PC World Won't Repair/Refund After 28 Days

[spikeachu]

Some can be very good. My nephew got a PSP for christmas and a few weeks ago it went wrong. He took it back to Game to ask for a replacement. The young guy behind the counter tried to fob him off with the 28 day b*****ks. The manager was stood behind him and let rip into him in front of everyone in the store. He apologised to my nephew and sorted it out himself.

If only every store was run like this .......

 

The problem that PC World faces is that nine out of ten times the user is at fault and not the equipment. The components and PCs sold by PC World require basic knowledge of computers and just because a customer cannot get a piece of equipment to work does not mean that it is faulty. Although explaining that to the customer that wants everything to 'just work' can be hard work.

 

The way PC World operate is that the stores are there to make money, the customer service centre is there to sort out problems. Knowledge is something that should be bought, as such, the technicians don't want to be spending half an hour setting up a customer's product and making it work with their system just because they lack the knowhow to do this themselves.

 

They have help lines for this sort of stuff and statistics show that 92% of calls can be resolved over the phone. Which means 92% of products are not faulty when the customer thinks they are. If the item is faulty after being diagnosed, the customer has an ID number which they pop along to store with and all hassle is avoided as the product has already been logged as faulty, therefore the store need not test it.

 

Now imagine another scenario where all products were taken to the store. If the store charged £29.99 for the set up of these products that were not faulty, there'd be a lot of miffed customers.

 

Now lets take this scenario to another extreme. You're in PC World wishing to purchase an item. But you can't because there's 100 people at the customer service desk because there is no helpline as this is deemed a breach of the SoGA and the store should be dealing with these issues directly. There's no staff available to serve you. We already know that statistically 92 of these people are carrying working products, but lack the knowledge in how to use/set them up. So now the store are alienating the very people that provide their cash in the first place.

 

From a retailers point of view, the set up that PC World has makes sense and for a lot of customers, the in-home service that they offer is preferable to lumping the whole kit down to a store.

 

Now don't take this post as saying that PC World or any other retailer does not have obligations under the sale of goods act, i know as much as the next man that they do. Just remember that 92% of the products that are returned are not eligible for any remedy under it anyway and the staff in store are trained in policy and selling, not law. Customer service staff are trained in law and policy and are the best people to deal with should you choose to quote the SoGA.

[patdavies]

You're in PC World wishing to purchase an item. But you can't because there's 100 people at the customer service desk because there is no helpline as this is deemed a breach of the SoGA and the store should be dealing with these issues directly.

 

I think you are mis-interpreting what has been said on this thread.

 

This issue had nothing to do with the use of help lines - it's the dogmatic response from retailpointofview that consumers should deal with the manufacturer for themselves where the retailer is liable.

 

Although the help lines should not be premium or national rate numbers - but that's a whole different discussion.

[demon_x_slash]

Anyway, trying to get a resolution over PC World's helpline first is still trying to get a resolution from the retailer.

[gyzmo]

And just as impossible.

[StormWarrior]

It all boils down to money!

Everyone wants everything as cheap as poss, and is rarely prepared to pay for quality, or service, or knowledge. If this was not the case, stores like Currys, PC World, etc would not sell computers at all. In fact PCworld would prob not exist

 

I am totally in agreement with almost all the things said in this thread, with the obvious exception of the Retailpointofview, who seems to have a total lack of understanding of consumer law.

 

However, one point that really annoyed me was the comment

...announces that the problem is that the printer isn't recognising the non Cannon ink cartridges.

Now at this point many people will assume I'm gonna say something along the lines of " shouldn't have to use manufacturers carts", but I'm not.

 

In this case it may or may not have been the carts that were the problem, but from experience 90% of printing faults on printers ARE the result of non-genuine carts.

Should the retailer be responsible for damage caused by customers using the printer outside its instructions? IMHO No !

So if the next load of fake carts kill the print head, will the customer get a new machine? Nothing personal, but I hope not.

 

This is just one of my personal pet hates

[patdavies]

However, one point that really annoyed me was the comment

Now at this point many people will assume I'm gonna say something along the lines of " shouldn't have to use manufacturers carts", but I'm not.

 

In this case it may or may not have been the carts that were the problem, but from experience 90% of printing faults on printers ARE the result of non-genuine carts.

