sdmilne
-
Posts
50 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by sdmilne
-
Yes, they did try to collect it today, but I had no idea they were even coming so wasnt prepared. I only agreed to a refund because both companies were refusing a replacement, which is annoying as it would cost me no extra money and Amazon felt it was warranted. So should the suppliers, Reliant really have replaced it as Amazon says and are they acting unlawfully and just hoping I didn't know this? As I still have the tv, if I was actually entitled to replacement, I'd far rather go down that route.
-
Thanks for the reply. What about the issue of neither company being willing to outright replace it and passing the buck to each other. Is one of them lying and shying away from what they should be doing? Amazon seem certain that Reliant should replace it.
-
Last November I bought a Samsung tv from Amazon and it has been great up about 2 weeks ago when a number of faults have developed with it. I spoke to Amazon and went into detail about the problems with it. The person I spoke to said he felt that a replacement tv was the suitable solution and put me in contact with the seller, a business called Reliant Direct to ask for a replacement and to get back in touch with Amazon if they gave me any problems as "Amazon would have my back". Reliant Direct gave a me a very curt and dismissive response. They said that are just the supplier and have no idea why Amazon were putting me in touch with them - Amazon fulfilled the order so as far as they were concerned, it was nothing to do with them now. Upon telling Amazon this, they said that they couldn't give me a replacement as they were merely fulfilling the order for Reliant Direct. All they could offer me was a refund with which I could buy the tv again. The problem there being that the tv was now being sold for around £150 more than I paid for it. Should they not be able to match the price I paid for it, seeing as it the exact same item that I own and that shouldn't even need replaced when it is only 6 months old? Also they claim that Reliant Direct are acting unlawfully and that they should be replacing it for me. I assume one of the companies is lying as how can there be a situation where a replacement is seen as an impossibility? A further issue is that they say for returning the tv to them for a refund, I can just put it in a bin bag or find a box I have at home to put it in. Where am I supposed to find a box big enough and secure enough to contain a 55 inch tv and not expect it to be damaged in transit? UPS who will collect it and who turned up today without me even being told that they would have told they will refuse to take it at all unless it is in a proper and secure box! People do not tend to keep the packaging of a tv as the boxes are huge. Not sure how best to proceed, so any advice would be greatly appreciated!
-
I did send it in an anti static bag as I was able to find one. But they really should have answered my question.
-
Sorry, but common sense or not, the question should not have been ignored in place of replying to an opportunity to make money faster than any reply they have ever given before. That does not give out a good impression. And to you it is common sense but only because you KNOW it is necessary. They should not be assuming that everyone knows this. That's just poor form to ignore my question. In general I have been unimpressed with their responses to things. No matter how much you ask them, or how long an email you send, you never get more than a one line response. You say "If you don't send it in static free bag, don't be surprised if they refuse to replace. " In that case it makes the ignore of the question even worse. They asked me to remove it myself with a very basic link about how to do it. No mention of anti static environments.
-
Interestingly, when I asked about the (less expensive) 970 as the replacement last week, they told me that they'd need to wait till they had examined my returned card before they could discuss it. Yesterday, before sending the 780 back, I emailed to enquire about what the upgrade cost would be for the much more expensive 980 card. I also wanted to check if the 780 needed to be sent back in an anti static bag or if bubblewrap would do. I got the fastest email reply ever from them - a forward to the guy's colleague getting him to find out what they'd want to charge for a 980. The question about how to package the 780 for return was blanked as well. Nice....
-
In the event of a refund, would that be for the actual amount the card cost in July?
-
But is it technically seen as an upgrade while it has a lower market value? That's what I want to know.
-
I know all this, but the point I'm making is this. If the card I have asked for had a clear higher monetary value, would they most likely just offer it in exchange for the difference in cost between the two cards?
-
This is where it becomes a grey area, the card I've asked for IS better but has a lower price. Had it been more expensive it would be more simple. Some has told me that I can't get a refund of the original price as it is now a used item. Is this the case?
-
I get what you are saying but look again at what they have said - "Whether the upgrade price will be put against the price you paid originally or based on the market value now, I am unsure. our head technitian will confirm this in due course," Now market value = price, right? So going on that quote, if I ask for a 970 and they stick to what they have said, what can they actually charge me when the 970 has a lower price regardless of the criteria they choose?
-
Will do. Hypothetically though, what would most likely happen if I asked them for a card that was clearly higher in value - say £150 more? I'm assuming they'd just ask for £150 and that would be that, yes?
