RMA handled in appalling fashion so far...

[Sean.]

This is one hell of mess Scan – please read on >

Well as title says, my parents purchased x2 (Two) Asus A8N32-Sli Deluxe (along with a tone of other parts) for both of my younger brothers PC’s as part of an upgrade spring last year, unfortunately in Jan 2008 one decided to develop a terminal fault. So was sent back under 1 year back to supplier warranty, at first all seemed to be going well as the process moved along with email updates such as fault found & replacement issued etc, great my parents thought. However now the troubles begin; no more updates for 2 weeks via email, my parents log into customer account to find the replacement has been sat at the awaiting dispatch stage whole time with no further updates!

So they phone up and were told “we don’t have one to send” & not long after “So we can offer a refund”, obviously far from ideal but then the customer service clerk continued “of course there be a time of use depreciation which leaves you with a £30.00 refund" (My parents paid £93.00 for the board 9 months previous), my parents refused this offer, and after 1min on hold the guy came back with the great news that “I’ve had a search and found another one!” great news...if a little too convenient - so my parents asked for gentleman’s name for reference. He went on to apologize for the delay, assured us the replacement had been tested with facilities they had on site and said it would be in the post ASAP, well it arrived but my father who’s the only real PC savvy one (since I no longer live at home) is more often than not away on business – so the following week I travel down to fit replacement. What concerned me most was the fact that when she opened parcel and the box was the very same ASUS box we had sent Scan, we know this because my parents made note of the Scan SCIL label and upon delivery there’s now another SCIL label (which had obviously been hand peeled off another box) cello-taped underneath the old one... So I open box to find all the contents we sent back are in the box, now I’m starting to think scan have just sent very same motherboard back! Thankfully my father took several pictures before returning the previous Motherboard and made notes of the items unique serial numbers; when I cross checked these they didn’t match - so at least the motherboards not the same one. Fair enough send us back like for like, just seemed a tad odd to mess about swapping the new motherboard in with all the our retuned box contents...

Install it, green mobo LED lights up (woot), power on; case fans kick into life...then nothing, no warning beeps, nothing, infact nothing at all, no display, its truly dead. Now when placing original order last year my parents purchased two ‘Asus A8N32-Sli’ and enough other items to build two PC’s (one for my youngest brother, one for 2nd youngest for GCSE/A-Level course work and some gaming etc), so there-for we have the unique luxury of been able to swap all parts over to discover what part was faulty, again. All the components from other PC (Inc PSU) could not get this replacement mobo to boot into life, in-fact I tried majority of the parts from my pc as well since I brought it down just in case. Obviously my parents are less than pleased, so they phoned yesterday afternoon whilst I’m listening in on second hand set; just so happens the guy who answered the call 2 weeks ago answers again (made a note of his name first time found). We didn’t let on at first it was him we dealt with first time round as straight away he started to reel off a long list of what appeared to be fabrications of the truth! But once the following line popped out his mouth we had to let on, he said “Madam we don’t have the facilities to pre test replacement boards, whoever told you that was wrong”, that’s when she said ”It was you Mr” (won’t mention his name), line goes silent then “Oh...oh yes, yes I remember now yes we tested this one that’s right” (30 sec’s ago he’s telling us that can’t be done) meanwhile notes are been made in shorthand

After explaining the box discrepancies and fact we made notes of everything, hearing a number of unfeasible excuses which didn’t tally up with anything we were told first time round; we are offered once again the same initial refund minus 70% depreciation for time of use; as they can’t replace it like for like or even close (fair enough its EOL stock, but don’t take the ****). I find all this highly abnormal considering parents purchase is within 1 year warranty period, far as I was aware it's like for like or very close modern equivalent, failing that then money back in full? More to the point what we now have is a replacement that is even more busted than our old one, fresh 1 year warranty, and there for surely we are entitle to our consumer rights. These boards can still be sourced new even though EOL for about £65.00 to £70.00 and forget auctions sites because 2nd hand they sell for silly money. So what the hell are my parents supposed to do with £30.00, they already spent £8.70 sending it back Royal Mail 1st Class recorded, and it’s going to cost same again, £30.00 soon becomes £12.60 after RMA’s and even less when you factor in the phone calls. Asked for a member of management, and then we are told “they all go home at 4pm” (well you shut at 5:30pm iirc so surely someone in management sticks around till then?) So parents are then promised a phone call this morning after giving the employee home number, and what a surprise no phone call...

