Scan offers £25+vat for a graphics card which fails after just less than 2 years

[Saracen]

Please bear with us but the returns manager who would deal with this is not in now till Monday.

As soon as he's back in the office, I'll get him to look at this accordingly.

And that's the best next step. Anything I say in this regard is largely theoretical, as it's not very likely to happen.

so does the upshot of that basically mean that if we don't buy something from a place and/or manufacturer that has an excellent CS reputation, then after 6 months we can potentially be shafted? The onus (and consequently expense) for independent testing being on us? Along with subsequent time, expense and effort spent in pursuing claims?

Well, no. "Shafted" is a rather loaded term.

But it does imply that after six months, the onus is on you, yes.

First thing to bear in mind is that with any of this consumer protection legislation, the ultimate responsibility for resolving an issue "fairly" lies with a court. That, I'm afraid, will be the ultimate arbiter. And that implies that both sides will have certain duties and responsibilities, but must also meet a certain burden of proof.

Unlike criminal trials, where it's an accuser and a defendant and the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", with a civil case (which is what these cases are), there's simply two opposing sides and the burden of proof is 'balance of probability'. But the courts also tend to lean towards the consumer, on the basis that the business not only has greater resources but is expected to have greater expertise.

Finally, a factor that tends to be very influential on courts is that each side is expected to be reasonable in everything they do. You are, essentially, expected to take all reasonable steps to avoid having to drag issues like this to court. That means not standing on your high horse and demanding every last penny you think you're entitled to, but instead, seeking a reasonable settlement. It also means trying, fairly hard, to keep it out of court in the first place, rather than jumping to legal recourse at the first hint of disagreement.

But it binds both sides that way. And courts have a way of punishing the side they consider to be acting unreasonably. If, for instance, the court felt that fair compensation for a card was it's current replacement cost less 10% for the use derived, and the current replacement cost was £200, they'd expect an offer of around £180 to be forthcoming.

If, then, the retailer/manufacturer offered £25, that would probably be seen as grossly unreasonable, and the court would go some way towards punishing the retailer/manufacturer in the award. They might, for instance, grant relief for expenses incurred that they normally wouldn't, like your petrol costs for getting to court and the cost of your lunch while there.

If, on the other hand, that "fair" value was assessed at £180, and you turned down £175 and took it to court over a fiver, you might well get your £180 ..... and no costs.

But, by and large, the courts seek to come up with a resolution that is "just". If both parties act reasonably, and simply have a difference that isn't reconcilable (both parties feel they're in the right) the courts tend to find on the side of the party they agree with, but not to punish the other side. Given that, provided you are reasonable in everything you do, provided to take all reasonable steps to reach an agreement, providing you take all reasonable steps to mitigate any costs or expenses incurred, then it's likely that you'd get a fair value for the card and, if the court finds in your favour, the costs incurred too .... such as the fee for the engineering report.

Essentially, it boils down to whether you are in the right, in the view of the court. If you are, and they feel the retailer should have replaced the card or offered a "fair" value and didn't, then the engineering costs are only incurred because they didn't live up to their obligations, so it's only "fair" that they pay them.

It's just that there's no guarantees. If you choose to take the route of court action, that might well imply an engineering report. If the court then finds against you, the implication is that the retailer acted fairly and met it's obligations. Why should they then have to pay for the report? If that were the case, you'd have nothing to lose by commissioning the report.

So while you're likely to have to bear the burden of time and effort incurred (because you're not likely to get paid for those), expenses incurred are another thing. You take the risk that they won't be reimbursed, but if you win, it's likely they will. Oh, and even on the aspect of time, if you incur costs in terms of lost wages for the day you go to court, it is certainly in the remit of the court to reimburse you for that, and if they think the other side are unreasonable it does happen. And they do, for a certainty, do it when they feel it's justified

This whole process is about a fair balance. The courts should ensure you don't get "shafted" ..... but that doesn't mean you'll get everything you want, or that they'll agree with your view of what "shafted" consists of.