Should the retailer be responsible for damage caused by customers using the printer outside its instructions? IMHO No !

So if the next load of fake carts kill the print head, will the customer get a new machine? Nothing personal, but I hope not.

 

This is just one of my personal pet hates

 

To extend that a little...

 

So if a printer is returned because it is jamming, the retailer should not be responsible if the customer is not using printer brand paper?

[StormWarrior]

If the paper causes the jams, no, they should not be responsible!

There was a problem some years ago with laser and inkjet printers jamming due to cheap paper that had a large amount of 'paper dust'. I'm sure you will have noticed that even cheap paper these days is quite smooth, and dust free, a direct result of the problems. People will not buy paper that continually jams.

Damp paper is also a problem, should the supplier of the printer be responsible for that as well? Or should printers handle soggy papers?

Anyway most paper jams are the result of 'foreign bodies'

 

ok, lets put this a way that non technical people can understand.

 

If I sold fuel that was not upto the required specification, e.g. right octane, centane, pentane numbers, free for contamination, etc. Would Ford give you a new car if my sub-standard fuel killed it? No, they would tell you to see me, who supplied the bad juice.

 

Yet, when you buy cheap, sub-standard ink, the supplier is supposed to stand the cost!

 

From part of the Epson Enhanced Warranty ...

Where damage or blockage occurs to or in the print mechanism and non-Epson consumables have been used, the failure will be deemed to have occurred because of that use unless the contrary can be proved.

 

And do you know why they actually say this? because they have been testing returned printers for years and have the figures to show that non-original carts actually do cause the problems.

[reidnet]

Just my Tuppence worth..lol

 

But if Epson and the likes did not charge such ridiculous prices for their consumable then maybe every day punters like myself would buy them from Epson.

 

I paid £58 for an Epson Printer and yes they expect me to pay nearly £30 for a set of four ink cartridges..Not likely when I can buy compatibles that produce the same quality of print for under £4 a set. The amount of printing I do, I use a lot of Cartridges and even if the Printer has to be binned after 12 months then I will still have saved myself enough to replace the printer probably 5 times over in a year.

 

Ian

[patdavies]

From part of the Epson Enhanced Warranty ...

Where damage or blockage occurs to or in the print mechanism and non-Epson consumables have been used, the failure will be deemed to have occurred because of that use unless the contrary can be proved.

And do you know why they actually say this? because they have been testing returned printers for years and have the figures to show that non-original carts actually do cause the problems.

 

Pity then that the SoGA puts the burden of proof on them for the first 6 months to prove that there was no manufacturing defect; that they deem it not to be is simply not good enough.

[StormWarrior]

even if the Printer has to be binned after 12 months then I will still have saved myself enough to replace the printer probably 5 times over in a year

This is unfortunatly the sad state of the industry, hardware has become disposable. Not very eco-friendly, but a finacial reality!

I must admit that I have advisded people of this option, forget warranty, just replace it with the savings. Although I do point out that the quality, etc will not be as good. But for day to day printing it doesn't really matter.

 

AS for

ridiculous prices

I charge £45 an hour for some of my work, and my customers pay it happily, cause they know what they are getting, know the quality of work, etc. You get what you pay for.

 

I ALWAYS use genuine Epson carts in my inkjet, but my printer cost over £500, It's A2 capable, 7 years old, and still prints outstanding pictures.

 

But for day to day use at home, I have a little laser printer. Lots of prints, fast and neat. Thats what lasers were designed for.

For top quality, waterproof, fade resistant prints, blah, blah, I have a 'special' printer. And you don't want to kow what that costs to run :o

 

It's all "horses for courses", and "pay your money take your choice" stuff.

 

BUT I would not dream of complaining if I killed the inkjet by trying to bung 1000's of prints through it every day.

[StormWarrior]

Whoops, pushed button too soon ! Duh.

[StormWarrior]

Pat, imagine that you have brought a printer, and used el cheapo carts, and the thing has died.

 

Retailer says, you killed it, your fault. Like most on here you'd be reaching for the letter before action template. Retailer decides to defend.

Court orders technical report, independent report says, yep it's the carts that killed it.

 

What would you do then?

 

p.s. this is not a dig at you personally, or anyone else. Just an open discussion. ( MODS ; is this allowed?)

