Briscoes - CGA. They say no

Forums › Off topic › Briscoes - CGA. They say no

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

402 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2247331 28-May-2019 19:10

tdgeek:
I would consider one year on a $10 toaster to be reasonable life. Using the CGA for that is IMO abusing the CGA.

And there's the issue with the grey area. I disagree. Unless it was marketed as junk, or useful where you needed a temporary toaster or something. I don't see the purpose, who'd want a toaster that only lasts a year? Was probably only used 50-100 times.

What about a $20 one on sale for $10?

I've seen how cheap stuff is in China... Other issue is companies bringing in junk here that's not built to last. And then you not being able to discern the difference. Some places will just sell the $10 toaster for $30. Toaster after that was probably around $20 and 7ish years later still going.

Would be nice if companies just had decent warranties. $80 toaster could have a 8 warranty, $10 one maybe just 2 years.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2247332 28-May-2019 19:12

andrewNZ: Briscoes definitely does CGA and FTA training, it is a requirement for every employee to complete, and there are occasional follow up questions to answer.
I believe the training is accurate and reasonably unbiased. I'm trying to get access to have a read through it.

Unfortunately the training only has to be done once (not ideal, but it is accessable at any time), and individual managers are ultimately in control.
You definitely cannot expect the average staff member to be making CGA judgements.

As with any chain store, the staff make the calls, and the company may not have knowledge of their actions.

As far as the "consumable elements" argument goes, I strongly disagree. If it was a consumable item it would need to be user replaceable.

My experience with this one instance, as the OP. First phone call was a manager, second was I assume Office Manager at another branch, I didnt deal with any sales staff. Im still shocked actually, but I will see them tomorrow when I take the oven back for replacement. The lady concerned was good to talk to, unlike the first, so I will have a chat. I will take it further, I'll decide what and how afterwards. If it was steady pushback until I or they caved, thats one thing, but it wasn't like that, which is what shocks me.

The consumable, I agree. I can't see that its user replaceable, the elements. There are 4 elements, they all don't work. Two might be in serial, but surely not all 4?

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2247334 28-May-2019 19:17

cshaun:
tdgeek:

I would consider one year on a $10 toaster to be reasonable life. Using the CGA for that is IMO abusing the CGA.

And there's the issue with the grey area. I disagree. Unless it was marketed as junk, or useful where you needed a temporary toaster or something. I don't see the purpose, who'd want a toaster that only lasts a year? Was probably only used 50-100 times.

What about a $20 one on sale for $10?

I've seen how cheap stuff is in China... Other issue is companies bringing in junk here that's not built to last. And then you not being able to discern the difference. Some places will just sell the $10 toaster for $30. Toaster after that was probably around $20 and 7ish years later still going.

Would be nice if companies just had decent warranties. $80 toaster could have a 8 warranty, $10 one maybe just 2 years.

I'd say a $10 annual taster is cheaper than $125 toaster that lasts 6 years.

Low cost is low cost materials, workmanship, quality of assembly, all of those are options to fail. Its also not the case that all $10 fail after 366 days. Most wont. But no one would be surprised. Thats my litmus test.

Your warranty idea means the $8 toaster needs to bee Rolls Royce. Or that 20%+ of thee cost is warranty expenses, so its now and $80 toaster for $100. If warranty is 8 years, maybe CGA says its good for 12 years?

richms

28189 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2247338 28-May-2019 19:20

I spent quite a bit on a kambrook toaster because it was red and its the slowest piece of crap ever made. The inside of the bread is all dried out before the surface gets any colour to it because of its 4-5 min time to get there.

Problem with the $10 ones is the first time you go to clean them they fall apart, cheap plastic goes dull looking, controls are wonky crap. But they do toast better than the kambrook.

Richard rich.ms

MadEngineer

4291 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2247341 28-May-2019 19:26

Little off topic but speaking of toasters, the best ever toaster in terms of speed would have to be kambrooks turbo toaster. Just be sure to turn off everything else in your house before using it.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2247347 28-May-2019 19:44

I'm not defending anyone's actions here, but I think it is important to remember that retailers get a constant stream of bogus warranty claims. Briscoes would get minimum 1 per store per day. And the claimants are always adamant they should be getting a refund for crazy things.

There is everything from people trying to return (unused) razors full of stubble. People claiming the oil is leaking out of the fry pan through the metal, and "all metal is porous". getting 5 minutes of ranting about products actually purchased from another retailer. And even the person who was loudly quoting the CGA because he sat on his sunglasses and they broke.

People are so s#!t, and there is a chance your claim got caught up in the white noise of other bogus claims.

ETA: I do not work for Briscoes group, but clearly I know someone that does.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2247365 28-May-2019 20:39

Rikkitic:

Why does no-one pass a law requiring mandatory jail time of one week for any owner/executive in charge of a retail business found guilty of doing this? Problem solved!

I've also said this before. To make the deterrent effective, you need to jail all involved staff members as well. The jail sentence should be mandatory.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#2247366 28-May-2019 20:40

richms:

I spent quite a bit on a kambrook toaster because it was red and its the slowest piece of crap ever made. The inside of the bread is all dried out before the surface gets any colour to it because of its 4-5 min time to get there.