[Saracen]

So in esscence it IS the retailer/e-tailer's responsibilty to follow through with the manufacturers warranty? and deal with it as the company that sold the product, even though all SCAN would do in the event of a problem arising is send the card off to XFX for testing and analysis?

Nope.

You have a choice of either opting to use any warranty offered, on of using your legal rights. And, opting for the warranty doesn't mean you can't still fall back on legal rights.

If you go down the legal rights route, it's almost entirely with the retailer. The exception to that is that a few years ago, the law changed to make manufacturers legally liable for any warranty they offer. Prior to that, the rule was that only a party to a contract can sue over the contract, and that as you don't have a contract with the manufacturer, you have no legal recourse against them. That changed, however, and it's now held that if there is a warranty and you knew about it then that might be what influenced you to buy the product, and that therefore there's an implicit contract with the manufacturer as a result, and that it's enforceable.

But .... you get what the warranty offers.

If the terms of the warranty are that the consumer goes to the retailer, and the retailer deals with the manufacturer, then that's what you'd do. It might be, for instance, that part of the contract between manufacturer and retailer is that the retailer acts as first line support, and a clearing house for issues, because the manufacturer doesn't have the resources to deal direct with the consumer.

On the other hand, another manufacturer might stipulate that faulty goods are to be returned to them, at the consumer's expense.

Bear in mind, these warranties can only ever offer alternatives to your legal rights, and can't reduce your legal rights. Going down the warranty route might be better, in some circumstances, but you can always decline to do that and rely on your consumer rights, if you wish, and if you do, it's with the retailer.

As for the situation with Scan and XFX, I've no idea. It could be direct to XFX, or it could be via Scan.

so as long as you keep hold of recipts you can go back to the place of purchase in the event of a fault occuring from anything other than fair wear and tear, for up to 6 years?

Not quite. You don't, strictly, need the receipt, though it'll certainly be likely to make things much easier. You are likely to need proof of purchase, though, and the recipt is likely to be the easiest way to do that. But, if you can prove the contract exists another way, the receipt isn't technically necessary. It's still a damn good idea to keep them, though.

As for the six years, yes and no. In England and Wales (slightly different basis and time limits are used in Scotland), you generally can't sue on a contract after 6 years, according to the Limitations Act 1980. There are a few exceptions to that, but they're fairly obscure. And that's where the six years comes from. It's simply a bar to legal proceedings after that.

It does NOT mean that all goods are expected to last six years.

All goods will have a "reasonable" lifetime. but exactly how long that is is something that will be decided by a court on a case-by-case basis. The Consumer Association (Which?) give some guidelines that are suggestive, but not binding.

How long, for instance, would you expect a banana to last, and how long a TV or car? There's not much point suing over a banana after two years. I suspect you'd lose.

So IF you can establish that a product had a fault that was inherent at the time of sale, then you're entitled to redress because the goods weren't up to spec when sold, i.e. in legalese, didn't conform to contract. But how much redress?

The basic guide will be the value of the goods, less an amount for any use you've derived before they failed. Exactly how a court interprets that varies, but the "use" value is likely to be pro-rata to their assessment of expected life. If they feel a TV should last 8 years, and it died after 3, you've had 3/8ths of the value you were entitled to expect when you bought the TV, so (other factors being equal), have lost out to the extent of 5/8ths of what you paid. What they do if the price of TVs, or graphics cards for that matter, has gone either up or done a lot in the meantime will vary.

even though the retailer is just an outlet for the product and is in no means connected to the production of the items (in most cases), which lies wholly on the manufacturers side of the wall, therefore any fault which occurs through faulty workmanship is the problem with the manufacturer and not the e-tailer surely?

Yes. If there's a breach of contract between retailer and consumer because of nonconformity with contract, there's also likely to be one between retailer and manufacturer, and it's for the retailer to worry about the manufacturer, not you. It's one of the implications of being in business as a retailer - make sure you have some contractual cover, or be prepared to absorb an element of losses out of your profits.

