Query regarding my RMA

[i4000]

Hi There,

I'm hoping someone in Scan can clear up some confusion around my RMA.

I had a problem with an XFX graphics card (9600GT Black Screen of Death) that I raised as a support ticket direct with XFX, I went through some troubleshooting with them and they determined that my grpahics card may be defective and recommended contacting Scan to resolve.

I raised an RMA withScan (RMA 195252) and was asked to return the card, which I promptly did. Over the following days I received a series of emails from Scan:

1. Confirmation of receipt of the card
2. Confirmation that the card had been tested, the fault found and that I was due a credit or replacement
3. Confirmation that I was going to receive a replacement
4. Confirmation that the RMA had been closed

This all took place over the period of a week or so, during which time my PC has been down as I have no graphics card (I'm writing this at work).

Then yesterday I received an email stating that the card had been examined and that there was no fault found.

Could someone have a look at the RMA and let me know what the current status is please?

[Steve A]

I will ask one of the returns guys to take a look for you.

Many Thanks

[i4000]

Thanks Steve

[i4000]

I just read another thread ref. an XFX RMA - http://forums.hexus.net/scan-care-he...ml#post1616024 - could this XFX Policy be the cause? i.e. Scan found the fault, returned the card to XFX who have not been able to replicate it?

*Edit*

Just to let everyone know (because I hate leaving a thread open ended), I spoke to Scan reurns today on the phone and they confirmed that the NFF has come back from XFX despite Scan replicating the fault. XFX are returning the board to Scan who will test it again upon receipt, if the fault has magically fixed itself they will return the card to me, however if the card is still faulty then Scan will supply a replacement. That's good cstomer service in my book, thanks Scan. I'll update this thread when all is resolved.

[i4000]

Well here's an update for everyone to laugh a giggle at

Got my graphics card back today, 3 1/2 weeks after sending it to Scan, slapped it in my system, thought what the heck I'll do a full re-install just to be safe.

Guess what?.......

Fired up WoW, cranked all the graphic settings up, the card managed to run for the grand total of 15 seconds before black screen of death........

To say I'm not impressed is a major understatement.

I'll be on the phone to Scan first thing in the morning, but I'm thinking that getting anywhere with XFX is a waste of time.

[SammEl]

Was it a new GPU or was it your old one fixed?

I have heard so many bad stories about XFX it's crazy, and not just with SCAN.

[i4000]

It's definitely the same card, or at least the serial number is the same.

[i4000]

I've just performed the following additional testing at the request of XFX support:

Replaced my CPU with an old AMD X2 4600+ I had available, and replaced my memory with 2GB (2x1GB) of Corsair XMS2 RAM I had spare. Tried again and was able to replicate the fault within the sub 30 seconds time frame.

As additional info, during the course of this fault I have replace the following:

Replaced my ASUS M2N-E motherboard with a Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4
Replaced my Jeantech Artic 650W PSU with a NorthQ Magic Flex 850W
Replaced my Adaptec 39160 SCSI card with an LSI 3442E-R SAS HBA
Replaced my LVD SCSI drives with SAS drives
Replaced my AMD X2 6400+ with a spare AMD X2 4600+
Replaced my 2x2GB RAM sticks with 2x1GB RAM sticks

The hard disk upgrade was incidental, but timely. All the other replacements are me trying to narrow down the faulty component, the motherboard & PSU are new purchase.

I think we can all agree that, excluding case, fans & DVD drive that's a completely new system.

I have also replicated the fault in a friends PC (twice).

Scan have also tested the card and verified the fault.

Scan, I can't believe your position on this, your solution to me on the phone today:
1. Raise a new support ticket with XFX and ask why they didn't find / fix the fault.
2. Return the card to Scan and we'll go through the whole process of returning to XFX again, which may take another 3 1/2 weeks and may result in the same faulty card being sent back to me.

Now I'm no expert on consumer law, and I really don't want this thread to descend into a slagging match as other XFX threads have, but surely the contract of sale is between myself and Scan? Judging by what I have read, under the SoGA surely all I have to do, as the goods are older than 6 months, is prove to Scan that the goods are faulty due to design or manufacturing defect (aka lack of conformity) and I am then entitled to a repair or replacement from Scan? The fact that Scan have already tested the card and confirmed the fault should mean that Scan automatically repair or replace the card in a timely manner, any dealings between Scan & XFX are really no concern of mine oher than XFX may be the agents of repair. If XFX return the card to Scan stating NFF then Scan should re-test and send the card straight back to them, not me.

