Is this acceptable?

[Mossy]

And flaming/thread trashing will be the surest way of ensuring that that itch gets scratched.

Cool will you scratch my itch?

its the bosses that don't really give the toss, this attitude filters down the line as the staff know they can get away with it. the more you complain the more arrogant they become.

end of the day the typical lock it, ban him from scans forums, edit it, brush it under the carpet does not apply when the post is out the reach of scans usual moderating powers.

[TheAnimus]

I would say peterb its actually quite interesting to see this. I also think its a bit odd for both parties to be having something like this out in the public eye, it must be quite the learning experiance.

I also think scan have in this case failed to come across as fair, my current summary goes something like this:

Guy buys GFX card, it makes sound he dislikes, he returns, scan say "its working within the manufacturers guidelines, tough" which is fair enough! What I don't get is why they didn't then offer it as a DSR return, charge a minimal fee for testing, or offer to wave it if he bought a more expensive brand of GFX card.

Instead we've got a situation were a customer who took the wrong route for returning a card, is been landed with a a fee, if he had known his consumer rights better, could have simply just returned it for free. "I don't like the humming sound" would have done it, but instead it appears it went the "this humming sound makes it defective". I would respectfully suggest that scan should really look at how they handle this first advice, ensure people are aware upfront the costs of such an action when its a minor thing like this, rather than just suggesting they swap it out for a more expensive card, everyone wins.

Instead they do come across very badly, showing that they are clearly tired and bored of this silly situation.

[peterb]

I would say peterb its actually quite interesting to see this. I also think its a bit odd for both parties to be having something like this out in the public eye, it must be quite the learning experiance.

I agree.

As I have said earlier, AD-15 has made his dispute public, and SCAN have chosen to exercise their right of reply in public. So until both parties agree that it should be closed OR if the thread gets trashed with unhelpful comments, I will leave it open.

[Chris P]

TheAnimus

What I don't get is why they didn't then offer it as a DSR return

The card was delivered on the 12th April and the initial query raised on the 9th May

Regards

[Chris P]

I also think its a bit odd for both parties to be having something like this out in the public eye.

"
The sensationalistic theme of posting in a forum to flame and then being expected to leave these comments and take it privately, but in the same breath, were told " we brush it under the carpet ", but what about the other users reading the thread, who won't see the full facts brought to light through our responses
"

So we shouldn't reply publicly in a public form, to a public post, but also we are also accused of brushing problems under the carpet?

[Bugbait]

Guy buys GFX card, it makes sound he dislikes, he returns, scan say "its working within the manufacturers guidelines, tough" which is fair enough! What I don't get is why they didn't then offer it as a DSR return, charge a minimal fee for testing, or offer to wave it if he bought a more expensive brand of GFX card.

The card was clearly out of the DSR return period, I don’t think anyone is still refuting that? Although I find some of Scan’s response a bit abrupt here, I ultimately can’t fault their logic. They have followed their T&C of sale and any statutory requirements. The OP, although in an unfavourable situation has basically been caught out. Lesson learned?

I purchased an ASUS motherboard years ago that had a questionable (compatibility wise) chipset. After 6+ BIOS patches released from ASUS, of which I tried all I still couldn’t get my new build stable. A call to Scan and the operator suggested I simply return it under DSR for a full refund, which I got. This was about 3 working days after I purchased it. As much as everyone suggests people should save money by building their own machine, the OP’s story in some ways serves as an example of how it can backfire if you don’t plan it correctly.

[peterb]

Cool will you scratch my itch?

I think you are big enough to scratch your own itches - and as I have already done what I can to help you scratch this one, the rest is up to you.

[Saracen]

The card was clearly out of the DSR return period, I don’t think anyone is still refuting that? .....

I hesitate to put words in TheAnimus' mouth, but when he said

Instead we've got a situation were a customer who took the wrong route for returning a card, is been landed with a a fee, if he had known his consumer rights better, could have simply just returned it for free. "I don't like the humming sound" would have done it, but instead it appears it went the "this humming sound makes it defective".

I took him to mean

Instead we've got a situation were a customer who took the wrong route for returning a card, is been landed with a a fee, if he had known his consumer rights better, and acted promptly enough, could have simply just returned it for free. "I don't like the humming sound" would have done it, but instead it appears it went the "this humming sound makes it defective".

I've added the bit in bold.

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that what Animus was saying was .... when you've bought something, test it promptly and if not happy, return it while the DSR applies rather than mucking about with RMAs, because if you do, it avoids this type of situation.

[Bugbait]

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that what Animus was saying was .... when you've bought something, test it promptly and if not happy, return it while the DSR applies rather than mucking about with RMAs, because if you do, it avoids this type of situation.

