SCAN bad for RMA's?

[atmadden]

I find that disclaimer amazing to be honest! I can understand that they have to send off to ASUS for a 2nd opinion if it could possibly be contenious. But until they have this decision why should he have to sign something to say he has accpeted its been rejected when by your own admission you are unsure whats happened. This rma should still be in progress until asus reply and this disclaimer should be scrapped. I am disturbed by this and would NEVER EVER shop with scan again if this had happened to me as it seems very unfair. Basically after reading this and some of the graphics cards returns warranties are totally worthless.

I work as a home insurance claims handler and one of the things we are governed by is FSA and treating customers fairly is a major part of that. I am of the opinion that this person has not been treated fairly he should not have to sign that disclaimer and should have been kept better informed.

[Disturbedguy]

He has to sign the form to ackknowledge that he has heard from SCAN, that they have rejected the item, which is the case.

[Saracen]

I find that disclaimer amazing to be honest! I can understand that they have to send off to ASUS for a 2nd opinion if it could possibly be contenious. But until they have this decision why should he have to sign something to say he has accpeted its been rejected when by your own admission you are unsure whats happened. This rma should still be in progress until asus reply and this disclaimer should be scrapped. I am disturbed by this and would NEVER EVER shop with scan again if this had happened to me as it seems very unfair. Basically after reading this and some of the graphics cards returns warranties are totally worthless.

I work as a home insurance claims handler and one of the things we are governed by is FSA and treating customers fairly is a major part of that. I am of the opinion that this person has not been treated fairly he should not have to sign that disclaimer and should have been kept better informed.

It's not a waiver stating that the customer accepts that the rejection was correct, or that he's giving away any rights. It's a waiver giving permission for Scan to send a board THEY regard as rejected to Asus.

As such Scan Computers cannot take any further direct action in providing a replacement unit at this time. Normal procedures would leave us with no alternative but to reject your warranty and take no further action.

However, as a company with a high priority in Customer Service it has been agreed with a line manager to return the item directly to the relevant manufacturer on your behalf in an attempt to source a replacement.

In doing so we have to make clear this is NOT an acceptance of fault or guarantee that we will be successful in obtaining a replacement for you, we will try our best for you, acting above and beyond our normal operating procedures, we will do this as quickly and as swiftly as we possible can, however, no timeframe can be guaranteed.

As such we need you to sign the agreement form below, which acts as your acceptance to this action.

*Delete as appropriate


Customer Name________________________Inv No.__________________

I confirm that I agree to the above action being taken by Scan Computers, I understand this action is NOT a guarantee that Scan Computers will be successful in obtaining a replacement and I agree no guaranteed timeframe for this action can be given, however, I understand you will work to resolve this as quickly as possible

It's not removing any rights from the buyer, and it's not accepting Scan's rejection. He could still contest that.

All Scan are saying, as I read it, is that they could send it to Asus on the buyer's behalf, for a 2nd opinion to see if they'll replace it, but they need permission to do that.

Scan are trying to help, and are going beyond their legal obligations in doing so, but they need his permission to send HIS board to Asus. On the other hand, the consumer doesn't have to sign it, in which case, the board will be returned to him and he could pursue a manufacturer warranty himself if he wishes.

He's got a choice - give permission for the board to be sent to Asus, or not. It's his call, and I can't see how he's signing away ANYTHING in that waiver. It's just permission for Scan to send the board on and acceptance that by doing so, they aren't incurring any ADDITIONAL liability. He can still pursue Scan and argue his Sale of Goods Act right, regardless of that waiver. I can't see how he's any worse off, other than that the board goes to Asus and itr may take time. Perhaps he'd rather have the board back that spend that time? Scan can't just send his property off without permission.

I don't see the problem with this waiver. Either agree and it goes to Asus, or don't and it goes back to the buyer.

[mayhem]

To Op

No offense matei have been Building Pcs for god knows how long now and been using scan for many years. What they are doing is correct and good all though ive never seen a disclaimer before but sounds like there covering there ass as any reasonable and active company would do.

Op you are pulling things out of proportions and making the matter worse. I am impressed with scan whom on here have been 99% of the time very respectful and understanding to 99% of customers. If you do not what to let scan do there job properly i suggest you by pass them and send it directly back to asus on your own merit and see what happens. I presume scan as a company will try there best and will have a better relationship with the manufactures than your self and will there for gain a better response from them.

Mistakes or bad representatives may have worked for scan in the past and yes no one is perfect but don't linger on the past and try to keep things as civil as possible. If your not happy with the out come once the issue has been resolved then take your time and comment on it. There is no point finger pointing till the issue is resolved.

remember 1 thing scan did not make the board asus did. Let them do there job as quickly as possible for your self and sit back and be patent.

I have had many RMA's in the past with scan my self and all so with other company's. It all ways takes time to resolve the rma's and throwing accusations around certainly doesn't help in resolving any issues and if any thing it makes it take longer to achieve a outcome.