[patdavies]

Pat, imagine that you have brought a printer, and used el cheapo carts, and the thing has died.

 

Retailer says, you killed it, your fault. Like most on here you'd be reaching for the letter before action template. Retailer decides to defend.

Court orders technical report, independent report says, yep it's the carts that killed it.

 

What would you do then?

 

Well. I guess another letter before action to the cartridge manufacture as a court ordered independent report proves the cartridges not fit for purpose:rolleyes:

 

p.s. this is not a dig at you personally, or anyone else. Just an open discussion. ( MODS ; is this allowed?)

 

I wouldn't take it a such. I do use Epson cartridges (and claim them on expenses:p)

 

However my point was taking issue with the use of the word 'deemed' by Epson and the implication that they would not bother to undertake further examination to prove that it was not a manufacturing fault; which is the duty placed on them by SoGA.

 

IOW, if you telephone Epson because your disposable inkjet has stopped printing after 3 months. They say are you using Epson ink carts. You, very foolishly, say no. They say tough, we deem it not to be a printer failure. At that point, I would mention the words 'prove', '6 months rule' and 'SoGA'

[Guest retailerpointofview]

the fact is that the cartridges caused the issue.

 

there was not fault from production with the printer

there was not fault from production with the cartridges.

 

the fact is that the refilled cartridges are not suppose to be used in the printer as proved by reading manufacturers literature.

 

yes they fit, yes they are called cartridges.

 

but its the same as putting low grade oil into a performance engine car.

 

after while it will cause damage.

 

or even worse case scenario if they are not ISO standard inks it would be a proper comparison to say you put deisel into a unleaded car

 

use them at your own risk if you wish to save a few coins

[patdavies]

the fact is that the cartridges caused the issue.

 

there was not fault from production with the printer

there was not fault from production with the cartridges.

 

the fact is that the refilled cartridges are not suppose to be used in the printer as proved by reading manufacturers literature.

 

yes they fit, yes they are called cartridges.

 

but its the same as putting low grade oil into a performance engine car.

 

after while it will cause damage.

 

or even worse case scenario if they are not ISO standard inks it would be a proper comparison to say you put deisel into a unleaded car

 

use them at your own risk if you wish to save a few coins

 

FFS! If the cartridges caused the issue, then the cartridge retailer is liable as the cartridges were not fit for purpose (ie to be used in an Epson printer)

 

Nobody has mentioned refilled cartridges - and even if refilled, they would still be Epson cartridges, just not Epson ink!

 

If I use non-Epson cartridges and the printer fails, this is not the same as the wrong oil or fuel. Replacing the non-Epson cartridges with genuine cartridges and head cleaning should bring it back to life.

 

The manufacturer's blurb says use only genuine Epson cartridges. The manufacturer's blurb for my Jeep says only use genuine Daimler-Chrysler parts and dealers. If I don't, I don't invalidate my rights under SoGA

 

And just to throw this into the pot...

 

I currently have an Espon R265. Previously I had a Lexmark thing. The Lexmark printer gave up printing properly even with genuine cartridges - why? Because it wasn't used for 3 weeks and the ink had dried in the print heads. Extensive head cleaning and new cartridges failed to rectify. As it was a sub-£50 printer, it just got slung in the wheelie bin - my own fault for buying Lexmark

[StormWarrior]

Well. I guess another letter before action to the cartridge manufacture as a court ordered independent report proves the cartridges not fit for purpose:rolleyes::grin:

 

So next time, suppose the printer retailer doesn't want to go to court, cost too much last time, (remember he will never recover all his costs of defending himself, e.g. staff cover, loss of earnings, time to prepare defence, cost of reports, etc) and he knows that its the carts again. What can he do to prevent being held to ransom by the next customer, who has used the printer outside of its designed specifications. e.g. used a non-approved ink?

 

According to the law nothing! The customer can damage the printer by missuse, and because the retailer cannot prove it without an expensive court case he's pretty much screwed. Not very fair.

Especially when the manufacturer explicitly says do not use non genuine carts!

 

Rant over Can you guess this is one of those pet hates techie people have ??

[StormWarrior]

Pat, all I can say is ouch, those lexy carts are not cheap, esp if they didn't fix it

My big printer gets run up, at least once a week to keep the heads nice and clean. Although I'm looking at the new model, only £1600 :o

 

As for the

Replacing the non-Epson cartridges with genuine cartridges and head cleaning should bring it back to life.

