Is this acceptable?

[AD-15]

Apologies in advance if this is being posted in the wrong sub-forum. The post relates to my experience with Scan Computers, but as I'm looking for advice from fellow forum members as opposed to support from Scan on the issue, I thought I'd post it here instead of the Scan support sub-forums.

The problem is in regards to the way Scan have handled a recent return. In the week beginning 9th May, I sent them an email to complain about problems I was having with my new GTX 560 Ti graphics card. Specifically, the problem is coil whine. I've had plenty of reference design cards with the same issue before, but this time it seemed particularly bad. Playing Mafia 2, the sound was very distracting. Simply panning the in-game camera around changed the frequency/loudness of the sound too, making it even more annoying. I described the issue in the email, stating it was much worse than with most cards I've had.

I was concerned Scan would refuse the RMA, as coil whine is a common issue and not necessarily considered a fault by the manufacturers. However, the very next morning, I got an email asking for collection details. I responded, got an email later on confirming collection was booked with the courier. So I assumed the RMA would be approved, considering no one replied to my email saying there would be a possibility the RMA would be rejected based on my subjective diagnosis of an issue.

Card arrived at Scan on the 13th May. Booked in and tested on Monday 16th May. Received a no fault found email that afternoon. I called on the phone for assistance, and to insist that the issue was definitely there. I was informed I would have to pay delivery/collection/testing charges. I was told it could be the PSU, but as I have had other VGAs hooked up to this PSU without issue, I was told I'd be sent a re-test email that I should reply to ASAP.

I received the email shortly after, and responded with further details of the problem, how to test for it, and included two short video clips of the issue. They were poor in quality, but it was my intention to simply indicate what sound to listen for as opposed to show the extent of the issue.

Didn't get a response to that email despite it being a few hours before closing time. So I called the next day (Tuesday 17th May), and was told the re-test would be done within 24 hours. No response 24 hours later (4pm on Wednesday 18th), so I called yet again. I was assured by the assistant that my email was indeed fowarded to the testing department, but that one of the engineers was taking the day off. Told to wait another 24 hours.

No response 24 hours after that either.

End of Thursday 19th May, I called and was this time told to wait until Saturday. By closing time on Saturday, still no response. Checked the online RMA tracking system to be sure, and yep, no re-test.

No update whatsoever on the following Monday either. Or Tuesday. So on Tuesday 24th May I decided to write up a great big rant and emailed it to Scan. No response the following day. So on Thursday 26th May, I spammed the forums with yet another rant:

http://forums.hexus.net/scan-care-he...ience-rma.html

I got a reply rather sharpish this time. Was told the re-test had finally taken place. Told to look on the RMA tracker. Impressive how despite using the OLQ system, which I'm repeatedly instructed to use by Scan reps (instead of posting here), I did not get a response until I flamed the forums.

"Using Furmark the capacitor whine does become slightly more audible, however graphics card manufacturers do not accept Furmark as a standardised test due to the fact that it kills graphics card because it exceeds the cards safety temperatures. During Crysis benchmark this whine is not heard."

Few things annoyed me about this. First of all, during all tests, I had the fans on full whack (temps staying in the 60s). Secondly, thanks to nVdia's OCP (which is present on the 560 Ti I had) the card automatically throttles itself whenever Furmark or OCCT are launched (black listed by NV) - so the load is significantly less than when playing a game like Mafia 2). Thirdly, I didn't play Crysis (is this 1 or 2?). I played one game, found the noise unacceptable, and contacted Scan right away. If I had time between getting my system set up and RMA'ing the card, I'd have done more thorough testing with more software.

So at that point I was quite miffed. I called Scan yet again, and the assistant (who I'm guessing is also getting quite fed up with dealing with this case by now ) tells me to hold. Comes back a couple of minutes later, tells me his manager has told him they'll inspect the card, and providing it's in a decent condition, they'll re-sell it and refund me my money. Told I would be updated the next day (Friday 27th May). I did think it was a bit dodgy to put a card a customer claims is faulty back into stock like that, but as long as things were sorted, I wasn't bothered.