Personly most of the time i by pass the seller / 3rd party and RMA back directly to the manufactures. P.s Asus are a nightmare to deal with and i have had to wait up to 3 months for a board / VGA card to come back.

[firsttimebuyer]

It's not a waiver stating that the customer accepts that the rejection was correct, or that he's giving away any rights. It's a waiver giving permission for Scan to send a board THEY regard as rejected to Asus.

It's not removing any rights from the buyer, and it's not accepting Scan's rejection. He could still contest that.

All Scan are saying, as I read it, is that they could send it to Asus on the buyer's behalf, for a 2nd opinion to see if they'll replace it, but they need permission to do that.

Scan are trying to help, and are going beyond their legal obligations in doing so, but they need his permission to send HIS board to Asus. On the other hand, the consumer doesn't have to sign it, in which case, the board will be returned to him and he could pursue a manufacturer warranty himself if he wishes.

He's got a choice - give permission for the board to be sent to Asus, or not. It's his call, and I can't see how he's signing away ANYTHING in that waiver. It's just permission for Scan to send the board on and acceptance that by doing so, they aren't incurring any ADDITIONAL liability. He can still pursue Scan and argue his Sale of Goods Act right, regardless of that waiver. I can't see how he's any worse off, other than that the board goes to Asus and itr may take time. Perhaps he'd rather have the board back that spend that time? Scan can't just send his property off without permission.

I don't see the problem with this waiver. Either agree and it goes to Asus, or don't and it goes back to the buyer.

Your obviously clued up on all this legal mumbo jumbo but if all its asking me to do is allow them to send it to ASUS for a second opinion, why does it not just say that for gods sake, yet again things are harder and more complicated than they need to be.

I am not that clued up on the legal side of it and this waiver scared the cr*p out of me, but i will take your word for it that all this is saying that i am giving SCAN permission to send it to ASUS for a second opinion.

I would like to know whats SCANs actual opinion is, do they want ASUS to verify its down to a faulty component or do the want ASUS to confirm this one done due to outside forces (example: me damaging it accidentally or on purpose). By the waiver or whatever they need me to sign it seems they are actually just flat out rejecting it because they think i have damaged it and they are "doing me a favour" by sending it to ASUS who will hopefully see it differently but then i am not clued up on all this legal mumbo-jumbo.

Anyway i signed the thing and i am past caring about this now. I bet SCAN has not learnt anything by this either, other than yet again they were right (like the automated system, they admitted the email that was sent stating that i was on the "replacement / credit" stage was sent in error/by mistake but will they make sure that does not happen again?)

Hopefully ASUS will honor the warranty, i hope they dont try and take an easy out.

[Saracen]

......

I would like to know whats SCANs actual opinion is, do they want ASUS to verify its down to a faulty component or do the want ASUS to confirm this one done due to outside forces (example: me damaging it accidentally or on purpose). By the waiver or whatever they need me to sign it seems they are actually just flat out rejecting it because they think i have damaged it and they are "doing me a favour" by sending it to ASUS who will hopefully see it differently but then i am not clued up on all this legal mumbo-jumbo. .....

Well, the way it reads to me is that Scan are rejecting the warranty claim. But they're not saying they think you damaged it, just that it's damaged. I can't see anything suggesting how the damage occurred - merely that there was damage. Presumably, that's the burnt chip.

The question is .... how did that damage occur? It could have been something you did (and Scan have no way to know), or it could have been an outside factor, like that mains spike I mentioned before, or it could have been a component failure, such as a voltage regulator I mentioned.

But I think to see what Scan's position is, you have to understand some of the legal mumbo jumbo. When you, as a consumer, buy ANY product, you get a certain amount of protection from the shop, a certain amount from your statutory rights (mainly against the shop), and you might get some from the manufacturer.

Many people believe that they're covered for any problems with goods within the first 12 months, and are entitled to a replacement or a refund. But they're wrong.

As a consumer, we all get basic statutory rights ... i.e. rights given by statute, that is, law. Retailers cannot duck out of those ... and might be committing an offence if they try. But those statutory rights require that whatever the fault was with goods was something that existed when you bought them. That fault doesn't need to be obvious when you bought them, but it must exist. So, it may be something that only becomes obvious after time has passed. Suppose you bought a car and a body panel wasn't properly rust-proofed. It might be that it was months, maybe a couple of years, before the rust ate through from the inside and became visible from the outside, but it did so because it wasn't properly treated in manufacture and therefore the problem existed at the time of sale, even though it wasn't clear.

That's the problem with this mobo, from the look of it. We know it failed, and we know there's physical damage. The question is ..... what caused the damage?

If it was something inherent in the mobo, like a design fault, you're covered by those rights and Scan will have to replace it. If it was something you did, or something like a mains power surge, you're not covered and Scan won't have to replace it.