After all, the nature of a consumer contract is different from a business to business one. Think about it ......

The consumer wants the product to enjoy the benefits the product confers. The exchange is money for those benefits. There is, by definition,no profit motive for the consumer.

The retailer, on the other hand, sees goods come in from one place and go out to another at a higher price. The sole point of the exercise is profit. So, if it goes wrong, it's only right that the retailer either has protected themselves against the risk and deals with the manufacturer, or takes the profit hit if it isn't worth pursuing it.

Also implicit in that is that if too many products turn up faulty from a given manufacturer, the retailer has an incentive to consider changing manufacturers. Therefore, the manufacturer has an incentive to keep product quality high, or they won't be able to find a retailer that will take their products.

A classic example .... and the bane of most online retailers lives .... couriers. If you get screwed around too much by a given courier, change courier firm. And if you find a good one, work with them to keep service as good as possible .... and accept that nothing's perfect, and in the world of couriers, it certainly is far from perfect.

Of course we, the public, are largely responsible for poor courier service.

How many people are after free shipping from Scan, as opposed to paying, what, £7 or £8 for many items. Well, if we were prepared to pay (without whining) £30, maybe we'd get a Rolls Royce service, not a cheap, cut-throat one. But, by and large, we aren't. On the one hand, we bitch at firms about delivery costs and jump of free shipping offers, but on the other hand, we expect a first class service. Not gonna happen.

While it's certainly not the case that paying for top class service necessarily means you will get it, it's pretty much a given that paying for budget service guarantees you won't get top class service.

And that, to be honest, is why I'm so impressed (the vast majority of the time) with what I see of Scan. Their prices, most of the time, are at least competitive, and in a market with cut-throat competition. Perhaps not always the cheapest, but usually there or thereabouts.

They do, however, usually seem to go above and beyond with customer service. Naturally, not everyone ends up happy. That would be a miracle tantamount to the Second Coming. But, overall, they seem to offer a service far better than I would expect from a mail-order mass-market outlet.

[Louise Galletly]

Hi everyone
A final comment about our experience with Scan: we had a phonecall from Wesley on Monday morning. He told us that an alternative card had come in 'this morning' which he could offer us in replacement for the original failed 7900 GT. It's a Leadtek 7950 GT, worth around £140 on the net and with a similar if not higher spec. My son discussed it with our IT expert and they agreed it would be a good replacement card. Wesley made it clear that, because our other card was near the end of its warranty, Scan would only offer 30 days on this one. I made it clear that that wouldn't stop me from pursuing my statutory rights if this one fails within a reasonable time span.
So - the moral of the story is : publicise your story on the forum and get some action. It would seem that no amount of reasonable discussion and explanation of consumer rights could have quite the same effect. Shame but there you are.
I owe you all a huge debt of thanks - for your intelligent comments, your huge knowledge and your interest in one boy's situation.
Louise
PS Particular thanks are owed to notmyIP.

[wesleyaldred]

Louise

First of all your posts here on Hexus had absolutely no bearing on the solution achieved yesterday, had the card from Leadtek not arrived at our offices yesterday then the original solution provided would still stand. Let me reassure you that Scan Computers will always work to achieve the best solution for the customer wherever we can, however, ultimately we stand by our original decision and as I say this outcome was achieved by ONE card arriving from Leadtek into our offices yesterday.

I have received a cheque for repayment of the refund already provided, this will need to clear before we can ship the replacement, alternatively if you wish to process this by card instead we can get the item shipped immediately and the cheque destroyed and returned to yourself.

Please advise before the close of business today failing which I will proceed with banking the cheque.

Wesley

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Scan are pretty good at dealing with customers.i had an issue wiith a sound card(creative ) and the lads from scan dealt with it nice and smoothly

[Louise Galletly]

Wesley
Please go ahead and process the cheque - the reason I returned that amount was that it was not a suitable resolution to the problem. A little more co-operation and straight dealing early on would have saved everyone a lot of hassle.