Friday comes and goes. No reply. On Saturday 28th, I call and am told to call back on Tuesday (Monday=Bank Holiday).

Tuesday 31st May, I get an email stating that the card is not in a condition to be resold. When I called (again) to ask why, I was holding on the line for about 5 minutes (as usual) only to be told by the assistant they couldn't access the RMA. Told to call back after 30 minutes, which I did, only to be cut off by the assistant after less than a minute of talking and 5 minutes of holding. Calling back the third time, I was told the box was "tatty".

OK, this really annoyed me.

I can't even count the number of times I've received items from Scan where the box is torn, un-sealed, battered, and in a couple of cases, with holes punched right through the packaging. In every case though, I'm told (half the time in a very condescending manner) that if the item itself is not damaged, an RMA won't be approved. I even had once a similar issue with an item picked up directly from the Scan store. The assistant at the time inspected the box (which had two holes right through the packaging), and just told me that it would fine as the item was not damaged.

At the time, I reckoned I was being silly in complaining about the state of the packaging. They had a fair point, as long as the item is undamaged it should be fine.

So to be told that the offer of a refund was withdrawn because the item's box was "tatty" is unbelievable. Why are Scan OK with sending out products in far worse conditions, but not willing to consider accepting them unless they are absolutely perfect?

It's worth noting the card was in perfect condition. Not a mark. I sent it back in the original anti-static bag. Every single accessory was unopened, still in the original shiny packaging. All replaced in the original box exactly as I'd received it.

So that was last Tuesday. After that phone call, I did write another email complaining about the service I received. Again, sent in well before closing time on that Tuesday.

I complained about the number of times emails were ignored, the delays, the amount of time it took to finally do a te-test, the hypocrisy over the condition of the item's box, the amount of time and money I'd spent on the phone chasing up matters. I also mentioned that they should have informed me of any possibility that the RMA would be rejected due to my less-than-solid diagnosis of an issue. If I'd been told, I would have sent in better evidence of the problem, more details etc, before sending in the card.

Despite my specific complaints about the time it was taking them to get back to me, I never received a response that week. I sent another email on Friday 3rd June to ask for an update. Didn't get a response until an hour ago.

"Thank You for your email, unfortunately, the standard fee's and charges would be applicable to this RMA."

And that's it. Just a message asking me to pay the £35+VAT. Not a single apology, or any sort of a response to any of the points I made.

The number of times Scan reps have told me they "go the extra mile" I can't count. However, in this case, it seems Scan is refusing to do any more than the bare legal minimum for a regular customer of 6 years. And even then I am not entirely sure Scan's service meets legal standards.

I know most of you are probably thinking I should just stop being a hard headed, stubborn idiot, pay the money, and get my card back - but on point of principle I refuse to give up on this.

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

[kalniel]

Scan's prices are amongst the lowest in the business. Maybe a narrow margin for goodwill gestures is one of the reasons they can be.

[TheAnimus]

wouldn't the basic DSR just allow you to send it back, pay for the postage and move on?

[neonplanet40]

wouldn't the basic DSR just allow you to send it back, pay for the postage and move on?

What he said, I dont see what the issue is. Just do this?

[AD-15]

The card was part of a larger build. So it took a while after receipt of the card to get it installed and set up. A lot longer than the 7 days I have to test and return under the DSR.

Also, even if I managed to get it done within the 7 days, they're claiming the packaging is not fit for re-stocking. So I couldn't send it back under DSR anyway.

[this_is_gav]

I won't speak of the customer service, as there are others far more knowledgeable on the matter than me (though I will add that it seems very poor that you kept on getting fobbed off and the distinct lack of updates).