And it gets even more tricky when we start to consider sub-standard components. It might be that the fault is with a component that worked for a while, but was sub-standard. Way back in the '80s, I bought a Dell PC that was hopeless at keeping time. The system clock was hopelessly inefficient. One of the uses that machine was put to was keeping a transmitter log for a radio station, and as such, I was under a legal duty to keep certain accurate records, and the logging program wasn't accurate if the PC clock wasn't accurate.

Dell tried this fix, that fix and the other fix and nothing worked. They replaced the BIOS, IIRC, three times. They had the machine back a couple of times and replaced the motherboard. Eventually, I was told that the problem was down to a handful of components (a couple of capacitors and a crystal, IIRC) that were sub-standard and would have to be sourced from the USA. This was taking forever, and eventually, Dell just replaced the entire machine (and upgraded it from a 286 to a 386, more RAM and a bigger HD in the process). That problem was simply that those components were sun-standard. They worked, in that the machine ran. It just couldn't keep time, and we're talking about erratic errors of between minutes and up to an hour a DAY.

It took a lot of hunting down, and took about 18 months to resolve but eventually, resolve it they did.


So, when you have a problem, the first thing to remember is that whether you're entitled to insist on the shop doing ANYTHING will depend on the nature of the problem. Only if it's a fault that existed at the time of sale do you have any Sale of Goods Act rights in relation to that fault. If it's fair wear and tear, or damage caused by you or outside factors, there's no liability.

In addition to any legal rights, you might have a warranty/guarantee either from the shop, or the manufacturer. But if you do, those warrantys/guarantees will have conditions, and exclusions of what they don't cover, and nearly always (or absolutely always) it'll exclude accidental or deliberate damage. If such a warranty exists, you can probably legally enforce it, but only up to the level of cover it offers.

So, coming back to your board, you have several possible routes :-

- legal rights
- supplier warranty
- manufacturer warranty.

If the problem with the board is damage not caused by something that existed when you bought it, i.e. the damage isn't caused by a component failure, you aren't going to be covered either by legal rights or almost certainly by warranty. But it's not always easy to prove what caused damage.

The way the law stands, the default situation is that it's for you to prove the damage was caused by something inherent. Until a few years ago, that applied from day 1. But now, the burden of proof is reversed for the first 6 months, and during that time, statute specifies that the presumption is that the cause was inherent unless the supplier can prove it was not. But after 6 months, that reversal of the burden of proof disappears and it's going to be down to you to prove what caused the damage, and that, effectively, it was a faulty or substandard component. And, if you can't prove it, then I'm afraid you have no right to insist on replacement. If you KNOW that you didn't do anything to cause the problem that can be highly infuriating, but it's not Scan's fault - it's the law of the land.

Given that you've had the board way more than 6 months, then unless you can prove that the problem occurred within the 6 months (and the easiest way is to have reported it within 6 months but you can report it later than that if you can prove it happened within 6 months) the burden of proof is on you.

So, with any retailer, if you have a problem with a product, they're likely to want to take a look at the product to see what's gone wrong. Sometimes, it'll be obvious it was an inherent fault. Sometimes it won't be obvious but will be likely, and retailers may well then just replace it on a goodwill basis even if they could, legally, justify rejecting it and letting you prove them wrong. The older the product, the less likely that is.

And sometimes they'll just decline to replace it if it appears likely to not be an inherent fault. That appears to be what's happened here. It looks like that's the conclusion Scan have come to, though as I say, I have nothing to do with Scan so it's just an assumption from what I read here.

But whatever the reason, they've rejected the warranty claim and, clearly, rejected that they have any sale of goods act liability either. That they offer to send it to Asus, however, suggests that they want Asus' expert opinion on it, presumably to see if Asus have other ideas about the nature of the failure.

In any event of this type, if the buyer and the retailer can't reach agreement, the ultimate solution is that it goes to court. If you are adamant that you've done nothing to cause the problem, and if you're sure it can't be anything else (like that mains spike, etc) then the inference is that the fault must be inherent. If you stick to that position, and insist Scan replace it, and if they stick to their position and refuse to replace it, then ultimately the ONLY way to resolve it is to take it to court and let the judge decide. But, as it's more than 6 months old, if you do that, you have to be able to prove (on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt) that you're right and it's an inherent fault. An independent engineer's report identifying a design fault might do it, as might such a report identifying components that, perhaps, weren't rated highly enough for the use they were put to, or a known bad batch of components. But if you can't prove that, you'll lose.

And that seems to be where this is at. Scan have already rejected the warranty claim. That's what that note says.

As such Scan Computers cannot take any further direct action in providing a replacement unit at this time. Normal procedures would leave us with no alternative but to reject your warranty and take no further action.

