Not happy with my RMA choice of replacement, oh dear...

[Rob_B]

I recently RMA'd my mobo and (ignoring strange delay between confirmation and any sort of contact from you guys) I'm afraid i'm not happy with the results which is a first for me & Scan! I hate to moan but I hope you can appreciate my situation.

Firstly I bought an Abit IP35E as it:

- Is blue, I have a blue case, blue LED fans and a case window... I wanted a blue mobo!
- OCs well (more on this later)
- Has additional cooling for the mosfets which other boards didn't offer.

I have been offered a replacement in the form of an IP35P, a commonly acknowledged lower spec mobo. I advised you that this was the case but have been told this is not sufficient to warrant a different replacement, fair enough, the E is now & EOL so I expect the closest thing not an upgrade to a Pro (although that would be nice )

My problem is that i'm so desperate for a mobo I would accept the 'P' but in doing so would compromise on the colour, also on the OC ability of the board (due to apparently lower quality components. Oh and btw this affects the warranty on the cpu not the board as I am not running it over spec) but I draw the line at the cooling. I have asked for you to provide me with the mobo & a mosfet cooler (which you stock plenty of) but been told you can't as 'this wasn't on the original invoice' I know it wasn't but I really don't feel i'm asking too much!

I can get a partial refund of approx £40 inc vat but that's no good to me as I need this mobo so would be silly to go for that as i'd have to spend even more.

Can you not find it in you to let me have a mosfet cooler as, like I mentioned, I bought this board for specific reasons and i'm (IMO, please feel free to disagree) compromising already on those simply because I need my PC back up & running!

I realise people may not understand my problem ref the colour/OC ability perhaps but I wanted a mosfet cooler & if I accept the new board from you I'll need to spend another £10+ to get one! Which I don't feel is fair.

Any help guys?

[baronsamadi]

I can sympathize with you, they really make it hard work sending stuff back. The RMA takes ages, then theres the testing and then the delivery

[FifthFreedom]

To be honest, once they had realized that my Motherboard was actually faulty... (missed on the first RMA) SCAN were quite efficient.

I effectively received a refund for the original faulty board and chose a new one which was delivered next day free of charge.

I assume your case is different because the value of your board has depreciated while you have used it so you owuld now only receive a partial refund.

[RADCOM]

So the board developed a fault within its warranty period; why have you been offered a partial refund? That is not what consumer law says. You are entitled to a repair, equivalent replacement or refund. Time to get onto a consumer body methinks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008...nsumeraffairs1

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/

[Saracen]

So the board developed a fault within its warranty period; why have you been offered a partial refund? That is not what consumer law says. You are entitled to a repair, equivalent replacement or refund. Time to get onto a consumer body methinks.

You're wrong, I'm afraid - the possibility of a partial refund most certainly is what consumer law provides for.

When you first buy goods, you get a short period (and that's generally measured in days) during which you can insist on a full refund. This is because, during that short period, you have an opportunity to ensure that the goods conform to the contract. If they don't, you can reject them and insist on a full refund.

But that period will pass quickly. How quickly varies according to the nature of the goods, and also in rare cases to your specific situation. But it is often no more than a few days, will sometimes be less than that and outside of unusual circumstances, won't be more than about a month at the very most. There are also a variety of things you can do to implicitly "accept" goods, after which you've lost your right to reject them, and that generally includes anything not consistent with you not owning the goods, such as modifying them.

For instance, how long does it take for a reasonable person to check whether goods conform to contract? Well, with a car, it might takes some days, but it'll be a lot less than that with, say, a banana.

After that period, the extent of the refund you're entitled to will depend on any benefit you have derived from your use of the goods, because the retailer is entitled to make a deduction to reflect that you have had use of the goods, and even then you're only entitled to a refund at all if the goods have failed in a way which is covered by the various bits of consumer protection legislation, like the Sale of Goods Act (as amended). And that requires that the fault is one that existed at the time the goods were bought. For the first six months, it will be assumed that the fault did exist when you bought, unless the supplier can prove otherwise. After 6 months, it's for the consumer to prove that the fault existed or was inherent in the goods at the time of supply.