On to the problem itself. Is this part of a new system? If so, both my previous cards (an ATI 4870 and NVIDIA GTX 560) had the same symptoms, and yes the frequency changed as I moved the mouse to point up at sky or whatever... but it wasn't the graphics card in my case - it was the audio lead from the motherboard to the case front panel. And it doesn't just happen in games, I can hear it when I'm listening to quieter music or in gaps, and the frequency also changes when the system is under load or when the hard drive briefly accesses some file.

In my case I'd imagine it's either interference from the CPU (which the cable has to pass close to to reach) or the PCIe lanes or something. Either way, it doesn't appear to be the graphics card causing my issue, which is what I suspected originally.

If that's not the same issue, then fair enough, but I thought I'd point it out just in case the card is returned unchanged and you have to cope with the issue.

[TheAnimus]

actually gav I've heard of this issue happening when scrolling something hardware accelerated (2D apps) back in the XP days.

[Saracen]

What he said, I dont see what the issue is. Just do this?

If it hasn't been done by now, it's already way too late now. The card arrived, according to one of those links, on on Friday 13th May. Maybe the mistake was accepting a delivery on Friday 13th?

As for whether it's "acceptable", I'd say it's impossible to tell from where I'm sitting. My first concern, with the greatest respect, AD-15, is that we're getting one side of the story. My next concern would be that by self-admitted "rants", you probably haven't helped yourself in Scan's eyes. I know it wouldn't motivate me to go the extra mile to help if I were them.

Also .... while there's been, it appears, some delays, it does happen that people are off sick, on holiday or even perhaps that there's just a backlog built up and the testers are doing their level best to slog through it. So, while "chasing" is sometimes productive, it's counter-productive to overdo it or to pester them. The art, in my view, is to be reasonable in both actions (like frequency of calls) and tone, when you do. And that makes it very difficult to second-guess, from here, whether you overdid it or not.

Perhaps more significantly, I certainly can't second-guess what Scan's engineers found when they tested the card. From years of experience, however, it does strike me that it's quite possible that a "coil whine" that is unacceptable to you may seem minor to them as it's subjective, and perhaps also dependent on the level of background ambient noise. A quiet bedroom and a busy testing lab may have very different background noise levels. And it's equally possible that the noise the card emits in your machine is very different from the noise emitted in the lab test machine. Again, been there, done that.

As for their alleged policy of taking cards back and selling them on again as new, well, if (repeat IF) they do that, then while its probably very dubious legally, I'd say it's also very likely a pragmatic issue. Most people that buy mail-order do so because of, primarily, price. There are other reasons, like getting specialist or specific products with no local distribution, but price is generally a key driver.

So, we all expect rock bottom prices, we also all expect brand-new sealed goods and yet we also expect them to swap out goods on something close to a whim. Well, that last is incompatible with the first two.

So .... on occasion, I've had products from Scan and others where I certainly had suspicions about whether they are brand-new and unused or not, but all I really care about is whether they work or not.

For example, you want that card swapped because of coil whine. But, does it whine in other machines, or if so, is the level of whine unacceptable? Does it go far enough to be classified as an inherent fault under Sale of Goods Act rules? If not, then Scan aren't obliged to swap it out.

So, there's kind of a tacit and implicit acceptance that unless we want to find companies rigidly refusing to replace/repair/refund unless absolutely required to by law, we accept a bit of give and take. Do we want a supplier to take the line of only accepting goods back if the packaging is unsealed and in pristine condition, or if there is clearly a Sale of Goods Act issue. If we do, a lot more people are going to be stuck with things that they aren't quite happy with. Do you want companies like Scan to operate (if they do) a bit of give and take, both in what they accept back and in what they do with goods they accept back that appear to be in perfect working order?

Because, I'm afraid, we as consumer can't have it all ways. If we only want brand new goods, and we want the cheapest prices, we will have to accept that the only way a company can afford to help other than when they literally have to under the SoGA is that working goods might get sold on again. The alternative is likely to be buying in a high street store, where you can see that goods are pristine and shrink-wrapped (and hopefully, not re-shrink-wrapped after a return) and pay the price accordingly.