Now, you can fight that. You can try to convince them of why that assessment is wrong. If you have a good enough argument, it may work. You can negotiate with them, though how far you'll get depends on what they feel about the physical damage, I suspect. And if all else fails, you can take legal action. I can't see how that disclaimer in any way prevents you from disputing their conclusion about damage or how it was caused, or that it stops you doing that.

That's why I say I can't see how it does you any harm. I can't see how it can be construed as you in any way waiving such rights to take it further. But what it does do is give Scan permission to send the board on to Asus for their opinion. And, given that it presumably has an Asus warranty, then if Asus conclude that the fault was with component failure, etc, then presumably they'll tell Scan that and a replacement board would be forthcoming.

But bear in mind that Scan are piggy in the middle here. If Asus confirm that in their view it's not component failure, then if Scan replaced the board for you, and then Asus refused to do so for Scan, Scan have lost out. Of course, as retailers, that's always a possibility and their liability to you does NOT depend on them being able to get their costs recovered from Asus. If you have a valid claim, then you have a valid claim and whether Scan or Asus get the bill is their problem, and not yours. Scan can't dodge their legal responsibility just because they might not get their costs back from Asus.

BUT ..... if they don't actually have any legal liability, and they don't if that damage isn't "inherent", then they will get stuck with the cost if Asus decline to replace the board. So, if they don't have a legal liability, they'll be hesitant to just absorb a cost they aren't legally liable for. And, why should they?


So as I see it, while they're not saying you've damaged the board, from your own description, there's burn damage that appears to be caused by an electrical short. As for what caused it, well I have no idea. It might even have been the original computer "bug" .... a fly or moth shorting out the pins. But if it was, it's not Scan or Asus' liability.

So Scan have rejected the claim, which leaves you with the choice of letting Asus take a look, or of trying to convince Scan why they're wrong to reject it, or trying to convince a court why they were wrong to do so. It seems to me that the best bet is to go along with the Asus route, especially as it doesn't preclude you falling back on the court route if that doesn't work. But if you do opt for the court route, based on what's been said so far, I don't know that I fancy your chances.

I hope that explains a bit more clearly, if at length, what I think appears to be happening.

Hopefully ASUS will honor the warranty, i hope they dont try and take an easy out.

I hope so too. But if they reject it, it isn't necessarily the "easy out". It may just be that it isn't their fault. If it was that moth, or mains spike, for instance, then it isn't their fault. It's not your fault either, but that doesn't make it a warranty issue, I'm afraid.

[bibio]

Hi,all good stuff regards burden of proof etc etc,warranty etc.With regards the issue in question,what caused the failure,the answer might never be known 100%.Unless you can see some actual physical evidence ie its been hit with a hammer,marked with a screwdriver etc etc.Or the failure seems to be happening for a lot of people etc.
Its a fine line how a retailer etc regards warranty,burden of proof etc etc,inherent fault etc,benefit of doubt is a big thing.No retailer wants to be taken as a mug,abused etc.Rightly so.Good customer service/being a mug?Who's right,who's wrong?
But guess what in a lot of cases,customers steer clear of buying from etailers that put most of the burden of proof on the customer(like instances iv'e seen with the well slated etailer on here,not saying its right regards them or in this case).
When peeps read things,who's right or wrong,isn't always the most important thing.
Ones thing for sure nobody likes to think 'Am i feeling lucky',his the person i'm talking to having a good day etc.
But one swallow don't make a summer & whats said,happens in this thread or others,dosn't/wont show the overall picture.


Cheers BOB

[nukeman8]

But guess what in a lot of cases,customers steer clear of buying from etailers that put most of the burden of proof on the customer(like instances iv'e seen with the well slated etailer on here,not saying its right regards them or in this case).

I agree with you mostly just remember thou that only plays apart after so many months (4 was it?)

Maybe change the mumbo jumbo legal wording so its more clear? As to be honest when i read it, it did come across as him signing saying he agrees with scan.

I would be hesitate to buy parts from a company that says i would have to prove the part was faulty when i brought it if it broke after so many months, i cant see it being easy to prove.

Saying that i bet just about if not all companies are the same.

Not having a dig at scan, im most likely to use them for all my parts for my new pc next year but i suppose its just scary when you do read anyones legal mumbo.

(did i read somewhere that if a PSU takes out several parts, the PSU manufacter/where you brought the PSU from doesnt have to pay for the parts its faulty PSU took out?)

[Ferral]

Scan are great guys and they do whatever they can to help you. Yeah, wires can get crossed at times and you end up getting peeved with what is going on but that gets you nowhere at all.

There are a lot of companies out there that do way less than Scan. If you are really unsure as to the forms they have sent you, there is nothing stopping you from contacting Asus yourself. Personally, I would let Scan be the middleman in this one. I have a faulty Asus board myself and trying to get help from their tech support is a bit of a nightmare. I had to call through to Germany and request an English speaking advisor which is easier said than done.