-
Does the fact that this item has now replaced mine in their computers count? They no longer list my graphics card for sale. By replacing the part with a less expensive item, would the shop be out of pocket in any way? I've had differing viewpoints on this elsewhere A) that I'm being deeply unfair to the poor shop and wanting something for nothing and B) that they shouldn't really be charging me a penny as it is an item costing less than mine did.
-
It was part of a custom built system. It was the default option from a drop down menu of graphics cards (you could choose every part individually and I did indeed opt for many options that were not the default choice - such as the actual case itself and the processor and the hard drive), but I could have added a different one if I'd wanted so I suppose technically each part of the computer counts as an individual item? In general terms though, does SOGA recognise items of lower monetary than the original item as an equal or superior product? Or do they have to cost either the same money or a greater amount for that to be the case?
-
In theory though, should they have an issue replacing a part with one of lower monetary value? I imagine some businesses would jump at the chance to do that. In some cases it can be as much as £100 less at retail. Failing that, as the part is not for purpose or of satisfactory quality, where do I stand with asking for a refund in place of a replacement?
-
No, no. What they are explicitly stating is that I will pay the difference in price between the old and the new item. Neither of those values can possibly become zero without them having lied to me. They are obviously going to produce a figure for the 970 that alleges it is worth more than the 780 I have. They simply cannot say what they have said and then ask for the full price. To be frank, if they end up out of pocket after supplying a replacement goods unfit for purpose then as a customer, I have to say that that is there problem, not mine. And I doubt they are at much financial risk at all. Their actual words were "Whether the upgrade price will be put against the price you paid originally or based on the market value now, I am unsure. our head technitian will confirm this in due course,"
-
Well with them having said in writing already that they will base the upgrade charge in the difference in cost between the two items either 5 months ago or now, they surely can't charge much if indeed anything as sadly for them the best difference they will be able to find is about £10. In a way they have painted themselves into a corner by saying that as having checked, the 780 had a higher monetary value in July and it has a slightly higher one now. Just comes down to good will on their part really. Many businesses would just swap the part as it less expensive, while many of course wouldn't dream of it.
-
What is an actual reasonable amount to ask for a part that is less expensive than what it is replacing though? I imagine if you wanted a £50 part replaced with a £60 one then they'd charge £10 extra. So when you want to charge extra for replacing a £60 part with a £50 one, what price do you invent?
-
Where do I stand in legal terms though? If they make a loss is that not their problem? Can they legally charge me extra for a part that is less expensive than what it is replacing if they go by the Sale of Goods Act?
-
Also they say they are unsure whether the upgrade value would be based upon the market value of my card when I bought it or the market value it has today. I think that either way the old card still costs more than the new actually, but I could be wrong.
-
I have a Geforce GTX 780. Looking to ask for the 970. From what I can see, they don't even sell the 780 any more and now use the 970 in its place.
-
So I would need to pay to "upgrade" even though it is a cheaper part and technically I'd be the one out of pocket? On what basis will they determine the imaginary extra amount I need to give them then?
-
The company that I bought a prebuilt computer from last summer have determined after much back and forward correspondence that the graphics card is faulty and should be replaced under warranty. I have enquired about having it replaced with a different card from the same manufacturer. Now, this is a card that is both newer and superior to the one I currently have. It is however, at worst, of equal value to my current card as of today and I know for a fact it is of considerably lesser monetary value than my card was at the time of purchase. They currently include it as standard in computers several hundred pounds cheaper than mine was. Despite this, they describe it as "an upgrade they will need to discuss". This to me implies they will want money for it to make up a difference in price that doesn't exist. Am I entitled to have this as my replacement item? If anything it is technically me who will be out of pocket, not them.
-
I have a faulty hard drive that is eligible to be replaced under warranty. The company no longer has the exact hard drive in stock and so they say they need to get a replacement sent from the manufacturer which could take up to 2 weeks. In their terms and conditions they say that with warranty replacements, the replacement will be of equal value and performance, or superior value and performance, dependent on current stock levels. They do currently have the 750gb version of my hard drive (I have the 500gb one) but said they couldn't offer a part exchange on that, but i could have it for £95 if I wanted. Should they be offering this drive as the replacement or are they right in offering the direct manufacturers replacement at a time delay of 2 weeks? Any advice would be great!
-
Yeah, the tray in my last dishwasher lasted years as well. So, although they are calling the tray a consumable and saying the sale of goods act will back them up on this, this part cannot meet the legal definition of the term by its very nature?
