Refund Required For Faulty Goods

[ta2]

Sent this email to you almost 40 hours ago, but haven't had a reply yet...

Dear Scan,

Having paid the exorbitant fee you charge for the return of "not faulty" goods, I received this Super Talent Pico-C 16GB USB drive back today. As I alluded to on the phone, the USB device is physically defective and non-conformant to the official USB specification.

After you failed to do so at my express request, I have taken the liberty of looking at the official USB specification myself, which can be found here: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/ "Universal Serial Bus Revision 2.0 specification" (links to: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_122909-2.zip)

Inside this archive you will find the file "usb_20.pdf". On page 127 of this PDF (or page 99 if you read the numbers on the page), you will see the official physical specifications of a USB connector. As can be seen at the top left, the outer width of a USB connector is 12.00 (+/-) 0.10 millimeters. This results in an upper limit of 12.10 millimeters, beyond which a device cannot be said to be a USB device as it does not meet the specifications. I have measured the device you supplied to me, and it measures 12.50 millimeters on my digital vernier caliper, which has an accuracy of +/- 0.03 millimetres, meaning the device is at least 12.47mm in width. This is far beyond the official limit of 12.10mm. For comparison, I measured another USB device I own, which was shown to be 12.06mm by the same set of calipers, well within the specification.

Evidence #1, measurement of the faulty device: http://i44.tinypic.com/241o590.jpg
Evidence #2, measurement of my conformant device: http://i44.tinypic.com/302zbtk.jpg

(The fact that the Super Talent Pico-C is standing up proves that it is clamped tightly by the calipers)

This item clearly falls within the "not as described" category of the Distance Selling Regulations, meaning I was fully entitled to a refund upon my original return of the item to you. As a result, I expect you to fully refund me the original purchase price, the return postage price, and the return of "not faulty" goods charge. The breakdown of this is as follows:

Original Purchase: £31.33
Return Postage: £0.61
Return of "not faulty" goods: £11.75

TOTAL: £43.69

Pursuant to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the device supplied to me has not been accurately described. Pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the goods are not of satisfactory quality and do not "conform to contract", having failed to meet the specifications which it claims to. For your own reference, "Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety."

Pursuant to The Distance Selling Regulations 2000, as the item is faulty it is not my responsibility to return the defective item to you. You may collect the faulty item from me at a mutually agreed time. I expect to be refunded the full sum of £43.69 within 30 days of your original receipt of the return of the item (15th March). Failure to do so will result in my contacting the Office of Fair Trading and performing a credit card chargeback.

Regards

[Mark@SCAN]

Hi,

We are currently in contact with our supplier & in turn super talent to investigate this issue further. We will update the thread again once we have more information.

Regards

[Perfectionist]

Oh my god is this for real? I thought I was picky but...

This reads like a joke letter or something out of a sketch.

I'm assuming you can plug it in and it works???

[ta2]

This is obviously not an isolated problem.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sup...co-C+tight+fit (2,860 results)

#1: "tight fit into laptop's USB"
#2: "tight fit on 2 of my laptops"
#3: "It is a tight fit, and as such the USB port scratched up the"
#4: "Cons: Really, really tight fit in multiple USB slots"
#5: "Its a tight fit on most of my USB ports (mother board, PS3, etc)"
#6: "Quite a 'tight fit' in the USB slot."
#7: "It is a VERY tight fit."
#8: "But the fit is still very tight on most USB Ports."
#9: "it has a tight fit"
#10: "Cons: Tight fit"

I'd like to add that when you "tested" it while I was on the phone, you said you were testing it in USB extension cables. If you think about it just for a few seconds, you will understand that the USB extension cable is so flimsy that it will just expand to fit the size of the USB stick that you are thrusting into it. A port which is surrounded by the metal or plastic of a computer case is not so forgiving.

I didn't buy it from your supplier or Super Talent. Your obligation is to refund me. Then you can deal with getting a refund for yourselves from your supplier, that is not MY problem.

[Mossy]

Hi Perfectionist

I understand mate but the OP is correct shouldnt be posting on the Aftercare section. Lets keep this clear until Mark can update.