In the end the guys did help me (Cheers again Carl!!! )

Also had major probs with my Sapphire Radeon X1950 Pro prior to my board (Common known fault in design), this was out of the first year warranty and had to be taken up with Sapphire directly. Sapphire wouldn't help. Scan replaced the card for me with a 1950 Gt I think it was and it didn't work in my system so they replaced it a second time with a Nvidia card which I requested (requested Nvidia over ATI) over another ATI card. It took a few weeks to sort out and I was gutted thinking I was being led down the proverbial garden path at the time.

However, I now have different parts in my system and not 1 crash. Yeah it took time to sort (Somewhere round the month mark I think it was in the end, maybe a little longer) but they did get it sorted out for me and were very proffesional about it even though I was extremely irate with them initially.

They do have policy to follow, it is the same with any electronics equipment you may buy. Buy a Phillips TV for example. After the first year it is down to the manufacturer to sort it not the initial place of purchase. Scan have offered to help and send the board to Asus, the problem may be some micro component that requires very specific testing. ASUS are the ones that need to do this, Scan can bench it and test it but if it is something that is not to common a 2nd opinion is always good.

Cut the guys some slack, it may look like they arn't helping but they are. Think about how many RMA's they receive, not forgetting sales and everything else. It just takes a little time and good, clear and concise communication.

[Saracen]

.....

(did i read somewhere that if a PSU takes out several parts, the PSU manufacter/where you brought the PSU from doesnt have to pay for the parts its faulty PSU took out?)

I've certainly seen some suppliers that will try to tell you that. But it isn't true.

If goods don't "conform to contract" when sold, then the supplier is in breach of contract, and they can be liable for losses that result from that breach.

There are two types of losses - direct and indirect. The direct losses would be those that were the direct result of the breach of contract, and in the case of a PSU failure if that failure was a conformity failure, that direct loss would include costs and expenses incurred directly as a result.

You would, however, be expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate such losses. For instance, you'd be expected to give the supplier a reasonable chance to address problems. So if a PSU blows, approach the supplier of the PSU with details of the damage that was done, and given them the opportunity to replace the damaged components rather than just going out and buying new ones before you even tell the supplier, because if you that, you haven't given them a chance to remedy the loss.

Obviously, the problem with the PSU has to be one that the supplier is liable for. So, in the example i mentioned earlier, if the problem was a mains spike, or a moth landing on the wrong place, or if you'd fitted it improperly, of if you'd cut and soldered cables and that was what failed, the supplier isn't liable. It does, as before, come back to WHY the PSU failed. And, in all probability and certainly after 6 months, whether you can prove it or not.

But that direct loss can be a significant liability. Suppose you buy a chip fryer and it turns out that a manufacturing fault caused it to catch fire. You could end up with a serious fire, and you could even end up with your house burned down. And, in extreme cases, you could end up with someone hurt or killed. And the supplier could well be found liable for the costs implied in that. Suppose the person killed was the primary wage-earner in a young family with several kids. The surviving partner can't necessarily work, at least not for years, because of the young kids .... or if they do, they''ll incur heavy childcare costs. And the supplier can end up responsible for that.

That's why anyone in business doing anything that involves this kind of risk is an idiot if they don't have insurance cover for this sort of risk. And I'll bet my pension scan do.

We regularly get threads on Hexus about people wanting to go into business building or fixing PCs. This is one thing they need to take account of too. Suppose you fix a PC for someone (as part of a business), and the component you replaced included a PSU that caught fire. You could find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit like this.

And all that relates to direct loss. On top of that, there's consequential loss. The supplier might be liable for losses incurred that weren't a directly physically caused by the PSU. Suppose, for example, you use the PC for business and can't work without it. You [I]might/I] have a claim against the supplier for losses incurred there, too.

But again, you'd be expected to mitigate any such losses. Contact the supplier immediately, apprise them of the loss and the implications and talk to them about, for example, a loan of a replacement. If they won't, then you might be best off to hire equipment, and then go after them for the hire cost.

But ..... consequential losses like this are a different situation from the direct losses, like other components that got fried by the PSU. Whether you have a claim or not is rather more tentative. For example, you would only have a claim if the supplier knew of or could reasonably predict the consequences of the failure. If you had some special, non-predictable use for the product and the supplier knew nothing of it, then they aren't liable for potential consequences they couldn't have reasonably foreseen. If you had specifically told them of such uses and they therefore could reasonably predict (note, I said "could", not "did") reasonably predict the consequences when they entered the contract, then they could well be liable.

Consequential losses like this are rather trickier to establish, and it's certainly a more complex situation to go after such losses. But it's possible. But direct consequences, like other fried components, they sure are liable IF the loss resulted from a lack of conformity that existed at the time of sale.

[atmadden]

Scan are great guys and they do whatever they can to help you. Yeah, wires can get crossed at times and you end up getting peeved with what is going on but that gets you nowhere at all.