Problem with the $10 ones is the first time you go to clean them they fall apart, cheap plastic goes dull looking, controls are wonky crap. But they do toast better than the kambrook.

I remember hearing on Radio NZ's this way up program, that the internals on many of these toasters across some brands is almost identical. It is larger the exterior skinning of them that is different. So wouldn't be too surprised if some of these cheap ones aren't much worse internally than the some expensive ones.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2247367 28-May-2019 20:43

andrewNZ: I'm not defending anyone's actions here, but I think it is important to remember that retailers get a constant stream of bogus warranty claims. Briscoes would get minimum 1 per store per day. And the claimants are always adamant they should be getting a refund for crazy things.

There is everything from people trying to return (unused) razors full of stubble. People claiming the oil is leaking out of the fry pan through the metal, and "all metal is porous". getting 5 minutes of ranting about products actually purchased from another retailer. And even the person who was loudly quoting the CGA because he sat on his sunglasses and they broke.

People are so s#!t, and there is a chance your claim got caught up in the white noise of other bogus claims.

ETA: I do not work for Briscoes group, but clearly I know someone that does.

Yes, if you sit on sunglasses and they break, you wouldn't normally expect the CGA to cover this.

Well, how about this example: a friend bought a jacket for $200 which has a "double" zip. After 18 months, the zip jammed, so the jacket was taken back to the retailer who managed to "unjam" it, but it then jammed again while my friend was still in the shop.

The retailer said this sort of thing is not covered by the CGA because it's "normal wear and tear" and that zips don't fail after 18 months' use unless they have been misused in some way.

My friend explained that the zip had always been a bit difficult to engage and disengage, to which the sales person said: "the jacket should have been brought back when it was new, it's no good bringing it back now, it's simply a repair job that isn't covered by the CGA."

So, this example shows that you have to accept that you will have to pay for goods to be repaired in various circumstances and that you can't expect things to last for a long time without repairs. Would you have tried to get a replacement jacket in these circumstances?

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#2247373 28-May-2019 20:59

frednz:

My friend explained that the zip had always been a bit difficult to engage and disengage, to which the sales person said: "the jacket should have been brought back when it was new, it's no good bringing it back now, it's simply a repair job that isn't covered by the CGA."

That is pure speculation on the stores part, that a zip that is difficult to use, will eventually fail and need repairing. The parts may just be tight and need 'wearing in'. I would be surprised if the customer brought it back to complain that it was difficult initially, that the store would then swap it or get it repaired. All that takes time and energy to do, when the product should have been sold free of defects initially. So the store is essentially blaming the customer for not reporting a possible fault earlier, instead of the manufacturer for providing a product with a defect. But whatever the case, the store wold have had to remedy it to the same extent as before. Bu guessing the store was no longer selling that jacket, and they couldn't switch it out and return to manufacturer as a faulty product?

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2247376 28-May-2019 21:16

mattwnz:

frednz:

My friend explained that the zip had always been a bit difficult to engage and disengage, to which the sales person said: "the jacket should have been brought back when it was new, it's no good bringing it back now, it's simply a repair job that isn't covered by the CGA."

That is pure speculation on the stores part, that a zip that is difficult to use, will eventually fail and need repairing. The parts may just be tight and need 'wearing in'. I would be surprised if the customer brought it back to complain that it was difficult initially, that the store would then swap it or get it repaired. All that takes time and energy to do, when the product should have been sold free of defects initially. So the store is essentially blaming the customer for not reporting a possible fault earlier, instead of the manufacturer for providing a product with a defect. But whatever the case, the store wold have had to remedy it to the same extent as before. But guessing the store was no longer selling that jacket, and they couldn't switch it out and return to manufacturer as a faulty product?

Thanks Matt, I'm not sure whether the store had an identical jacket, but apparently there were a few double-zipped jackets of a similar price on sale. But, in cases like this, I guess the store could provide a new replacement with a similar jacket that cost the same or more than the original one, and the customer could pay the difference if the replacement jacket cost more than the original.

The moral of this story, be careful buying clothes that have double zips, apparently double ones do eventually cause a lot more problems than single ones! Anyway, I can't really see the point of double zips.

richms

28189 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2247386 28-May-2019 22:05

frednz:

Thanks Matt, I'm not sure whether the store had an identical jacket, but apparently there were a few double-zipped jackets of a similar price on sale. But, in cases like this, I guess the store could provide a new replacement with a similar jacket that cost the same or more than the original one, and the customer could pay the difference if the replacement jacket cost more than the original.

The moral of this story, be careful buying clothes that have double zips, apparently double ones do eventually cause a lot more problems than single ones! Anyway, I can't really see the point of double zips.

Sitting down is easier with the lower one opened somewhat. Also going for a piss.

Richard rich.ms

MadEngineer

4291 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2247389 28-May-2019 22:17

frednz:

andrewNZ: I'm not defending anyone's actions here, but I think it is important to remember that retailers get a constant stream of bogus warranty claims. Briscoes would get minimum 1 per store per day. And the claimants are always adamant they should be getting a refund for crazy things.