Regards

[Mossy]

This is obviously not an isolated problem.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sup...co-C+tight+fit (2,860 results)


I'd like to add that when you "tested" it while I was on the phone, you said you were testing it in USB extension cables. If you think about it just for a few seconds, you will understand that the USB extension cable is so flimsy that it will just expand to fit the size of the USB stick that you are thrusting into it. A port which is surrounded by the metal or plastic of a computer case is not so forgiving.

I didn't buy it from your supplier or Super Talent. Your obligation is to refund me. Then you can deal with getting a refund for yourselves from your supplier, that is not MY problem.

ta2 : Please read Marks post.

Plus you first sent it back as FAULTY and did not detect, we simply plugged it in to both extension and normal USB ports and it worked fine we charge NFF and then you claimed it was too big hence the above post. Mark is speaking with our suppliers and Supertalent on your claims.

We take your claim serious but we have to investigate further.

Regards

[wesleyaldred]

ta2

Just to add we are entitled fully to investigate your claims, before decided on an appropiate outcome to your request.

Wesley

[ta2]

I did read Mark's post.

I have already conclusively proven that the goods are faulty. I don't see what the point is in making me wait until you have a manufacturer response.

Even if they say it's not faulty, (which they probably will, it is irrelevant, and your delay is just giving you a bad reputation.

[ta2]

Plus you first sent it back as FAULTY and did not detect, we simply plugged it in to both extension and normal USB ports and it worked fine we charge NFF and then you claimed it was too big hence the above post.

I said it was too tight fitting, which is equivalent to saying it's too big, is it not? You make it sound as if I have only just told you this. The issue is not with the internal circuitry.

[Mossy]

I did read Mark's post.

I have already conclusively proven that the goods are faulty. I don't see what the point is in making me wait until you have a manufacturer response.

Even if they say it's not faulty, (which they probably will, to cover their own arses like you are), it is irrelevant, and your delay is just giving you a bad reputation.

This is my point the drive is Not Faulty the hardware has been proven as working hence it was sent back to you. The request for refund is on the Query to which you suggest "This item clearly falls within the "not as described" category of the Distance Selling Regulations" to which we are well within our rights to investigate.

Regards

[ta2]

I never disputed the fact that it works once it's in the port. It is simply too big, bigger than what USB is allowed to be, hence it cannot claim to be "USB". You didn't sell me a USB stick.

[Cornholio]

There is processes put in place by manufactures/resellers, just like the XFX warranty procedure, it sucks..its not scans fault. Scan will resolve the issue, but they will do so via the right channels which they are more than entitled to do.

[Mark@SCAN]

Hi,

Please see below respose from a technical representitive from Super Talent:

"Most of COB based USBs are a bit different than regular USB structure, regular USB comes with metal shell which customer mentioned, width 12.00mm. Most of COB based USBs come without metal shell and width is a bit longer for securing in the receptacle – see below, allowing receptacle width is 12.50mm +/- 0.1mm. Therefore, all our COB based products’ (including PICO C) width is 12.50+0/_0.1.



More than 95% of receptacle manufacturers maintain width 12.50mm +0.1 and we did test with many notebooks & PCs. We did see bit tightness in some receptacles but it works fine after plug in 2 or 3 times…

FYI – Without Metal Shell COB & regular USBs are not USB IF certified and many companies carry w/o metal shell USB products.

See below few competitors products – Non USB IF certified products;



Jin"

[ta2]

All of the USB sticks you posted in that picture get smaller at the end. They don't have the metal casing around them. The Pico-C does, which is why it's too big. Like I said, they are obviously gonna cover their own asses. Can I take this as a final refusal of refund, so I can begin legal proceedings?

[ta2]

Here's another pic... There's obviously a reason that the clever people who wrote the USB spec decided that they would make the receptacle bigger than the plug, not the same size.

[Mossy]

I do not think you understand the technical information here

The Pico -C (Pic A) ( COB Based USB )

Does not come with a Metal Shell like the Normal Drives (Pic B)

Pic A


Pic B