There are a lot of companies out there that do way less than Scan. If you are really unsure as to the forms they have sent you, there is nothing stopping you from contacting Asus yourself. Personally, I would let Scan be the middleman in this one. I have a faulty Asus board myself and trying to get help from their tech support is a bit of a nightmare. I had to call through to Germany and request an English speaking advisor which is easier said than done.

In the end the guys did help me (Cheers again Carl!!! )

Also had major probs with my Sapphire Radeon X1950 Pro prior to my board (Common known fault in design), this was out of the first year warranty and had to be taken up with Sapphire directly. Sapphire wouldn't help. Scan replaced the card for me with a 1950 Gt I think it was and it didn't work in my system so they replaced it a second time with a Nvidia card which I requested (requested Nvidia over ATI) over another ATI card. It took a few weeks to sort out and I was gutted thinking I was being led down the proverbial garden path at the time.

However, I now have different parts in my system and not 1 crash. Yeah it took time to sort (Somewhere round the month mark I think it was in the end, maybe a little longer) but they did get it sorted out for me and were very proffesional about it even though I was extremely irate with them initially.

They do have policy to follow, it is the same with any electronics equipment you may buy. Buy a Phillips TV for example. After the first year it is down to the manufacturer to sort it not the initial place of purchase. Scan have offered to help and send the board to Asus, the problem may be some micro component that requires very specific testing. ASUS are the ones that need to do this, Scan can bench it and test it but if it is something that is not to common a 2nd opinion is always good.

Cut the guys some slack, it may look like they arn't helping but they are. Think about how many RMA's they receive, not forgetting sales and everything else. It just takes a little time and good, clear and concise communication.

I respect your opinion and you are obviously impressed with scans service. However the first paragraph in that disclaimer states they have rejected the RMA but are sending to ASUS as a favour as I read it. I don't see how they have got enough evidence to justify the rejection of the RMA as yet and surely that form he has to sign should just be to give permission to send to ASUS.

Component failure is surely going to be a common RMA and I spend a lot on hardware testing, mainly cpu, motherboard and graphics cards. Basically how are they going to tell when a component fails who is at fault and whether the rma is valid? Surely from the way this is going they will reject every rma of this type?

[firsttimebuyer]

Well i have calmed down now. I am not quite sure why i got into this "debate" but the original post i stand by, thats my experience with SCAN, those things happened. It seemed to me some people were more interested in goading me than trying to calm me down but it might just have been the frame on mind i was in that made me feel this.

I was mostly expecting others to share their stories so maybe SCAN could see that they were going a little wrong in their RMA process, i did not know so many had great dealings with SCAN, thats why i asked. I guess i should have just asked and not put my experience, which did not paint SCAN in a good light.

SCAN could have done a few things better thats all i am saying, i could probably have dealt with the issue better and not reacted the way that i did. I am willing to say i was partially in the wrong and i woke up today thinking, why did it get to me so much. I think it was because for about 3 hours i though the problem had been resolved with a good out come but then i get something saying that well no its been rejected.

I also wont be using warranties, especially Return to Base warranties as a large part of my purchasing decision. It seems after a certain length of time (30 days/6months) they are pretty much useless if the etailer wants them to be.

I just want to point out i have never had a problem with RMA's with any other etailer i use (i wont list them because that would just be lame) but thats why i was kind of surprised at SCAN's actions but then this is probably the first motherboard that had an actual damage component, as far as i know, the last motherboard i sent back would no longer install windows or accept the motherboard drivers, it did not have any sign of damage i could see and was replaced with a day (took another 1 to get to me).

As for the CPU incident that could have been avoided if they just replied to my email saying that it would not be covered by the warranty, instead they said it was a warranty issue, i sent it in, they found the exact problem i described (that they said would be covered by the warranty) but they had now decided that it was not a warranty issue and wanted £10.00-£12.00 to send me my CPU back. They waived the fee but only once i made them realise how ludicrous what they were saying/doing was. I did however get my CPU back totally covered in Thermal paste (however does their testing has obviously never heard of just using a "grain of rice sized" amount). I just want to bring this up again as i think those that are reading this later are missing this point.

it seems SCAN use alot of smoke and mirrors, The disclaimer is saying your warranty has been rejected but it really is just asking if we can send it to the maufacturer. The Rejection is "standard procedure", so it doesnt actually mean its been rejected? you just need to do that to be able to send it to the manufacturer? This is very confusing, unless your Saracen that is.

My apologies to anyone i may have upset or came across rude/badly to.

[Saracen]

Hi,all good stuff regards burden of proof etc etc,warranty etc.With regards the issue in question,what caused the failure,the answer might never be known 100%.Unless you can see some actual physical evidence ie its been hit with a hammer,marked with a screwdriver etc etc.Or the failure seems to be happening for a lot of people etc.

Indeed it may never be 100% known. But legally, it doesn't need to be.