I would agree with that interpretation if that’s how it was meant . I once bought something (about £40 worth) from Scan that didn’t perform as expected. Actually, I’d go as far as saying the product was a completely useless piece of junk (now gathers dust in a drawer). Problem was, I didn’t get round to properly testing it until 2.5 weeks after purchasing it. The product worked…but didn’t remotely do what I wanted it to. Lesson learned.

I’m not saying Scan are completely without fault here, I do agree with others that their initial tone was on the abrupt side. Possibly stemming from a bit of frustration based on subsequent threads. Unprofessional? Maybe, but that’s subjective and it wasn’t without merit. However, I think the customer expectations need to be curbed as well. The mantra “that the customer is always right” isn’t reasonable in the real world. If I took that approach the projects I delivered for the client wouldn’t resemble what they actually want.

[Mossy]

So judging by the " helpful information on this thread " and ignoring the bandwagon Scan bashers I would say if you purchase something test it properly and if you are not happy its safe to assume you should return it under DSR and that being the moral of the story?

Scan dealt with this issue as per terms & conditions customer was not happy with this tried all avenues direct with Scan and because the situation did not change decided to create a thread asking if this is acceptable?

I mean the title of the thread says it all " Is this acceptable? " if you have to ask.......... then that a story on its own.

IMO a thread was created in a non Scan moderated section for a reason, to seek support maybe thinking Scan would overturn their decision its always good to get people "onside" does not cover up the fact though the decision has been made and accepted through our internal system.

[Saracen]

Paul, this section is moderated. Just not by Scan.

[Mossy]

Paul, this section is moderated. Just not by Scan.

I know you will see my point now with the edit ...

[Saracen]

I know you will see my point now with the edit ...

Oh, I saw the point before.

But, you also impute motivation to why it was created here. And you may be right, or partially right. But you may not.

The opening thread did ask for opinions on whether AD-15 was expecting too much, and also for opinions on how to proceed. And that's what a discussion forum is for.

So perhaps the point of posting it here is that AD-15 wanted a discussion of aspects of his situation that he believed, whether rightly or wrongly, would not be permitted in Scan-moderated forums. If so, it's a good reason for not posting them there.

After all, he did say

.... I'm looking for advice from fellow forum members as opposed to support from Scan on the issue, ....

and

I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts or advice you guys may have on how to deal with this.

Or maybe he just wanted opinions from people that don't go to the Scan forums, or don't go very often.

[TheAnimus]

Saracen pretty much nailed what my thoughts were, its a simple case of it being within what the manufacturer says is OK.

It took too long to be returned within DSR, its not faulty per say.

Now whilst I appreciate Scan have probably been over this a dozen times, they still didn't come across in the best way they could, as I've speculated before its probably because this kind of communication is new, taking something public at this point is bound to make it hard.

Myself if this was my industry of software, we have much lower production costs, but still re-stocking (we've spent time customising etc.) I would have tried to do my level best to upsell him!

But I guess the margins on a card like that are so low, there is a cost for all the testing and time, and ultimately it has to be bared by him to a point.

[AD-15]

I would agree, but as AD-15 has chosen to go public, and Scan have chosen to publicly reply, I have little option but to leave the thread open unless both sides agree that it should be closed - which they may do by posting here, or by PM.

It is unfortunate that this has become public, and although I can perhaps see why it has, I am sure there is scope for some private negotiation so that both parties can come to an amicable agreement.

Just to be clear - the actual RMA issue has been finally resolved, I will be offered a refund if EVGA can confirm the card is faulty (once I manage to get it sent out to their offices in Germany...). What I am complaining about here is the frankly atrocious customer service, which I certainly do not see any resolution to, I simply updated the thread to warn others and give feedback on what I see as unacceptable business practices.

Back on track.... The e-mails sent to me, which were said not to have been replied to, but in the same sentence a date provided when the reply was sent, is confusing... To re-iterate, a reply was sent and also notification via the automated e-mails of when the card was returned to the customer, in addition to the on line RMA system also being update, so the comment of a lack of communication and continuously ignoring e-mails has no basis what so ever.

I'm sorry, but this is completely inaccurate.

Firstly, there are messages I submitted via your webform which were ignored, but I unfortunately have no copy of.

Secondly, some the emails I sent you were responded to eventually, but after an excessive period of time and only after I chased things up on the phone. That's the key point. So my view is obviously that if I'd just let it be, I would not have received a response at all. If you're insisting it was only a delay, then why were any of my emails requesting a quick update ignored? I appreciate the situation is complex, and that response times would be correspondingly longer, but a simple "we're working on it" response would have sufficed when I requested updates to what was going on. Far better than being left completely in the dark.

Thirdly, the two emails I sent on the 24th and 27th June were never responded to (funnily enough, this was after Scan had finally received their payment). As I've said repeatedly, no further action to get the card dispatched was made until after I phoned on the 27th to find out what had been going on. It was then that I received automated notifications of the item being dispatched.