[Richh]

Now I'm no expert on consumer law, and I really don't want this thread to descend into a slagging match as other XFX threads have, but surely the contract of sale is between myself and Scan?

Correct. There are no other parties involved in the contract - despite Scan, in practice, attempting to make their responses conditional on the approval of a third party (i.e. XFX themselves). I know what you're saying about slanging matches, but that's unfortunately a chicken and egg situation. The chicken in this case is the fact that Scan freely admit that their policy in respect of XFX RMA/DOAs is (or was last time the question was asked) different to the system they operate for everything else they sell.

If folk repeatedly pointing out the inherent unfairness of this situation constitutes "slagging", then that's a very singular interpretation of the term. Had I been aware, prior to purchasing an XFX card, that this company was treated as a "special case" by Scan, I'd have bought something else, both to minimise my own possible inconvenience, and also on simple principle, because this special arrangement plainly shows two fingers to the Scan customer service commitment.

Judging by what I have read, under the SoGA surely all I have to do, as the goods are older than 6 months, is prove to Scan that the goods are faulty due to design or manufacturing defect (aka lack of conformity) and I am then entitled to a repair or replacement from Scan?

You would think. However, as a Scan employee is quoted as saying in another thread, that would result in them losing money if XFX then refuse to credit them back. Not, of course, am I suggesting that this is a legitimate excuse, but it does give you an idea of their underlying motivation.

The fact that Scan have already tested the card and confirmed the fault should mean that Scan automatically repair or replace the card in a timely manner,

It should. What logically seems to be at the root of this is that Scan have, at some point in the past, encountered a financially significant incidence of situations were they have confirmed an XFX card as faulty (and replaced immediately), but the supplier has subsequently disagreed and refused to credit them.

It would appear that this has repeated often enough to impact Scan's bottom line, to the point where they don't want to stop selling a brand which is heavily advertised (and on which they are presumably making a good mark-up), and thus made a decision to pass the financial risk of the supplier's apparently rather awkward replacement policy onto the consumer.

any dealings between Scan & XFX are really no concern of mine oher than XFX may be the agents of repair. If XFX return the card to Scan stating NFF then Scan should re-test and send the card straight back to them, not me.

You would think. I still fail to understand why, once Scan have acknowledged a product to be faulty, they don't put the customer first and just replace.

As you say, if the supplier argues about it afterwards, or if a particular supplier otherwise imposes business terms on them that leads Scan to be unable to fulfill their "normal" customer service commitment, then they should either convince that supplier of the need to change its policies, or stop selling that brand.

As things stand, Scan customers might be "members of the family" (and that's how the normally excellent customer service makes them feel), but when they have any trouble with an XFX product, they're made to feel like the long-lost illegitimate child. It won't do.

[Saracen]

Correct. There are no other parties involved in the contract - despite Scan, in practice, attempting to make their responses conditional on the approval of a third party (i.e. XFX themselves). I know what you're saying about slanging matches, but that's unfortunately a chicken and egg situation. The chicken in this case is the fact that Scan freely admit that their policy in respect of XFX RMA/DOAs is (or was last time the question was asked) different to the system they operate for everything else they sell.

Actually, that's not quite right.

Yes, the customer has the contract with Scan, and XFX aren't directly a party to that. As a result of that, the Sale of Goods Act liability lies with the retailer, not the manufacturer. It follows that IF Scan are liable under the SoGA, then they are liable regardless of what XFX say.

But ... the law changed a few years ago, and manufacturers are now also legally liable for the warranties they offer. That is now embedded in the contract, so despite not being a direct party to the contract, there is a legal liability on them and it can, if necessary, be enforced via the courts should it come to that.

If folk repeatedly pointing out the inherent unfairness of this situation constitutes "slagging", then that's a very singular interpretation of the term. Had I been aware, prior to purchasing an XFX card, that this company was treated as a "special case" by Scan, I'd have bought something else, both to minimise my own possible inconvenience, .....

I have a lot of sympathy with that. It's why I decided, some time ago, that I wasn't buying [Bany[/B] XFX products. If the situation demonstrably changes, maybe I'll re-evaluate that decision, but not until it has clearly changed. Meantime, I vote with my wallet and buy something with a less well-known propensity for hassle.

You would think. However, as a Scan employee is quoted as saying in another thread, that would result in them losing money if XFX then refuse to credit them back. Not, of course, am I suggesting that this is a legitimate excuse, but it does give you an idea of their underlying motivation.

And, depending on circumstances, that might be a perfectly reasonable stance.