The statutes make clear, the first 6 months, it is presumed to be faulty at time of sale unless the supplier can prove it isn't. After that, it's presumed to not be faulty at time of sale unless the buyer can prove it was.

Even serious criminal cases don't require 100% certainty to be established by "proof". The old (slightly out of favour) phrase used to be "beyond reasonable doubt". Of course, that begs the question of when doubt moves from unreasonable to reasonable. But the criteria certainly wasn't 100% certainty. Never has been.

And cases like this don't have that same degree of proof required, because they're not adversarial between state and individuals. In civil cases like this, it's a case of two parties each maintaining the other is wrong, and the burden of proof is, effectively, the "balance of probability". And that, clearly, is a lot easier to establish.

Its a fine line how a retailer etc regards warranty,burden of proof etc etc,inherent fault etc,benefit of doubt is a big thing.No retailer wants to be taken as a mug,abused etc.Rightly so.Good customer service/being a mug?Who's right,who's wrong?
But guess what in a lot of cases,customers steer clear of buying from etailers that put most of the burden of proof on the customer(like instances iv'e seen with the well slated etailer on here,not saying its right regards them or in this case).
When peeps read things,who's right or wrong,isn't always the most important thing.
Ones thing for sure nobody likes to think 'Am i feeling lucky',his the person i'm talking to having a good day etc.
But one swallow don't make a summer & whats said,happens in this thread or others,dosn't/wont show the overall picture.

Absolutely. There's often a gulf between what companies are required to do and what they actually do. My tailor gives a 3-month warranty on their goods. You buy buy them, and if you aren't happy, send them back. The only exception, IIRC, is that some sale/clearance items are a bit more restricted than that. But they actually include damage caused by customers in that. To quote the MD ...

I wanted my customers to know that any problem would be put right, so if any product let them down (they never do!) they could return it within three months for a refund or replacement. Even claret stains and cigar burns are fine with me!

They're certainly not obliged to replace or refund on products the customer has managed to burn or stain ... though having offered that warranty, I can, of course, legally enforce it! But they do it through goodwill. They believe in their product, they stand by the quality and, clearly, they've made a calculation that not many people would be cheeky enough to return a product with claret stains or cigar burns. And, I imagine, if people abused that too often, they'd simply decline to supply any more.

But what it does achieve is that people like me will order, sight unseen, secure in the knowledge that if it doesn't fit quite right, or I don't like the colour, or I just change my mind, I can send it back within three months. It's a goodwill thing, and though that degree of warranty might be rather exceptional, a lot of companies go a fair bit further than they need to.

I bought some software from PC World a few years aback. It didn't do what I wanted, and I felt that what I wanted was so basic it was reasonable to expect a niche product to do it. So I went back, explained what I wanted to the manager, and he replaced the product with a different brand and told me to bring it back if that didn't do it either. It didn't. I took it back and told him, and he gave me my money back. I was rather surprised at that as I hadn't expected it and, as far as I'm concerned, certainly wasn't legally entitled to it. I should have explained what I specifically wanted before I bought it. But, I explained what I expected and the manager agreed that he'd have expected it to do that too. So, no doubt as a matter of discretion, he refunded opened and installed software! And that's PC World!

That's one of the ways Scan have impressed me. As I said earlier, I've never bought from them (yet), but over he years, have read a LOT of threads on here. Usually, they end up getting resolved to the buyer's satisfaction. Not always, but usually. And of course, they cheerfully let these discussions take place right out in the open for all to see. That alone speaks of a certain confidence in their standards.

So yes, every company has to decide when it's worth going beyond that they're legally obliged to do, for the sake of customer relations and goodwill. I'm a cynic about many online companies. I prefer, generally, to buy locally where I can, and there are few exceptions to that. The tailor I mentioned is one of them, though they've got a couple of branches with 30 mins to an hour of my door, and Scan is another. I haven't bought from them, but I would without hesitation, and there's not many online computer stores that that is true of.

[Saracen]

I respect your opinion and you are obviously impressed with scans service. However the first paragraph in that disclaimer states they have rejected the RMA but are sending to ASUS as a favour as I read it. I don't see how they have got enough evidence to justify the rejection of the RMA as yet and surely that form he has to sign should just be to give permission to send to ASUS.

Component failure is surely going to be a common RMA and I spend a lot on hardware testing, mainly cpu, motherboard and graphics cards. Basically how are they going to tell when a component fails who is at fault and whether the rma is valid? Surely from the way this is going they will reject every rma of this type?

The interesting point, to my mind, is that they clearly don't reject every RMA of this type.

They have the evidence they "need" if there isn't clear evidence that the fault is something inherent at the time of supply. That, whether we like it or not, is the legal position.

But the fact that they don't use that for virtually every RMA that's more than 6 months old speaks volumes. They could reject any RMA over 6 months unless it can be proven to be an inherent fault. But if they did, we'd see a LOT of threads about it. And we don't.