For instance, a 9 month old motherboard fails. Why did it fail? If it was a substandard component that should have lasted a lot longer than that but didn't, and you can prove that was the cause of the failure, then you're covered. If, then, the motherboard should have lasted 3 years (for example) and only lasted 9 months, you've had the benefit of 9/36ths of the expected life, and a deduction for benefit of 25% (9/36ths) from the refund would be reasonable.

If, on the other hand, the cause of the failure was that you slipped with a screwdriver, or that you'd overclocked it, or that PSU failed, or that you installed it incorrectly and shorted something, or that a mains surge fried it ..... etc .... then the fault wasn't inherent and thre Sale of Goods Act doesn't protect you.

So .... if goods fail after the buyer has had them for a while, the concept of a partial refund provided the deduction is reasonable in light of the benefit derived from the foods, is within the scope of consumer law. In fact, it's very likely to be what would happen if you took such a case to court. If you win, the court will award damages for the loss you suffered, which will be roughly the cost of the goods, less any benefit derived up to the point of failure. So the shop partial refund follows the same principle and, generally, amounts to more or less the same amount.

Of course, the fact that shops can make such deductions for benefit derived doesn't mean they have to do so and many don't, perhaps for customer relations reasons, especially if the goods are relatively new. But the older they are, the more likely it is.

As for the warranty period .... the warranty period and your rights under consumer law are entirely independent of each other.

[Rob_B]

You've so got that copied into a word document rather than writing each time this comes p

I'm aware that Scan are well within the law to offer a partial refund however I NEED a mobo so it won't do me any good to accept this i'd be better of accepting the board they've offered.

Doesn't stop me feeling that i'd be left with a comparatively lower product than i initially bought which could be sort-of brought upto spec with the addition of a mosfet cooler which is fairley cheap for Scan (thinking of trade cost) whereas for me as a consumer it would be an extra £10+ (or over 1/5 of original purchase price)

[Mossy]

I can sympathize with you, they really make it hard work sending stuff back. The RMA takes ages, then theres the testing and then the delivery

Most RMA's are done and soerted within 3 -5 working days. Refunds usually around 3-4 days.

[Andaho]

addition of a mosfet cooler which is fairley cheap for Scan (thinking of trade cost) whereas for me as a consumer it would be an extra £10+ (or over 1/5 of original purchase price)

You cannot expect a business to even consider supplying goods to a customer at trade price, businesses that do that go under It's already a pain in the arse to them that it's failed under warranty, because they have to spend labour time testing the product and dealing with the complaint and return.

It doesn't matter if it will cost you £10+ for the cooler you want, as far as any business is concerned, it costs them £10+ too, because they could be selling it to another customer at full price - If they give their stock to you at trade price, the person who wanted to buy it at full price will have to buy it somewhere else.

However, I do believe that you should be offered a replacement equivilent to the model you originally purchased, e.g. if yours was the PRO version, it should be replaced with a PRO version of the current model if the old model is no longer made.

But I can see how it can get very complicated if the new market equivilent model doesn't have the same features (such as the cooler you want). Scan must get reimbursed somehow for failed warranty products, and of course the manufacturers procedure for reimbursing is going to be strictly to the lines of the law to save as much money as possible. If scan gave you a cooler worth £10+ it would be to their loss... and £10 is possibly more than the profit they made on selling you the mobo in the first place!

I do understand your frustration, but it's life! I had a graphics card that developed a rattle in the fan after 6 months... it drove me nuts... I looked into returning it to be repaired, but I didn't want to be without the use of it for a week (more importantly the use of my computer, but that's not of concern to them because I didn't buy the computer from them, I just bought the parts), so I had no choice but to go into my own pocket and bought a new silent cooler for £20. That's life!

[Nickg]

You're wrong, I'm afraid - the possibility of a partial refund most certainly is what consumer law provides for

technically im afriad you and your teammates are in the wrong, trying to offer a LOWER specification motherboard than the one the guy has purchased.

i think the OP needs to state how long he has had said new motherboard, and whether scan are really trying to remedy this without significantly inconvieniencing the consumer.

I havent seen anything in the SOGA that suggests the retailer is within their rights to offer a substandard replacement. It has to be the same specification OR higher.

[kalniel]

What specifications are lower for the IP35P? I'm just reading a review and it states some features are better than even the IP35pro.

