Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

Forums › Off topic › Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

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

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#433784 1-Feb-2011 16:50

KiwiNZ: We call the customer and the are still adamant that they have never dropped the phone in any water. The man hours has already cost way more than the $50.

Sorry I have to comment.

This is a feeble and poor excuse to put consumers off having stuff repaired. If the retailer can't take the hit of a few "dishonest" customers - then don't be a retailer. Why should every other honest customer be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

If the retailers don't like being stung for the costs, pursue it in the small claims court - but don't punish everyone by breaking the law and misrepresenting our rights!

CGA is a great service for all NZ consumers - use it. The more we do, the stronger it becomes.

IMO the $50 is another cynical attempt to get consumers to just "buy a new one" along with an extended warranty.

</rant>

Procrastination eventually pays off.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#433787 1-Feb-2011 16:52

StarBlazer:
KiwiNZ: We call the customer and the are still adamant that they have never dropped the phone in any water. The man hours has already cost way more than the $50.

Sorry I have to comment.

This is a feeble and poor excuse to put consumers off having stuff repaired. If the retailer can't take the hit of a few "dishonest" customers - then don't be a retailer. Why should every other honest customer be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

If the retailers don't like being stung for the costs, pursue it in the small claims court - but don't punish everyone by breaking the law and misrepresenting our rights!

CGA is a great service for all NZ consumers - use it. The more we do, the stronger it becomes.

IMO the $50 is another cynical attempt to get consumers to just "buy a new one" along with an extended warranty.

Totally agree.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#433873 1-Feb-2011 19:33

So based on the above logic , retailers should not pass on the cost of Security.
Bank should not pass on the cost of security.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#433879 1-Feb-2011 19:40

KiwiNZ: So based on the above logic , retailers should not pass on the cost of Security.
Bank should not pass on the cost of security.

I have no idea what you're saying sorry.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#433880 1-Feb-2011 19:42

DonGould:
KiwiNZ: So based on the above logic , retailers should not pass on the cost of Security.
Bank should not pass on the cost of security.

I have no idea what you're saying sorry.

Read the three post prior mine, actually don't bother , I am out of this thread.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#433891 1-Feb-2011 20:04

KiwiNZ: We take the phone the customer goes away and we commence our diagnosis. We dismantel the phone and discover traces of mud and silt inside the phone...... Moisture damage.

This is quite an interesting example.

How the law is intended to work is that it causes an even playing field of quality products and service in the market.

It's reasonable to expect people will drop their phones from time to time and that they may even drop them in the sink or a puddle and that they'll use them in the rain. That's all just normal operation of a hand held device. (Sure, I'm not talking leaving the phone soaking in the water, I'm talking drop and collect before there's been much chance for ingress.)

As a manufacture you have to weigh up a few issues.

* Waterproofing

The more water tight you make the phone the more other complexities you add which translates to cost.

* Shock resistance

The lighter you make the phone (eg battery) the more pounding it can often take. However a lighter smaller battery often means less talk/standby time...

There comes a point where it's simply not wise to sell some products in New Zealand because they're simply not robust enough to meet normal operational expectations.

Some products you market at a cost that drives more product care. ie, if you give a delicate phone away with a $10 a month plan then people will treat it as a $10 product even if it cost you $2000 per unit. If you market the phone for $2000 on a $200 plan then people will treat it with more care - iPhone.

The law is intended that sellers build in enough profit to cover product servicing and don't do dumb things like sell products at cost or below cost as loss leaders. Sure, sell a bottle of coke as a loss leader because there's little chance it will come back. But selling phones as loss leaders is fought with danger as some providers have found in the past.

In selling the a product you're required to have your service chain figured out before you make the sale. If your service model is such that you have to send the product to a different town for service then you need to factor in margin to cover these movements. If you don't, more fool you. If you sell 100 phones then you should be factoring for at lest 3% failure in my view.

The idea of the law is that these base line requirements apply to everyone so everyone will set a minimum margin on their products to cover these requirements.

Other objectives of the law are to drive service employment in all areas. Having to send every phone to Auckland so anyone who wants to service phones has to live in Auckland is silly. What we want is an even distribution of service people around the country.

'Reasonable delay' is also a concept in the act to ensure that retailers make consideration for providing back ups for customers in the event that their unit is going to be off line for some time. This was considered to stop the flow of repairs that would take 6 months while repairers waited to get parts from over seas (which did used to happen a lot).

The idea is to encourage the industry to sell a reasonable quality product and not just sell the cheapest junk they could find in China at inflated prices.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

joff_nz

446 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433911 1-Feb-2011 20:49

Don Gould, Are you just trolling?