However we are now satisfied with the outcome on this occasion.

Louise

[akaneria]

Wesley
Please go ahead and process the cheque - the reason I returned that amount was that it was not a suitable resolution to the problem. A little more co-operation and straight dealing early on would have saved everyone a lot of hassle.

However we are now satisfied with the outcome on this occasion.

Louise

hi louise you are very lucky that second hand card came in, otherwise you would have been stuck with a £25 credit. With regard to my situation, i was only offered £35, but a similar card newer version (8600gts) was £50, so the overall amount i paid was £17.

[EzyRyder]

Well, very lucky or not, I think Louise could have pursued this through Trading Standards and based on what it has been here and my own experience I think she would have probably got something more.

[akaneria]

how would you persue it through trading standards, i was told they only persue it if there are a significant amount of complaints. They note the comments but dont do anyting
Well so far counting its x2 only!

[not_my_ip]

It is very good to see that this case was solved. I read Wesley's post, that Louise was lucky that's this card came back in stock - what can I say - very convenient. I still think that solution by giving partial refund is not fair for customer. Louise was lucky, but what about other customers who would have similar problem.
I will ask again - why bother to buy cards with unlimited or very long warranties, if such card go wrong after 5 years - customer will get few quid to replace it - which would be impossible. Not everyone can afford to change GPU every 2 years.
If I buy a decent graphic card, lets say newest 280 - pay for it around £300 - ofcourse in time price would go down - and lets say this card would be from BFG. After 3 years card stop to work and can't be repaired.
Of course this card will be eol - customer will get £20 and thats it?
Can some one from scan throw some light on this theoretical situation?

Sorry Louise for hijacking your topic

[wesleyaldred]

Louise

Thank You for your post confirming your satisfaction with the final outcome.

I would like to take the time to explain fully the procedure involved and the fact that neither XFX nor SCAN Computers have acted inappropriately.

Please allow me to clarify the graphics card you originally purchased back in May 2006 achieved an average of 5411 marks in the 3D benchmark program 3D Mark 06. A new card for sale on our website today that is of comparative performance would be a 256mb XFX 8600GT which including VAT would be £42.14 a difference of just £12.76 from the refund amount provided, so in actual fact your losses for almost 2 years usage of a graphics card would have been just £12.76 including the VAT.

I do not believe that an extra payment from yourself of £12.76 would have been unjustified considering you had almost 24 months usage from the original card.

I certainly remain in the belief that the amount originally provided to you by XFX and indeed Scan Computers was fair when the above facts are taken into account.

In correspondence from yourself and indeed here on Hexus you have clearly failed to explore all of the avenues that were available to you before passing negative judgement against both XFX & Scan Computers on how unfair we were being. Indeed with this information you can clearly see that what was being offered would have enabled you to purchase a brand new card with a new FULL warranty for very little extra payment, you would then have had a brand new graphics card that was comparable in performance to the card you originally had almost the full 24 months benefit from.

Scan's decision to supply you with a 7950GT was based completely on warranty stock of the said card arriving into our offices on Monday 21st, whether or not you choose to believe this. This decision was arrived at in the interest of customer relations again whether or not you choose to believe this is pretty irrelevant, however, those are the facts.

This decision shows that not only have we acted in good faith but we have also upgraded you slightly; all of this even though you had 23 months and 3 weeks benefit from the original item.

I hope the above addresses your point of Scan being open and honest and allow the facts here to be shown in a clear and fully open manner.