Afraid it doesn't work like that. Damage is already done.

 

 

just not Epson ink!

I know that EPSON do not sell, licence or otherwise allow thier ink technologies to any one else. So if it's not in a genuine cart, it's not epson ink. Simple as that. The carrier solvents, pigment partical size, etc are all tightly controlled, so the hardware can be made to tighter tollerances. This gives better printing, (although to be honest, most people couldn't really tell on a normal print) The downside to all this is using ink that isn't "up to quality" is asking for trouble.

If you use sub-standard parts and they cause the problem, the fault is with the parts, not the original item.

 

Maybe we should all go back to ribbons remember them ??

[gyzmo]

The point of the fact is, and something that retailpointofview amongst others has (yet again, but unsurprisingly) missed is, as Pat and others have pointed out several times in this thread and others...

 

IT IS LAW that, within the first six months, the fault is deemed to have existed at the time of sale, and it is for the seller to prove otherwise.

 

Putting a disclaimer in is not good enough (nor, could it be argued, legal?). It may well be that the cartridge caused the problem. It may well be that green alien blobs caused the problem, or that the the Lord God Almighty Himself descended upon the Earth and deemed that all ink cartridges will fail and cause the printer to f**k up 2 days after purchase.

 

The point is, until six months have passed from the time of sale,

IT IS DOWN TO THE SELLER TO PROVE THAT THIS IS THE CASE. THEY CANNOT STRAIGHT AWAY BLAME THE INK CARTRIDGE, OR ANYTHING ELSE.

 

 

Can you PLEASE get this concept into your heads? It's no wonder customers are confused about their rights (and some stores with their responsibilities) with sh**e like this floating around.

 

If you don't know what you are talking about, don't say anything at all, unless it is to ask or learn or to debate a point.

After that, AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[StormWarrior]

Gyzmo,

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG GHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

Chill dude, didn't say it wasn't the law, quite the opposite, just saying it's not always fair.

 

IT IS DOWN TO THE SELLER TO PROVE THAT THIS IS THE CASE. THEY CANNOT STRAIGHT AWAY BLAME THE INK CARTRIDGE, OR ANYTHING ELSE.

 

I totally agree! Never suggested that this wasn't the case.

 

Read my post !

The customer can damage the printer by missuse, and because the retailer cannot prove it without an expensive court case he's pretty much screwed

 

Not a hint of suggesting that the retailer is denying the law, just that in some circumstances the law does not work as intended!

 

Pass that one by your lecturer, next time your in class

 

And while they have been mentioned, I've always suspected that green alien blobs have a lot to do with computer related problem:D

 

As an aside for all those watching, Why could a manufacturer (or retailer) not put an 'approved accesories only' clause in? Given that they could demonstrate statistically, that non-genuine carts cause the problems.

I know they would have to make a point of it, at the point of sale, but there are plenty of situations where it would save so much grief.

[Bookworm]

As an aside for all those watching, Why could a manufacturer (or retailer) not put an 'approved accesories only' clause in? Given that they could demonstrate statistically, that non-genuine carts cause the problems.

I know they would have to make a point of it, at the point of sale, but there are plenty of situations where it would save so much grief.

 

I'm going to guess that it would create a monopoly, and isn't that the kind of thing that got Microsoft in trouble a few years back about their OS only working with their own software? (a bit hazy here, so feel free to correct me! )

[Guest retailerpointofview]

hmm many things things to note.

 

1 The printer is not designed for non manufacturer based inks.

so by you using cartridges not made by the company that produced the printer it again is like putting deisel into a petrol engine.

 

2.Only using genuine ink cartridges in its printer is not a monopoly. only having one printer is!!

 

if you are not happy with epson ink prices may i suggest CANON. cheaper penny per page. also if it is costing over 28p per 6x4" photo may i suggest jessops or kodak processing centres.

 

customer using parts not intended for the unit are classed as damaging the unit. the inks the manufacturers use do not clog, their thickness is way below the pigment ink you get in refills so they dont block the prinhead either.

 

3. a print head is replaceable and manufacturers class this too as a consumable. they state after three cartridge changes the print carriage /head on printer should be changed to keep the high quality of their product.