You're right, it's often very hard indeed to tell quite what failed, and even harder to tell why. But after 6 months, if it can't be proven to be an inherent fault, they don't have to replace it or refund. Yet, by and large, they do.

bibio put it well - there's a fine line between legal obligations and customer service. By and large, most of the time, Scan seem to err well on the side of customer service. But there is a line and obviously they felt that the damage on the board on this occasion was too close to, or over, that line. That doesn't mean they're right in that assessment, but technically, it'd be for the buyer to prove they're wrong. However, they say they'll send the board to Asus for an expert assessment. Short of just giving in to every claim they receive, they have to draw the line somewhere. firsttimebuyer is just unlucky that they've drawn it here.

[firsttimebuyer]

The interesting point, to my mind, is that they clearly don't reject every RMA of this type.

They have the evidence they "need" if there isn't clear evidence that the fault is something inherent at the time of supply. That, whether we like it or not, is the legal position.

But the fact that they don't use that for virtually every RMA that's more than 6 months old speaks volumes. They could reject any RMA over 6 months unless it can be proven to be an inherent fault. But if they did, we'd see a LOT of threads about it. And we don't.

You're right, it's often very hard indeed to tell quite what failed, and even harder to tell why. But after 6 months, if it can't be proven to be an inherent fault, they don't have to replace it or refund. Yet, by and large, they do.

bibio put it well - there's a fine line between legal obligations and customer service. By and large, most of the time, Scan seem to err well on the side of customer service. But there is a line and obviously they felt that the damage on the board on this occasion was too close to, or over, that line. That doesn't mean they're right in that assessment, but technically, it'd be for the buyer to prove they're wrong. However, they say they'll send the board to Asus for an expert assessment. Short of just giving in to every claim they receive, they have to draw the line somewhere. firsttimebuyer is just unlucky that they've drawn it here.

So basically what thise tells me is that SCAN is not just wanting a second opinion, they flat out suspect i damaged it? Maybe its because they remember me from the CPU incident? Be nice if SCAN could take a pic and post it on this thread so others could have a look and see if their suspicions are justified.

Just remember the more you try and reassure other customers or potantial customers that SCAN is pretty good for RMA's of this nature and most of the time they go on the side of the Customer (obviously SCAN does not want to lose business due to people getting the wrong idea), the more your making me feel like i am being singled out and treated like i have done something wrong.

So lets just leave it at that, SCAN's great, they always look after their customers, buy from SCAN, i am just "unlucky", ok we get it.

[Saracen]

.....

it seems SCAN use alot of smoke and mirrors, The disclaimer is saying your warranty has been rejected but it really is just asking if we can send it to the maufacturer. The Rejection is "standard procedure", so it doesnt actually mean its been rejected? you just need to do that to be able to send it to the manufacturer? This is very confusing, unless your Saracen that is.

I must admit I thought it was clear. Not terribly well-worded, but clear. It's a bit intimidating if you read it quickly, but if you take it section at a time, it did seem clear to me. I might not have worded it quite that way, but they do have a balance to strike between wording it so that it's clear to read, but also wording it so that it achieves the legal objectives too. And lawyers aren't exactly known for their plain, clear, concise use of English.

The way I read it, ftb, is that Scan have rejected the RMA. It doesn't meet their criteria. But as I said earlier, their guarantee isn't the only thing you can rely on. You can still pursue your legal rights, but it may well involve going to court. Or .... you can see if the manufacturer warranty covers you. And that, it seems to me, is what Scan are saying with that waiver. Scan've rejected the RMA, but the manufacturer might not, and they're prepared to send it to them if you wish. Alternatively, they'll sent it back to you and you could take it up with Asus, or pursue you legal options.

But in any event, it reads to me like Scan's decision is to reject the RMA.

As for a second opinion, well yeah, perhaps. Asus may look at it and decide it's component failure. Or they might justreplace on a goodwill basis. Either way, you'd get a replacement. But I can't see Asus' opinion having much effect on Scan's decision.

If Asus conclude the same way as Scan, it reinforces Scan's decision. And it's hard to see how Asus could say it's a component fault and then refuse to replace the board and leave it to Scan to do so. If Scan had had Asus' opinion already that it was faulty, no doubt Scan would have replaced the board and got it replaced to them by Asus.

In cases where it's clear, or at least within whatever criteria Asus have established, that the board is faulty, Scan will replace because they're covered by Asus. But if Scan replace it when they don't legally have to, and Asus then turn round and reject it when Scan send it to them, Scan pick up the cost. And if the experts assess the board as not having an inherent fault, why should Scan pay to replace it when they're not obliged to? Goodwill only goes so far. In my tailor's case, he's got a very different market and a very different customer demographic. I'd guess he's got a very different margin structure, too. He can afford to offer much more goodwill. But computer component margins are pretty tight, and these days, you really need to be shifting volume to make it worthwhile at all.