Kindest Regards

Wesley Aldred
Returns Manager

[wesleyaldred]

It is very good to see that this case was solved. I read Wesley's post, that Louise was lucky that's this card came back in stock - what can I say - very convenient. I still think that solution by giving partial refund is not fair for customer. Louise was lucky, but what about other customers who would have similar problem.
I will ask again - why bother to buy cards with unlimited or very long warranties, if such card go wrong after 5 years - customer will get few quid to replace it - which would be impossible. Not everyone can afford to change GPU every 2 years.
If I buy a decent graphic card, lets say newest 280 - pay for it around £300 - ofcourse in time price would go down - and lets say this card would be from BFG. After 3 years card stop to work and can't be repaired.
Of course this card will be eol - customer will get £20 and thats it?
Can some one from scan throw some light on this theoretical situation?

Sorry Louise for hijacking your topic

Each and every case would be handled on its own merits individually I cannot comment on a theoretical situation.

[rabbid]

"why bother to buy cards with unlimited or very long warranties"

Indeed, I think more accurately "why bother to pay more", unless the manufacturer has explicit swapout or replacement details. However it is still better to get something rather than nothing after 12 months usage should it fail.

IMO XFX should have stood up and offered an 8600GT as replacement in this case to promote their fading image of warranty dealings, otherwise offer a shorter warranty term in the first place if they cant back it up and consequently charge less for the product.

[rabbid]

"I still think that solution by giving partial refund is not fair for customer"

It is provided for under law, and as long as the amount is reasonable then its ok, however when an item is still under a warranty period I believe there should be more onus on repair or more likely replacement with equivalent performance product.

The OP got lucky in this instance that Scan offered a better card. So well done Scan for cleaning up XFX's mess.

[Blitzen]

"I still think that solution by giving partial refund is not fair for customer"

It is provided for under law, and as long as the amount is reasonable then its ok, however when an item is still under a warranty period I believe there should be more onus on repair or more likely replacement with equivalent performance product.

The OP got lucky in this instance that Scan offered a better card. So well done Scan for cleaning up XFX's mess.

A repair on a sub £50 card just sint worth anyones while.
It would cost half of that just to ship it to and from the repair shop and then to ship to and from the customer.

TBH.....the 7950 is actually and UPGRADE so the customer, in this instance, actually got a pretty good deal.

[nutter998]

Louise

Thank You for your post confirming your satisfaction with the final outcome.

I would like to take the time to explain fully the procedure involved and the fact that neither XFX nor SCAN Computers have acted inappropriately.

Please allow me to clarify the graphics card you originally purchased back in May 2006 achieved an average of 5411 marks in the 3D benchmark program 3D Mark 06. A new card for sale on our website today that is of comparative performance would be a 256mb XFX 8600GT which including VAT would be £42.14 a difference of just £12.76 from the refund amount provided, so in actual fact your losses for almost 2 years usage of a graphics card would have been just £12.76 including the VAT.

I do not believe that an extra payment from yourself of £12.76 would have been unjustified considering you had almost 24 months usage from the original card.

I certainly remain in the belief that the amount originally provided to you by XFX and indeed Scan Computers was fair when the above facts are taken into account.

In correspondence from yourself and indeed here on Hexus you have clearly failed to explore all of the avenues that were available to you before passing negative judgement against both XFX & Scan Computers on how unfair we were being. Indeed with this information you can clearly see that what was being offered would have enabled you to purchase a brand new card with a new FULL warranty for very little extra payment, you would then have had a brand new graphics card that was comparable in performance to the card you originally had almost the full 24 months benefit from.

Scan's decision to supply you with a 7950GT was based completely on warranty stock of the said card arriving into our offices on Monday 21st, whether or not you choose to believe this. This decision was arrived at in the interest of customer relations again whether or not you choose to believe this is pretty irrelevant, however, those are the facts.

This decision shows that not only have we acted in good faith but we have also upgraded you slightly; all of this even though you had 23 months and 3 weeks benefit from the original item.

I hope the above addresses your point of Scan being open and honest and allow the facts here to be shown in a clear and fully open manner.

Kindest Regards

Wesley Aldred
Returns Manager

This post makes a lot of sense - as a matter of interest, what was XFX's take on the card? A lot of manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure that consumers get a good deal (Logitech being one example), even after any warranty period has expired.