As I mentioned in the PM, I have brought up this issue time and time again since this whole fiasco started and not once has any Scan rep, on the phone, by email, or on the forums, disputed my claim. So I find it bizarre this only occurs now. Surely it would have been better to dispute it right away, so that your customer doesn't come away with an even worse perception of you, especially if it was just a mis-understanding? Like I said, all the details have been repeated again and again in forum posts, emails, and even a letter.

Finally, as I mentioned to you in the PM, repeatedly ignoring clarification on certain points when responding to me emails is not something I'd consider acceptable by any reasonable standards. I gave full details in my post from yesterday of how, despite repeated requests, the person I was in contact with at Scan after sending in my letter would continually ignore great big chunks of my email, resorting instead to simply re-affirming Scan's position over and over again. For example:

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.

Scan's belief that it is acceptable to copy and paste the same email twice (basically a couple of lines saying Scan wouldn't offer a refund) in response to a clear request for further information is just one example.

By that point, the amount of time discussing the issue was already extensive. However, that was mostly down to the fact that Scan repeatedly refused to discuss the complaints I had about their service. So the time was spent with both sides repeating again and again what they had said before. Me re-affirming my complaints (re-wording in the hope of an answer), and Scan continously responding with variations on "No obligation to refund card".

Surely it would have been much, much quicker just to acknowledge the customer's complaints, and address them, right from the beginning to shut them up rather than continue to ignore requests from a customer who's clearly not going to stop until they get an answer?

If it was me, I would have addressed each of the customer's complaints in a clear manner, even if it did not change my position on the actual problem (refund/not refund the card). At least then, once the issue had been resolved, the customer would have a far better perception of the company.

The card was clearly out of the DSR return period, I don’t think anyone is still refuting that? Although I find some of Scan’s response a bit abrupt here, I ultimately can’t fault their logic. They have followed their T&C of sale and any statutory requirements. The OP, although in an unfavourable situation has basically been caught out. Lesson learned?

I purchased an ASUS motherboard years ago that had a questionable (compatibility wise) chipset. After 6+ BIOS patches released from ASUS, of which I tried all I still couldn’t get my new build stable. A call to Scan and the operator suggested I simply return it under DSR for a full refund, which I got. This was about 3 working days after I purchased it. As much as everyone suggests people should save money by building their own machine, the OP’s story in some ways serves as an example of how it can backfire if you don’t plan it correctly.

I understand, but as the VGA was part of a much larger/more complex build, there would have been no chance whatsoever of getting it properly tested before the 7 days were up. All I did at the time was to install it and check for any obvious problems. It would be another few weeks before I could get the appropriate software etc loaded to test it, but I figured if any significant issues arose I'd be covered by the warranty, and as I was sure I could get it done within the 28 day DOA period, I could get a refund.

IMO a thread was created in a non Scan moderated section for a reason, to seek support maybe thinking Scan would overturn their decision its always good to get people "onside" does not cover up the fact though the decision has been made and accepted through our internal system.

Somewhat accusatory, but no. As Saracen correctly interpreted from my original post, I was simply seeking advice on how to proceed with the situation from other members. And I'm glad I did. Advice from other forum members, along with the very helpful people at Consumer Direct, meant I was in a much better position to deal with the situation than I would be if I hadn't bothered to seek any third party advice. I was not even aware Scan staff actively monitored the GD sub-forum anyway...

Again, just to be clear, I've resolved the actual situation with regards to the RMA. I'm simply posting to give feedback on their CS.

[Chris P]

Secondly, some the emails I sent you were responded to eventually, but after an excessive period of time and only after I chased things up on the phone. That's the key point. So my view is obviously that if I'd just let it be, I would not have received a response at all. If you're insisting it was only a delay, then why were any of my emails requesting a quick update ignored? I appreciate the situation is complex, and that response times would be correspondingly longer, but a simple "we're working on it" response would have sufficed when I requested updates to what was going on. Far better than being left completely in the dark.

This has changed from " my e-mail was ignored " to " I did receive a response ", the response may not have come as soon as hoped but a reply was sent, if it was not to the detail required, this is unfortunate but possibly because explanations had already been provided prior.

Thirdly, the two emails I sent on the 24th and 27th June were never responded to (funnily enough, this was after Scan had finally received their payment). As I've said repeatedly, no further action to get the card dispatched was made until after I phoned on the 27th to find out what had been going on. It was then that I received automated notifications of the item being dispatched.

To quote from my PM to you yesterday...

"
Invoice ****402 was raised on Friday 24th June 2011 and dispatched on Monday 27 June 2011 17:37:10. Automated tracking e-mails left our E-mail server to notify you of this. The online RMA tracking system was also updated with the outgoing Invoice Number.
"

The e-mail was automated and was sent automatically less than 1hr after your support e-mail, therefore perhaps it was felt it was not required to send another e-mail back from the support system with the same message just via another medium..

The online RMA system also had this information as well, which is precisely why we have this system so RMA updated can be sourced on-line.

Regards