It is certainly the case that you may have a case under the terms of a warranty when you don't have one under your statutory rights, because the two sets of rights are not necessarily the same.

Suppose a warranty offers a 12-month unconditional replacement. I'm not suggesting that this is the case with XFX, as I haven't studied their warranty, but it is the case with some firms. The firm I buy most of my shirts from, for instance, offers a 3-month unconditional replacement/refund warranty. They explicitly state that they want happy customers, so if you return a shirt, for instance, within that period, they will replace/refund on it, regardless of whether it's worn or not, washed or not, or even if you just managed to get port stains or cigar burns on it.

So, if I managed to get a burn on a shirt, I can just return it. I wouldn't, in those circumstances, but I could, because and only because the warranty says I can, and it's legally enforceable, not because of statutory (SoGA) rights.

So, suppose we now have a situation where an XFX card is faulty, but whether you are entitled to a replacement depends on whether the warranty covers it, because your SoGA (etc) rights don't. Like my shirts, it's quite possible that Scan aren't liable (such as fore a product more than 6 months old that you can't prove died because of an inherent fault). But even if Scan aren't liable, then XFX may be.

In that case, Scan can either take the time and effort to return the card to XFX for a warranty claim, or return it to you and tell you to take it up with XFX.

You have to remember that a card merely being faulty does not mean the retailer is liable. Their liability will depend on why it is faulty. It's merely the burden of proof that shifts after 6 months, not the nature of who's liable.

If, therefore, Scan have a card which they confirm is faulty, but which they are either unsure of the reason for the failure, or where they feel the warranty covers you but the SoGA doesn't, then if Scan replace the card and XFX refuse to reimburse them, the Scan lose out in a situation where they may not have been liable in the first place.

The point is that just because Scan's tests confirm the card is faulty, it doesn't mean they are liable. The crunch point is why the card is faulty. If, for instance, your PSU failed and cooked it, or if you'd replaced the cooler and that had failed, or if you'd tried to replace the BIOS with an unsupported unofficial one, or a host of other possibilities, then it may well be that your ONLY recourse would be against XFX, who may also not be liable. Why should Scan pay for that kind of thing?

It should. What logically seems to be at the root of this is that Scan have, at some point in the past, encountered a financially significant incidence of situations were they have confirmed an XFX card as faulty (and replaced immediately), but the supplier has subsequently disagreed and refused to credit them.

It would appear that this has repeated often enough to impact Scan's bottom line, to the point where they don't want to stop selling a brand which is heavily advertised (and on which they are presumably making a good mark-up), and thus made a decision to pass the financial risk of the supplier's apparently rather awkward replacement policy onto the consumer.

You may be right about Scan replacing cards and being burnt as a result. But if so, then their lack of willingness to be burnt again is understandable and, personally, I support it. I don't want to be paying more for what I buy because Scan's overheads have gone up as a result of them ending up paying for things they weren't liable for.

Anyone that's been in retail for longer than a trivial time will tell you that while most people might be perfectly reasonable, there's a percentage that will try it on, lie through their teeth to do it, and there's no easy way to identify who they are. As a result, you end up being somewhat defensive. And why not?

I still fail to understand why, once Scan have acknowledged a product to be faulty, they don't put the customer first and just replace.

Perhaps because Scan aren't necessarily liable just because a card is faulty.

As you say, if the supplier argues about it afterwards, or if a particular supplier otherwise imposes business terms on them that leads Scan to be unable to fulfill their "normal" customer service commitment, then they should either convince that supplier of the need to change its policies, or stop selling that brand.

As things stand, Scan customers might be "members of the family" (and that's how the normally excellent customer service makes them feel), but when they have any trouble with an XFX product, they're made to feel like the long-lost illegitimate child. It won't do.

There may well be people that will buy XFX cards despite all the above, because they want the blend of features that XFX products offer, or because they've read reviews and want that product as a result. That doesn't include me, and as regards XFX, I suspect doesn't include you, but it doesn't mean Scan shouldn't sell to people that want XFX products. If they don't. someone else will, and probably take other business away from Scan off the back of it.

Providing Scan are honouring their legal obligations, then I can't see why they shouldn't sell XFX products. It's up to us, the customers, to decide to not buy XFX rather than to expect Scan to risk paying the cost of replacing cards they aren't obliged to. Bear in mind that if they replace a card out of their own pocket when they shouldn't have, that scraps the profit they made not only on that card but on (if margins are 5&#37, maybe 19 other cards too. No company can do that for long and stay in business, especially in a mail-order business where price competition is lethal and margins tight.