I see no way for me to judge if Scan's actions are "acceptable" or not, because there's too much I don't know, like the results of their testing, and whether they are even obliged to offer a refund at all, fee or not.

What is the case is that they will incur costs if goods claimed to be faulty actually aren't, for both testing and re-delivery, and that if you accept their T&Cs for an RMA, then you accept their T&Cs.

[AD-15]

Thanks for the advice gav, much appreciated.

However, I don't think it's interference or anything. The sound is present even when there is no audio signal or the speakers are switched off.

At the moment, I'd be OK just to get my VGA back and live with the issue. Obviously, a replacement/refund would be preferable. However, I really don't believe being asked to pay the testing/delivery charges is acceptable, after the service I have received.

Is there anyone I should be writing to specifically regarding the quality of service I received?

I've had this issue before with other companies, but in all cases my rants were swiftly responded to and the issue solved. I had a similar issue with Corsair for example, and in the end I started getting fast responses from the customer services supervisor, with an offer of a $250 refund on my 700D system chassis (which is what I was submitting tech support queries regarding). In that specific situation, it was also the case that my emails were being ignored. But it still wasn't nearly as bad as these problems with Scan.

The problem is, the guy responding to my emails already appears to be the Scan returns manager, so there doesn't appear to be anyone higher up I can complain to.

[Saracen]

....

Also, even if I managed to get it done within the 7 days, they're claiming the packaging is not fit for re-stocking. So I couldn't send it back under DSR anyway.

It doesn't have to be. That most definitely is not an acceptable reason for refusing a DSR refund.

You are obliged to take "reasonable care" of goods, and if required, either return them or make them available for collection, but unless the item is exempt from the DSR in one way or another, the condition of the goods is utterly irrelevant to the issue of the refund.

If they or any other retailer has an issue with the condition of the goods, their ONLY legal recourse is to :-

a) issue the refund, and do it with 30 days at the very most, and then
b) take you to small claims court over breach of contract if you failed your statutory duty to either take reasonable care, or return (or make available for collection) when required. But they will have to prove, on balance of probability, that you failed that duty.

And, if a refund is due, the ONLY deduction that can be made is the direct cost of collecting goods if you are required to return them at your cost, and don't. And even that deduction cannot be made if the goods are rejected under any other contract condition, including embedded terms like the SoGA rights to reject. So if the goods are faulty, then the return cost is on the supplier, too.

[AD-15]

Didn't see your response there Saracen, posted just after you.

Thanks for your input.

As for whether it's "acceptable", I'd say it's impossible to tell from where I'm sitting. My first concern, with the greatest respect, AD-15, is that we're getting one side of the story. My next concern would be that by self-admitted "rants", you probably haven't helped yourself in Scan's eyes. I know it wouldn't motivate me to go the extra mile to help if I were them.

Also .... while there's been, it appears, some delays, it does happen that people are off sick, on holiday or even perhaps that there's just a backlog built up and the testers are doing their level best to slog through it. So, while "chasing" is sometimes productive, it's counter-productive to overdo it or to pester them. The art, in my view, is to be reasonable in both actions (like frequency of calls) and tone, when you do. And that makes it very difficult to second-guess, from here, whether you overdid it or not.

I understand what you're saying, but I've always tried my best to remain polite and maintain an un-accusatory tone on the phone. I've not called back sooner than instructed (each time I waited at least until ETAs have come and gone before calling to chase up matters with Scan), so I don't believe I've overdone it in that respect.

The delays also have been excessive, not just one or two days each time.

[AD-15]

Didn't see your second post either.

Reading that now...

[jim]

There are always major communication issues when it comes to RMAs, unless it's a very simple obvious flaw that you just chuck back. A few times now I've been in communication with Scan over a problem, and then all of a sudden, out of the blue, I'll get an RMA request when it doesn't seem like anyone has actually taken the time to figure out the problem.

That's fine, but when they then proceed to find no fault, because they're presumably not looking in the right way, it really isn't fine.