[Saracen]

You've so got that copied into a word document rather than writing each time this comes p

Surprising though it may be, you're wrong. I might say basically the same thing repeatedly, but it's written to order each time .... not least because while the law remains the same, the facet of it that comes up varies.

I'm aware that Scan are well within the law to offer a partial refund however I NEED a mobo so it won't do me any good to accept this i'd be better of accepting the board they've offered.

Doesn't stop me feeling that i'd be left with a comparatively lower product than i initially bought which could be sort-of brought upto spec with the addition of a mosfet cooler which is fairley cheap for Scan (thinking of trade cost) whereas for me as a consumer it would be an extra £10+ (or over 1/5 of original purchase price)

Oh, I'm not commenting on what Scan might or might not do, or have or will offered. That's their business. The point I challenged was what was said about what consumer law says about partial refunds.

[Saracen]

technically im afriad you and your teammates are in the wrong, trying to offer a LOWER specification motherboard than the one the guy has purchased.

What teammates?

And I didn't say ANYTHING about trying to offer a lower spec board. I was talking about what RADCOM said about partial refunds, and consumer law.

And, I do assure you, I'm not wrong about that.

But, on the subject of a lower spec board, they can offer that. There's nothing in any consumer laws I'm aware of to prevent shops offering all sorts of options. The consumer laws are about the minimum standards that the consumer can insist upon, and shops can't refuse to meet their minimum legal requirements, but that doesn't preclude them from offering alternatives.

Consumers can opt for several different options, but there are complications with each of them. They can opt for repair or replacement, but can't insist on either over the other if it is either impossible or unreasonably costly compared to the other, and nor can the consumer insist on either option if it is impossible. And, with a faulty motherboard that's no longer made, it might be impossible to replace and, on any practical scale, impossible to repair.

In that case, the shop can decline to do either. And, if they do, we're back to refunds and the shop CAN make a deduction to reflect the usage the consumer has had from the product. Specifically, that Sale of Goods Act s48C(3) (one of the relatively recent amendments to the '79 Act) which says :-

(3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.


So .... where are we? If a replacement or repair is either not possible or would be disproportionately or unreasonable costly, the shop can default to a partial refund. Or, they can offer an alternative product.

Suppose I have board that supports mobo-based RAID, and it dies. Well, I use RAID, but I have dedicated hardware RAID boards, so I don't give a hoot about onboard RAID. When my motherboard dies (via a SoGA fault), and it's too old to be repairable or directly replaceable, I might be offered a current board, but one that doesn't have onboard RAID. It is, therefore, a lower spec board that I've been offered. Do I care? Nope. All other things being equal, I'd take it, because it's probably a better option for me that getting a partial refund, then having to go out and buy a new board anyway. Or .... if I decided it was upgrade time, I might prefer that partial refund and put that towards the cost of a hardware change and upgrade.

Is the consumer obliged to accept any just old crud as an alternative? No, clearly not. But nor are they entitled to insist on a better spec, and if a direct repair or replacement is not an option because either of cost or disproportionate cost, then that isn't an option either. So, they can go down the consumer rights route and insist on a refund, which CAN be reduced, but they might find it better to accept a lower spec board. It's certainly permissible for a shop to offer that.

[Oldjim]

Is there any precedent or case law which defines this

(3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

If it was based upon expected life that would be one thing but basing it on the warranty period wouldn't hold up for any normal purchase such a refrigerator for example

[Rob_B]

Saracen - your fingers must hurt after typing that then

As mentioned I'm aware of the right to offer reduced refunds which is totally acceptable by me, I don't expect a full refund after X amount of years, mobos seem to retain value quite well though (I'd had it since Nov 07 so 7months)

Expected date of dispatch for the replacement was 26th June (was completed 25th) but I had no comms until after the 2nd (http://forums.hexus.net/scan-care-he...placement.html) Which isn't that bad but as it paused at picking i'd imagine they'd realise a bit quicker than that!

Anyone from Scan care to comment on this case rather than their RMA times?

[da_ging]

eh that does not seem right that they are only offering a partial refund or a lower spec board when it's only 7months old, 17months old and yes you could agree with a partial refund but 7 i can't see that being right at all

[BUFF]

thought of RMAing it to abit Nl?
You'll probably get a refurb rather than a brand new IP35-E but if it's an IP35-E that you want ...