Perhaps even some Scan manager/employee would be kind enough to have the decency to phone and sort this out as it seems a case of ‘we can’t be bothered with you’ attitude and I find that highly un acceptable considering the money both my family and even I have spent with Scan over recent years. With me not been fully up on the exact trading standards side to such an issue; I would appreciate some input from you helpful bunch, things is Scan proudly flaunt an apparently great customer service recorded, yet so far my family are seeing no evidence to support this first hand. Now I don’t like to have to come on here ranting on my parent’s behalf, but if Scan won’t deal with this all amicably what choice do we have...

(P.S – apologize for poor grammer used, typed this up quick at work with to one ear)

[r2d2d3d4d5]

Can't seem to find anything about a depreciation policy in Scan's T&Cs?
Computer hardware and software at amazing prices, available online from Scan Computers UK

BTW Asus's warranty I believe is 3 years but you are supposed to go through the retailer.

[Sean.]

Well rather than wait my mother decided to pick up the phone a 3rd time for a chat with Scan - just got off the phone; helpful manager offered £50+ vat refund, and apparently depreciation guidelines are set by trading standards and it's the best they can do? (First I’ve heard of this tbh). Anyhow parents accepted and Scan have agreed to pick up the replacement duff board with no charge - so this 'should' enable us to source one 2nd hand or something simular with the funds.

BTW Asus's warranty I believe is 3 years but you are supposed to go through the retailer.

Scan wanted it sent back to them, 1st year is normally always with supplier. Edit: Makes you consider shopping elsewhere when you given the run around, I felt guilty as I’m the one who told my family to shop at Scan in the first place, as apparently no one else could match the service quality. Just hope for better experience with future purchases, if my dad with chance it again...

[r2d2d3d4d5]

Good to hear you found to a solution.

Scan also came recommended to me so I hope this sort of situation isn't too typical to be honest.

For future reference you could try Consumer Direct for advice on this sort of situation:
Consumer Direct

I wonder when they apply a like for like policy or if they always have this depreciation policy (which seems a bit subjective to be honest).

[Hicks12]

just saying but isnt it sorta illegal too not offer a replacement? if they cant find one in the warehouse then they are legally bound to getting a replacement from asus as they have a contract with them, so asus should provide a similar spec or the same motherboard/same value. Im glad you got a good enough amount but this does sound very dire imo. £30 is a joke and the offer their would force me too ring up asus(or email?) and get them too send me one or a better one.

[Sean.]

For future reference you could try Consumer Direct for advice on this sort of situation:

I'm sure my parents will find the link interesting, cheers.

Well to be fair to Scan both I and my slightly stressed out mother, got a lot more sense out of this manager; who was understanding and quite polite + did not ‘but in’ or ‘interrupt’ us mid flow. Just hope good to his word with the £50+ vat refund (I make that out as 58.75 Inc vat) and the goodwill gesture on postal; then all is well. Edit: Parents been stressing over this big time; as my wee bro's exams are very close now, so his been forced to use elder bro's PC for coursework (Both been teenagers that combination = a world of fun) until RMA concludes.

[not_my_ip]

Asus gives 3 years warranty - means repair or replacement if can't be repaired. And new replacement would be from asus - so You have full right to demand replacement, I would try contact asus directly if scan refuse to help.

I have always good experience with scan, had one rma with GPU and it was replaced for model up because my old GPU was EOL - so it can be done (My card was around year old).