Then after that, it's virtually impossible to get it retested properly because everything seems to get lost in the system somewhere. The only way I've managed to make progress in those circumstances is when someone personally takes responsibility for it and watches the whole way through to make sure everything is done properly.

So yeah, it's a real pain in the neck, but I'm not surprised. RMAs can at times be horrendous.

As for the problem itself, that's much harder to talk about. Since it's all subjective, there's very little you can do. If you find it too loud, but the person testing it thinks it's okay, then you're going to struggle.

That's why I'm talking about the process... it should have been far clearer when the RMA was issued that there was a high chance you would be getting it back again, with a hefty bill on top. As for whether the item should've been refunded or not, I doubt there's much chance of a consensus.

[AD-15]

It doesn't have to be. That most definitely is not an acceptable reason for refusing a DSR refund.

You are obliged to take "reasonable care" of goods, and if required, either return them or make them available for collection, but unless the item is exempt from the DSR in one way or another, the condition of the goods is utterly irrelevant to the issue of the refund.

If they or any other retailer has an issue with the condition of the goods, their ONLY legal recourse is to :-

a) issue the refund, and do it with 30 days at the very most, and then
b) take you to small claims court over breach of contract if you failed your statutory duty to either take reasonable care, or return (or make available for collection) when required. But they will have to prove, on balance of probability, that you failed that duty.

So in this situation, where the refund was refused due to the condition of the packaging, I was actually entitled to a refund?

And, if a refund is due, the ONLY deduction that can be made is the direct cost of collecting goods if you are required to return them at your cost, and don't. And even that deduction cannot be made if the goods are rejected under any other contract condition, including embedded terms like the SoGA rights to reject. So if the goods are faulty, then the return cost is on the supplier, too.

So I'm guessing then that Scan have an obligation to refund the amount I paid, minus the collection fees considering they do not consider the product to be faulty?

[mrt9888]

If they refused the RMA because of the packaging why didn't they send you the new card with the packaging from the old box.

[AD-15]

There are always major communication issues when it comes to RMAs, unless it's a very simple obvious flaw that you just chuck back. A few times now I've been in communication with Scan over a problem, and then all of a sudden, out of the blue, I'll get an RMA request when it doesn't seem like anyone has actually taken the time to figure out the problem.

That's fine, but when they then proceed to find no fault, because they're presumably not looking in the right way, it really isn't fine.

Then after that, it's virtually impossible to get it retested properly because everything seems to get lost in the system somewhere. The only way I've managed to make progress in those circumstances is when someone personally takes responsibility for it and watches the whole way through to make sure everything is done properly.

So yeah, it's a real pain in the neck, but I'm not surprised. RMAs can at times be horrendous.

As for the problem itself, that's much harder to talk about. Since it's all subjective, there's very little you can do. If you find it too loud, but the person testing it thinks it's okay, then you're going to struggle.

That's why I'm talking about the process... it should have been far clearer when the RMA was issued that there was a high chance you would be getting it back again, with a hefty bill on top. As for whether the item should've been refunded or not, I doubt there's much chance of a consensus.

Thanks for your input.

I strongly agree with your points, especially the last one.

I mentioned several times to Scan that I should have been told the RMA could be rejected based on the subjective opinion of the engineers, and that I could be charged such an extortionate fee.

I was concerned right from the beginning that they might not agree with my own diagnosis of an issue. But like I said above, and several times to Scan, I took their immediate approval of an RMA and request for collection details to mean that there would not likely be an issue. Not once in the entire process up until the NFF email was sent to me was I told that my subjective opinion was not solid grounds for an RMA.

If I'd been told, I would have put in more effort in terms of the evidence I submitted. I would have taken a higher quality video, showing the software used, the extent of the issue (I would, for example, have tested using more software to begin with - I genuinely can't recall if I even used anything apart from Furmark and Mafia 2 to try out the card). If after that they responded with the same, I may have not even bothered with an RMA at all.