Either way, I too am out of this thread. Some of you people have ridiculous expectations.

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#433923 1-Feb-2011 21:02

joff_nz: Don Gould, Are you just trolling?

Either way, I too am out of this thread. Some of you people have ridiculous expectations.

Got better things to do than troll thanks.

If you want to talk about ridiculous just read the act. It's a law that if imposed really does make life quite rough for sellers these days.

I do note with interest that many of the quotes coming from the govt web sites seem to suggest that it's toned down on approach from what it was. I remember reading CGA briefs from the govt years ago that were really quite harsh on sellers.

As I said, I may need to brush up.

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#434463 2-Feb-2011 20:25

Just an update, for the record.

I have now written to HN Head Office to complain about my experience in trying to get the phone fixed. I complained about two things: 1) their insistence on a $50 deposit and 2) misrepresenting the cost of a claim in the Disputes Tribunal.

I am not asking HN to do anything about the phone, as Nokia have stepped in for that.

However, an apology would be nice. I'm not sure that they can do much to restore my confidence in shopping there again. But we'll see, perhaps I'm being unreasonable.

I have also sent a copy of the HN letter to Consumer Affairs, so I hope that they will get back to me about whether or not I have misinterpreted my consumer rights.

I will continue to report here what happens.

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#434639 3-Feb-2011 08:37

I will continue to report here what happens.

Please do keep us informed.

Its quite apparent some people here have different expectations on what constitutes "fit for purpose" products offered by retailers; and reasonable service from those retailers. Clearly some of our views are a bit subjective to the point posters throw their toys out of the cot and stop contributing. Clarification from the people you have written to would be useful.

Nokia2012

108 posts

Master Geek

#434654 3-Feb-2011 08:56

Yes that's these extended warranty are a trap. I think they get you to buy in to them and then when you take it back when something has gone wrong they say its not covered. Its not our problem is the manufactures problem. Just like insurance I never get extended warranty it's a headake.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#434691 3-Feb-2011 10:21

Ya the cot/toy thing is a bit bonkers.

It's all a bit of a balancing act this phone thing from what I can see. Following this discussion I've been taking a bit more note of the ads on TV.

2Deg are selling a phone for $50 with some air time...

The balance here is if ppl want cheap phones then you have to pay for service later if you get unlucky.

If you want to support the model that I presented earlier then the retail price has to cover the cost of the service end so you might be saying goodbye to cheap phones.

I didn't write the CGA and I don't enforce it. All I'm doing is sharing how I see it from my experience working within it.

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#434716 3-Feb-2011 11:01

2Deg are selling a phone for $50 with some air time...

D

Interesting example.

I don't know how 2Degrees make a profit when they sell a phone for $50. Roughly $7 of that goes to govt in GST. Its got a $5 airtime credit and $10 text pack along with headset, radio and flashlight.

But then I don't need to know how they make money - thats their problem, not mine.

All I need to know is that they are selling me a phone that goes and one that is durable enough so that it will last a reasonable time (and with a Motorola brand and not a Chinese knock off I have an expectation it will last a couple of years - it probably comes with a one year warranty anyway).

If it doesn't meet my expectations (whether they are reasonable or not) then they have to stand behind the CGA. Can they do this and still make a profit? I presume they can (- after all they have the business analysts doing the costs and will be much better at doing the math than me) though I doubt it but then thats not my problem - its theirs

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#434944 3-Feb-2011 16:57

The phone is an obvious loose leader.

However the CGA requirement is easy with that one because they just give you your money back and you start again.

I doubt they'd even consider trying to service that phone.

I'm sure the phone is good enough that in 99% of cases it will last at least 6 months and in 90% of cases make it 12 months and 80% 2 years.

In that time they should have collected enough airtime off you to pay for it and make some profit even if they do it just by getting the teens to call 0800 numbers - that's why mobile hand over fees are handy for telcos.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#434961 3-Feb-2011 17:13

DonGould:
However the CGA requirement is easy with that one because they just give you your money back and you start again.

I doubt they'd even consider trying to service that phone.

Though HN would probably still ask for the $50 deposit to get it checked out!

Your assessment may well be right. It could be the telco equivalent of a printer where the printer is dirt cheap but the its the consumerables that sting you.

Ha - and that reminds me of another Noel Leeming experience. Bought a printer off them which lasted a day. They wanted to send it away to HP to get checked. I wasn't having any of that bullsh@t (I knew once it left the shop I'd be without a printer for months) and hung in there until they gave me a replacement.

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