[Wiczy]

I agree with this guy! RMA to Asus, it won't be quick, but at least you will get what you are entitled to

[Saracen]

just saying but isnt it sorta illegal too not offer a replacement? if they cant find one in the warehouse then they are legally bound to getting a replacement from asus as they have a contract with them, so asus should provide a similar spec or the same motherboard/same value. Im glad you got a good enough amount but this does sound very dire imo. £30 is a joke and the offer their would force me too ring up asus(or email?) and get them too send me one or a better one.

In short, no, it isn't illegal to not offer a replacement.

The non-short version is rather more complicated. You are, under certain circumstances, entitled to require them to do so, but there are plenty of reasons why it might not apply.

Consumers have a variety of rights, but exactly what they are very much depends on what has gone wrong (or rather, why it went wrong), and when.

Generally, for the first week or so, you can send stuff back under the Distance Selling Regs, but that doesn't apply here because of the time period. In that case, it's more or less down to the Sale of Goods Act (and various bits of legislation that amend the original act).

You have a "reasonable" time to inspect goods, and reject them if they are unsatisfactory. That would entitle you to a full refund, but "reasonable" is likely to be a short period, quite possibly a matter of days, and other than exceptional circumstances, a month or so at most. So that's passed by here too.

After that, you'll be entitled to repair/replacement, refund (probably partial) or compensation. But ONLY if the problem with the goods is something that existed at the time the goods were sold. That includes problems with durability, so it may be a fault that existed when they were sold but that wasn't obvious, such as a faulty component that only actually died after a period. However, there's a critical 6-month cut-off period.

If goods are returned after that initial "reasonable" period but within 6 months, then it is assumed that the fault existed at the time of sale, and those remedies are available unless the retailer can prove it did not. If, for instance, the retailer can prove (perhaps via independent inspection) that the problem is due to user error, then no remedies would be available and the retailer isn't liable. If, for instance, goods weren't used in accordance with instructions, or if they'd be modified, that would apply. If a cooling fan had been replaced for an alternative model to standard and it failed, or wasn't fitted correctly, or if a board had been OC'd and over-voltaged, there could be problems.

But all that is within 6 months of sale. After 6 months, the burden of proof as to whether the fault existed at the time of supply or not switches. In order to have those Sale of Goods Act remedies, the consumer needs to be able to prove that the fault DID exist at the time of supply. If you can't do that .....

And even if you can do that, you have the right to choose replacement/repair, but the retailer is entitled to decline if the cost of doing so would be disproportionate to other remedies .... or indeed if repair/replacement is impossible. There are some other twists and turns in who has to do what and under what circumstances, such as the nature of any cost difference in relation to the significance of the defect, but that's the essence of it.

In other words, you can insist on a replacement or repair provided such is :-

a) possible
b) not disproportionately expensive.

And, once that initial "reasonable" period is passed, the retailer is perfectly entitled to reduce any reimbursement to reflect the usage that the consumer has had from the goods before they failed. For instance, one such "fair" reduction would be to say that if, for instance, an item was generally regarded as having a 3 year lifespan, and it failed after 18 months (due to a fault that existed and could be proven to exist when they were sold), the refund would include a deduction of 18/36ths.

Note, this is not a depreciation charge. It's charge to reflect usage and therefore value already received.


The above is all based on legal rights. In addition to that, the consumer would also be able to rely on any warranties the retailer offered, such as Scan's warranty, or a manufacturer warranty. Neither of those reduce your legal rights, but can add to them or provide an alternate route.

But ..... if you've got an item that's more than 6 months old, in order to be be able to stand on your legal rights and start requiring repair/replacement/refund, etc, you would need to be able to prove, should the case go to court, that the fault existed at the time of sale. If it developed afterwards, due to user error etc, you aren't entitled to any of those remedies.