There is everything from people trying to return (unused) razors full of stubble. People claiming the oil is leaking out of the fry pan through the metal, and "all metal is porous". getting 5 minutes of ranting about products actually purchased from another retailer. And even the person who was loudly quoting the CGA because he sat on his sunglasses and they broke.

People are so s#!t, and there is a chance your claim got caught up in the white noise of other bogus claims.

ETA: I do not work for Briscoes group, but clearly I know someone that does.

Yes, if you sit on sunglasses and they break, you wouldn't normally expect the CGA to cover this.

Well, how about this example: a friend bought a jacket for $200 which has a "double" zip. After 18 months, the zip jammed, so the jacket was taken back to the retailer who managed to "unjam" it, but it then jammed again while my friend was still in the shop.

The retailer said this sort of thing is not covered by the CGA because it's "normal wear and tear" and that zips don't fail after 18 months' use unless they have been misused in some way.

My friend explained that the zip had always been a bit difficult to engage and disengage, to which the sales person said: "the jacket should have been brought back when it was new, it's no good bringing it back now, it's simply a repair job that isn't covered by the CGA."

So, this example shows that you have to accept that you will have to pay for goods to be repaired in various circumstances and that you can't expect things to last for a long time without repairs. Would you have tried to get a replacement jacket in these circumstances?

My favourite kathmandu jacket is like that. HATE the zip but love the jacket otherwise. I've just learned that I can't rush the zip like one usually does when donning such a garment.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

cshaun

402 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2247427 29-May-2019 00:18

tdgeek:

I'd say a $10 annual taster is cheaper than $125 toaster that lasts 6 years.

Low cost is low cost materials, workmanship, quality of assembly, all of those are options to fail. Its also not the case that all $10 fail after 366 days. Most wont. But no one would be surprised. Thats my litmus test.

Your warranty idea means the $8 toaster needs to bee Rolls Royce. Or that 20%+ of thee cost is warranty expenses, so its now and $80 toaster for $100. If warranty is 8 years, maybe CGA says its good for 12 years?

So $60 vs $125, but you have no toaster when it randomly breaks and you need to dispose of and buy a new one? I think I'd go the $125 toaster. That's a lot of hassle, time, petrol etc saved. Well any product could have a defect and fail at any time or even DOA. But put in a little quality control, possibly slightly better design and not much reason it doesn't last much longer. Maybe 90% make 5 years, so offer 2 or 3 year warranty and charge like $12.

Why would CGA be 12 years if warranty is 8? CGA is just what one would reasonably expect (subjective). CGA may still just be 8 years surely?

mattwnz:

I remember hearing on Radio NZ's this way up program, that the internals on many of these toasters across some brands is almost identical. It is larger the exterior skinning of them that is different. So wouldn't be too surprised if some of these cheap ones aren't much worse internally than the some expensive ones.

Totally agree, when I walked into a store and had a look at them, I scratched my head as to the wide price range. Most of the internals looked the same. Differences was really extra few buttons, shiny metal and the look or brand. I didn't really think the more expensive ones were going to outlast many of the cheaper ones.

cshaun

402 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2247428 29-May-2019 00:37

frednz:

Yes, if you sit on sunglasses and they break, you wouldn't normally expect the CGA to cover this.

Well, how about this example: a friend bought a jacket for $200 which has a "double" zip. After 18 months, the zip jammed, so the jacket was taken back to the retailer who managed to "unjam" it, but it then jammed again while my friend was still in the shop.

The retailer said this sort of thing is not covered by the CGA because it's "normal wear and tear" and that zips don't fail after 18 months' use unless they have been misused in some way.

My friend explained that the zip had always been a bit difficult to engage and disengage, to which the sales person said: "the jacket should have been brought back when it was new, it's no good bringing it back now, it's simply a repair job that isn't covered by the CGA."

So, this example shows that you have to accept that you will have to pay for goods to be repaired in various circumstances and that you can't expect things to last for a long time without repairs. Would you have tried to get a replacement jacket in these circumstances?

Yeah tricky. I think it shouldn't have been defective in the first place, but perhaps wasn't quite bad enough at the time, or perhaps would wear in (as already mentioned). I do think the store is more likely to do something if it was soon after purchase. My experience with zips is they do last a long time, so I suspect an issue. Again need to trust that the customer hasn't abused it and is telling the truth.

I had a pair of shoes a while back ($300 ish, leather, quality stitching etc). After 12-18 months the soles had almost completely worn through, and I wore them probably less than once a week for short trips. I took them back and said that I was unhappy and that I expected much more use out of them. You could see they looked practically brand new on the top, and on the inside. I've had running shoes that I've abused last longer, and plenty of others that lasted many times longer. Anyway they were happy to swap them out for a similar but different pair of shoes. I assume some weird choice in material for the soles. I still have the replacements, think they're 4-5 years old now, and probably still have less wear than the ones I exchanged.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9