 

4. pcworld have proved it not fault from purchase because it was noted that there were non genuine ink cartridges in the printer. and yet as a gesture of goodwill they replaced the whole printer.

[Guest retailerpointofview]

again they were not monopolising the fact that only their own software works with their own operating system.

 

microsoft only make a few games such as flight simulator. and yet there are thousands of other manufactors that make pc games that work on windows. fry cry, doom, etc

 

along with office packages such as lotus open office ETC which all work on microsofts OS.

 

the whole monopoly is actually to do with the fact that microsoft were giving all new pc customer microsoft Office for free.

 

thus other manufacturers of office software like lotus would not get a look in as everyone stuck to microsoft office becaus lotus was not free.

 

now that it is not included at bought separetly at £100 for home and student version other companies such as lotus and open office have a chance.

 

microsoft also were going to be sued for their media player aswell because apple quicktime and real player had no chance. but this was dismissed due to the fact that apple and real players were free to download so consumers still had the choice, which to use without it cost any money to switch.

[StormWarrior]

Hi there Bookworm, there are other manufacturers who make printers, so no monopoly would exist.

 

The microsoft thinf was nothing to do with software compatibilty.

Check out my next reply

[Bookworm]

1 The printer is not designed for non manufacturer based inks.

so by you using cartridges not made by the company that produced the printer it again is like putting deisel into a petrol engine.

 

Nonsense. Putting diesel into a petrol engine will cause your engine irretrievable damage very quickly. Some printers will go on for years on non-generic inks. This is the same kind of marketing rubbish we hear about washing powders, and I have to wonder about your vested interest in trying to convince anyone otherwise.

 

2.Only using genuine ink cartridges in its printer is not a monopoly. only having one printer is!!

 

Do you even KNOW what the word "monopoly" means? And I do not mean the board game! :-|

 

customer using parts not intended for the unit are classed as damaging the unit.

You're missing the point AGAIN. Within the 1st 6 months, it would be down to the seller to PROVE that it was that which caused the damage. As you've now been told umpteen times.

 

pcworld have proved it not fault from purchase because it was noted that there were non genuine ink cartridges in the printer. and yet as a gesture of goodwill they replaced the whole printer

 

No, they haven't. They have an element of suspicion that the use of non-brand inks might have caused the damage, if it went to court, they would have to convince a judge that it was the use of those inks and nothing else that had caused the failure. A judge would then decide on balance of probabilities whether that was the problem or not. Nothing as clear cut as "proved", far from it. If the printer was 6 mths or 1 yr old, ten I migh tbe more inclined to lean towards PCW, but on a 2 months old printer? I would want a lot more evidence than "oh, he used generic cartridges, so that's why the printer failed at 2 months old".

[StormWarrior]

retailerpointofview, 1 out of 4, not a bad score for you

 

 

1 The printer is not designed for non manufacturer based inks.

so by you using cartridges not made by the company that produced the printer it again is like putting deisel into a petrol engine.

more like putting tesco petrol in

0 out of 1

 

2.Only using genuine ink cartridges in its printer is not a monopoly. only having one printer is!!

Correct,who told you that one? We'll give you a point

1 out of 2

 

the inks the manufacturers use do not clog, their thickness is way below the pigment ink you get in refills so they dont block the prinhead either.

erm, actually no, it's nothing to do with the thickness of the ink, well not according to the tech stuff I've seen. It's more down to the type of solvent that hold the pigments in suspension, and the pigment particle size.

But close no points 1 out of 3

 

 

3. a print head is replaceable and manufacturers class this too as a consumable. they state after three cartridge changes the print carriage /head on printer should be changed to keep the high quality of their product.

Not quite right again I'm afraid. Canon printheads are usually consumables, and therefore should be added to the cost per page, but HP carts have the printhead built in, new cart = new printhead. ( patent on the head also stops 3rd party carts being manufactured, refilled only)

Epson print heads are part of the printer, and may be a service item, but certainly not a consumable.

No points there I'm afraid 1 out of 4

 

4. pcworld have proved it not fault from purchase because it was noted that there were non genuine ink cartridges in the printer. and yet as a gesture of goodwill they replaced the whole printer.

 

Not even sure where tha tone came from so we'll just forget it!