[Oldjim]

I must admit to being totally baffled by this.
Every other time I have needed to return an item to a retailer under the 12 month warranty I have had a repair or a replacement of equal or better quality or, on the few occasions when it hasn't been possible, a full refund.
I have never heard of 12 month warranty having a depreciation clause if a repair or replacement can't be provided although that is covered in the Sale of goods Act

[Hicks12]

That was a good read . Learn t quiet a bit from your post, good for my exams , thansk for clearing it up.

In short, no, it isn't illegal to not offer a replacement.

The non-short version is rather more complicated. You are, under certain circumstances, entitled to require them to do so, but there are plenty of reasons why it might not apply.

Consumers have a variety of rights, but exactly what they are very much depends on what has gone wrong (or rather, why it went wrong), and when.

Generally, for the first week or so, you can send stuff back under the Distance Selling Regs, but that doesn't apply here because of the time period. In that case, it's more or less down to the Sale of Goods Act (and various bits of legislation that amend the original act).

You have a "reasonable" time to inspect goods, and reject them if they are unsatisfactory. That would entitle you to a full refund, but "reasonable" is likely to be a short period, quite possibly a matter of days, and other than exceptional circumstances, a month or so at most. So that's passed by here too.

After that, you'll be entitled to repair/replacement, refund (probably partial) or compensation. But ONLY if the problem with the goods is something that existed at the time the goods were sold. That includes problems with durability, so it may be a fault that existed when they were sold but that wasn't obvious, such as a faulty component that only actually died after a period. However, there's a critical 6-month cut-off period.

If goods are returned after that initial "reasonable" period but within 6 months, then it is assumed that the fault existed at the time of sale, and those remedies are available unless the retailer can prove it did not. If, for instance, the retailer can prove (perhaps via independent inspection) that the problem is due to user error, then no remedies would be available and the retailer isn't liable. If, for instance, goods weren't used in accordance with instructions, or if they'd be modified, that would apply. If a cooling fan had been replaced for an alternative model to standard and it failed, or wasn't fitted correctly, or if a board had been OC'd and over-voltaged, there could be problems.

But all that is within 6 months of sale. After 6 months, the burden of proof as to whether the fault existed at the time of supply or not switches. In order to have those Sale of Goods Act remedies, the consumer needs to be able to prove that the fault DID exist at the time of supply. If you can't do that .....

And even if you can do that, you have the right to choose replacement/repair, but the retailer is entitled to decline if the cost of doing so would be disproportionate to other remedies .... or indeed if repair/replacement is impossible. There are some other twists and turns in who has to do what and under what circumstances, such as the nature of any cost difference in relation to the significance of the defect, but that's the essence of it.

In other words, you can insist on a replacement or repair provided such is :-

a) possible
b) not disproportionately expensive.

And, once that initial "reasonable" period is passed, the retailer is perfectly entitled to reduce any reimbursement to reflect the usage that the consumer has had from the goods before they failed. For instance, one such "fair" reduction would be to say that if, for instance, an item was generally regarded as having a 3 year lifespan, and it failed after 18 months (due to a fault that existed and could be proven to exist when they were sold), the refund would include a deduction of 18/36ths.

Note, this is not a depreciation charge. It's charge to reflect usage and therefore value already received.


The above is all based on legal rights. In addition to that, the consumer would also be able to rely on any warranties the retailer offered, such as Scan's warranty, or a manufacturer warranty. Neither of those reduce your legal rights, but can add to them or provide an alternate route.

But ..... if you've got an item that's more than 6 months old, in order to be be able to stand on your legal rights and start requiring repair/replacement/refund, etc, you would need to be able to prove, should the case go to court, that the fault existed at the time of sale. If it developed afterwards, due to user error etc, you aren't entitled to any of those remedies.

[IAmATeaf]

Seems mighty weird doesn't it? You'd have thought that after testing the original board they would have just pushed it onto Asus to repair/replace under warranty.

Maybe someone from Scan can comment?

[Giraffe]

More to the point, 'reasonable useage' should be balanced against the major inconvenience and time in the actual replacement. We [poor] consumers are rated at National Minimum Wage-NMW=0