hear it over system fans which could be conceived as a fault with the cards. I know the old XFX cards had this which would result in popped capacitors a few months down the line.

    If the card isn't faulty then it isn't faulty, if its been tested and re-tested then its just an annoying whine from the card. As said though I don't think the issue is with the fault of the card or a refund or not but with the manner in which the replies are taken by not only myself but several others in the thread.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is acceptable standards for a videographer?
    By Reena_jaguarxk8 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-02-2009, 04:32 AM
  2. What's an acceptable ping time ?
    By Fatboy40 in forum Networking and Broadband
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 05:26 PM
  3. Why is alcohol acceptable?
    By Oakey in forum Question Time
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 19-05-2005, 06:09 PM
  4. Male Skincare, socially acceptable?
    By 0iD in forum Question Time
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-07-2004, 09:56 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •