Scan/XFX DOA product replacement policy

[Richh]

Have searched around and found a few threads on this, but felt it worth asking the question:

I've had to put one or two RMAs into Scan in the past, and all have, without exception, been dealt with efficiently and almost without exception, by return.

I've recently ordered an XFX graphics card which turned up last Friday, dead on arrival. It was reported as such via the XFX online support system within 12 hours, an RMA was created at Scan on Monday, the card was received back yesterday and confirmed faulty, but I'm now told that replacements "can't" be authorised until the faulty card has been received back by XFX central and confirmed as dead themselves, and that this process is considered reasonable by Scan even it it takes up to 28 days.

Frankly I don't agree, especially in a market that changes as quickly as the graphics card one, and doubly so given both the time of year and the (admittedly negligible) effect of Monday's VAT cut.

While I understand that both supplier and retailer have to protect themselves against abuse of the warranty system, in cases where products are dead out of the box and where Scan have confirmed the fault on the returned product, I don't see justification for any delay in authorising a refund or replacement. It causes aggro for the buyer who naturally wants a functional product, and drains customer goodwill in both Scan and XFX themselves.

Would be interesting to see what others think. Would also be interesting to know what other brands have similar policies in place so we can make informed purchasing decisions in future.

[Jonj1611]

I thought the distance selling act would allow you to return the goods for a refund within a certain time period, which you are within.

Scan shouldnt be sending it off or anything else they should be issuing a refund immediately, bad form Scan.

Jon

[moogle]

Would be interesting to see what others think. Would also be interesting to know what other brands have similar policies in place so we can make informed purchasing decisions in future.

Should ask for a refund, then order another and possibly get a different brand. It's another XFX DOA or faulty card problem I've read of, and if you've seen the stories of people being offered partial refunds when XFX can't fix their own cards or offer a replacement it should make you want to steer clear from them. AFAIK BFG and possibly EVGA will replace your old card with one of equal or greater power. They have a longer RMA lifetime too IIRC.

[Saracen]

I thought the distance selling act would allow you to return the goods for a refund within a certain time period, which you are within. .....

It does, with a few limitations, and IF you cancel the order in the required manner. But returning it under an RMA isn't a DSR order cancellation.

For a DOA product, I'd be very unhappy at being told the manufacturer has to confirm it's dead. The deal is between me and the seller, not the manufacturer.

If that were done to me, I'd immediately use the DSR and cancel the order. And do it in a permanent form (notby phone), and within 7 working days.

I suspect some wires are crossed here, as that doesn't sound like Scan's usual response.


Oh, and I agree with moogle. I'm only going by hearsay, but personally, I've heard too much about XFX to be prepared to buy their stuff.

[Richh]

It does, with a few limitations, and IF you cancel the order in the required manner. But returning it under an RMA isn't a DSR order cancellation.

Thanks guys. Yes, I also suspected the DSR wouldn't directly apply as the product hadn't been rejected as unwanted, it had been installed, if only for as long as it took to discover that it didn't work.

For a DOA product, I'd be very unhappy at being told the manufacturer has to confirm it's dead. The deal is between me and the seller, not the manufacturer.

Exactly, which is why I'm more than a little non-plussed. If this was a high street shop rather than an online one, I'd fully expect to take the duff item back and walk out with a functional replacement, none of this waiting around for the manufacturer and retailer to lick each other first.

As for crossed wires, I had this response from Scan first on the phone this morning, and then when I followed up via email to confirm, got the same again in writing, this time including the comment that they consider 28 days a reasonable time to rectify the situation. I'd post their email up here but I'll go by the old netiquette and refrain from posting private comms in public until/unless someone from Scan replies here first and okays it. Needless to say I've responded to that message privately and am yet to hear anything back.

And yes, this is very much not Scan's usual response, which in some ways makes it more annoying. I got the impression from my telephone chat this morning that this is specific to XFX rather than all suppliers, which is why I asked earlier exactly who else operates the same policy.

Oh, and I agree with moogle. I'm only going by hearsay, but personally, I've heard too much about XFX to be prepared to buy their stuff.

I hear what you're saying - and had seen one or two comments prior to jumping the way I did. However I've had good service from XFX stuff in the past and thus didn't see any reason not to go in the same direction again. It will be interesting to get an answer to my question above about how many other manufacturers Scan operates this particular policy with. If the answer is none, then that tends to tell a story of its own.

[Saracen]

Thanks guys. Yes, I also suspected the DSR wouldn't directly apply as the product hadn't been rejected as unwanted, it had been installed, if only for as long as it took to discover that it didn't work. .... Understood.

What I'd point out though is that if you cancel under the DSR, the right to a refund is unconditional. You are entitled to it, and "as soon as possible and in any event, within 28 days".

You're required to take reasonable care of the product. If the seller considers that installing it and testing isn't reasonable care, they can then sue you through the civil courts ..... after they've refunded. But, providing you comply with the cancellation requirements, relating to how you tell them and the address or addresses you use, the refund is mandatory and not subject to getting the goods back at all, let alone whether you installed them or not.

[moogle]

However I've had good service from XFX stuff in the past and thus didn't see any reason not to go in the same direction again.

Well if it's like that you know what they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it
Sort of applies to this I suppose. If XFX are good for you stick with them until something goes wrong. I always stick to the same sort of manufacturer (providing reviews are good and the product is value for money) until they really mess up. Lets hope XFX fix your card quick for you

Also even though DSR period is the first 7 days, don't forget if the product fails within the 28 days you are entitled to a repair/RMA or full refund (S.o.G.A) should you want to. But if it takes up to 28 days to get it reviewed by XFX that time may have passed, and should you get a replacement and it's still faulty you might not be able to get your refund as I can only assume that time it is in posession of Scan/XFX it would still count during the 28 day period.

[Richh]

What I'd point out though is that if you cancel under the DSR, the right to a refund is unconditional. You are entitled to it, and "as soon as possible and in any event, within 28 days".

It makes me wonder if that latter part is what Scan are relying on. The card was received last Friday afternoon, reported as faulty to XFX later that night, an RMA was raised with Scan first thing Monday, less than one working day after delivery, and the card was back with them yesterday. The 7 working days DSR doesn't even expire until next Tuesday. This is why I don't understand the policy - it's not as though the card has been sitting around or in use for a few weeks.

It'd certainly be good reason not to buy XFX again, assuming the other manufacturers aren't running similar policies.

[Agent]

don't forget if the product fails within the 28 days you are entitled to a repair/RMA or full refund (S.o.G.A) should you want to. But if it takes up to 28 days to get it reviewed by XFX that time may have passed, and should you get a replacement and it's still faulty you might not be able to get your refund as I can only assume that time it is in posession of Scan/XFX it would still count during the 28 day period.

Can you quote / link to where the S.O.G.A says 28days as I am fairly sure this is a myth (although happy to be proved wrong ). My understanding is that the S.O.G.A specially does not state a time-frame and that it must be a "reasonable" amount of time.

"28 days" Is just a commonly used by retailers as I understand it, but ultimately it's would be up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis on what is "reasonable".

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/cons...page38311.html
Seems to back this up:

If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

[Saracen]

Actually, in relation to the DSR, I typed that in a hurry (as I had to go out). I'd just like to point out, the DSR says 30 days, not 28 days.

And Agent is right, the SoGA doesn't specify a time period. It covers too wide a range of situations and leaves it more open to interpretation by the courts than that.

[moogle]

Can you quote / link to where the S.O.G.A says 28days as I am fairly sure this is a myth (although happy to be proved wrong ). My understanding is that the S.O.G.A specially does not state a time-frame and that it must be a "reasonable" amount of time.

"28 days" Is just a commonly used by retailers as I understand it, but ultimately it's would be up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis on what is "reasonable".

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/cons...page38311.html
Seems to back this up:

That's what I was reading on!
You're right the 28 days is Scans timeframe they set that's why I was mentioning it, some others use 30 as well but it's not set in stone. But from what I've read you can request the refund if it's faulty within that period. But can I really ask for a refund if lets say my item breaks down after those 30 days? (Grey areas are annoying huh)
From what I've read I've got to go the RMA/replacement route after that.

[Agent]

But from what I've read you can request the refund if it's faulty within that period. But can I really ask for a refund if lets say my item breaks down after those 30 days? (Grey areas are annoying huh)

Sure you can - you can request what you want, if you get it is another matter though

A retailer could say 'no' to a refund the day after you brought it - the question is, would the courts see this as a "reasonable" time frame? I'd say almost certainly not.

The problem with things like this is that it entirely depends on the situation in question. It's hard to blanket sweep a number (despite what retailers do) on all products that they sell. Having said that, without starting court proceedings there is little more you can do (legally wise) - only the judge can decide if the refund should be given in these situations

[Richh]

Hmmm, no input on this thread from anyone @ Scan this afternoon, despite posts elsewhere since it was started. Hope that changes tomorrow.

Using the DSR as grounds to request a refund could be interesting given that Scan could claim that the product has been opened and is in any case faulty, thus they wouldn't be able to resell it. And of course, I won't be able to return it to Scan, as I, er, don't have it anymore. Doesn't mean that won't be what is said tomorrow though, if no further sense can be made of the situation.

[moogle]

Hmmm, no input on this thread from anyone @ Scan this afternoon, despite posts elsewhere since it was started. Hope that changes tomorrow.

Using the DSR as grounds to request a refund could be interesting given that Scan could claim that the product has been opened and is in any case faulty, thus they wouldn't be able to resell it. And of course, I won't be able to return it to Scan, as I, er, don't have it anymore. Doesn't mean that won't be what is said tomorrow though, if no further sense can be made of the situation.

The Scan guys are probably busy but us 4 discussing it has given your thread some "heat" () I suppose so they'll notice it and would have noticed it anyway

As for no grounds to return under the DSR, even though you've opened it as long as you've treated it well you can request your refund as it seems a very short time for it to fail.

The problem with things like this is that it entirely depends on the situation in question. It's hard to blanket sweep a number (despite what retailers do) on all products that they sell. Having said that, without starting court proceedings there is little more you can do (legally wise) - only the judge can decide if the refund should be given in these situations

Yeah it's a bit annoying we've got to go through hassle to get a refund after that period but I'm thinking it is (current retailers 28-30 days) a fair amount of time to get a refund back (maybe I'm the only one ), just as long as they repair the item or replace it quickly after that period

[Saracen]

....

Using the DSR as grounds to request a refund could be interesting given that Scan could claim that the product has been opened and is in any case faulty, thus they wouldn't be able to resell it. And of course, I won't be able to return it to Scan, as I, er, don't have it anymore. Doesn't mean that won't be what is said tomorrow though, if no further sense can be made of the situation.

The thing is, the DSR does NOT say you can't open the package. Some retailers try to impose that condition, but the DSR doesn't say it.

It says you have a specified period (varies, but usually 7 working days, can be longer if the retailer doesn't provide you with certain mandatory information, and scan do). Given that, and given that some products don't qualify (but it's not relevant in this situation), there's no restriction on the right to cancel. The DSR does NOT say you can't open the goods, and does NOT say you can't test them. It does list 6 specific exceptions to the right to cancel, none of which are relevant here.

Those exceptions are in Reg 13. Regulation 10 says

Subject to regulation 13, if within the cancellation period set out in regulation 11 and 12, the consumer gives a notice of cancellation to the supplier, or any other person previously notified by the supplier to the consumer as a person to whom notice of cancellation may be given, the notice of cancellation shall operate to cancel the contract.

And if you cancel the contract, the refund will be made "as soon as possible and in any case within a period not exceeding 30 days beginning with the day on which the notice of cancellation was given".

Furthermore, that refund will be a FULL refund, subject only to the "direct cost" of them picking up the goods, IF the contract says that cost is the consumers to bear. But that direct cost relates strictly to the costs incurred in collecting the goods IF you don't return them. And even that doesn't apply if you had a right to reject the goods under any other terms of the contract, including ones imposed by laws. And if the goods are DOA, then you can reject them under the Sale of Goods Act and even the cost of collecting them is down to the seller.

This does, of course, all rely on you being a consumer. If you were a business buyer, it's very different. But as a consumer, and as the goods were DOA, :-

- you can cancel
- the DSR does NOT restrict that right to unopened goods
- with faulty goods, you aren't liable for the cost of returning them
- unless there's complications to the contract, that refund includes anything you paid for outbound shipping.

You ARE, however, required to :-

- retain possession of the goods, prior to cancellation, and
- take reasonable care of them,

and after cancellation, :-

- restore them to the supplier in accordance with the regs, and in the meantime, continue to do both of the above ....

... but that's about the extent of your obligations.



So, companies can try to suggest that "take reasonable care" includes not opening them, but that would only work if a court agrees. Written guidance by government departments like the DTI and BERR clearly specifies that a ban on opening goods is NOT what's meant by reasonable care and that sellers cannot impose that limitation. It isn't what the DSR means and is what governments consider unfair in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. While it's the courts that finally decide, the DTI etc are clear that trying to claim that would be struck down.

But even if that was the case, they STILL need to process the refund if you cancel under the DSR, and within that time limit. If they don't, then regardless of the status of the goods, and regardless of whether they've got them back or not, the DSR requires that they MUST process the refund. Period.

If you haven't fulfilled your duty to take care, etc, then they can pursue a claim against you in court .... if they can prove you didn't take reasonable care, etc. But that's for later. The refund must be within 30 days or they're in breach of the DSR.


But this is, I suspect, all academic as I'd be very surprised if Scan let it get anywhere near that state. Nonetheless, if you're not happy about waiting while XFX get and check the board, use the DSR.

[Richh]

The Scan guys are probably busy but us 4 discussing it has given your thread some "heat" () I suppose so they'll notice it and would have noticed it anyway

One would hope, yes. The wider issue is how many brands are affected by the same policy.

As for no grounds to return under the DSR, even though you've opened it as long as you've treated it well you can request your refund as it seems a very short time for it to fail.

It didn't "fail" as much as never work right in the first place. First time I powered the PC up with it, right from POST, the screen was garbled (although this disappeared, and came back again, and disappeared and...), and the card then wouldn't run anything GPU-intensive without crapping out completely. XFX themselves suggested faulty VRAM, and recommended replacing it, which makes Scan's stance seem even more ridiculous.