Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


41 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2
Inactive user


Topic # 190894 15-Jan-2016 13:12
Send private message

Disclaimer: With the above I am not saying Parallel Imported, based in Auckland, are a rip off or anything, but it pays to be fully informed before buying from them.

My story is quite simple.  In June 2015 my old iPhone 4s died and I needed a new phone. I wanted to come over to the android market as my first requisite was now a battery life that lasted more than an afternoon, and iPhones do not offer good battery life unfortunately.

So, like possibly everyone in here, I did some market researh and settled for a Sony Xperia M2 Aqua which sported most of the things I wanted and a Li-Ion 2300 mAh battery as well as water protection.

Only one NZ store sold it at the time and the price was well over $400.00, if memory serves.  Parallel Imported were selling these for $319, inclusive of shipping and with one year warranty, so I told myself surely I'll not need the warranty claim as phones these days are fairly solid pieces of hardware, and bought it.

Couple of weeks ago the rear camera stopped working altogether, and while I don't take pictures with my phone I used the camera to scan barcodes of my rewards/loyalty cards to then use in store.

I checked the date of purchase and found it was 4th of June 2015, so I thought - good is still under warranty.

I called the people at Parallel Imported and told me I had to pay the shipping back to them, which I pretty much suspected, and $40.00 upfront to them refundable if the issue is discovered to be covered by warranty.

I guess it was my bad not to read the fine print really, but I am still fiarly disappointed at this and learnt a good lesson for the future: Buy at a reputable store in my area and while I may spend more the peace of mind of warranty claim handled in a more customer centric way is priceless.

So, beware of the extra costs hidden with these crowd if you ever consider purchasing from them.

My 2c


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3
19282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2600
Inactive user


  Reply # 1471913 15-Jan-2016 13:17
Send private message

Go back to them and bring up CGA shipping is not at your cost



41 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2
Inactive user


  Reply # 1471918 15-Jan-2016 13:22
Send private message

Thank you John, I suspected that much. However I am not even going to entertain a bum war with them and my post was to warn my fellow geeks in here for future reference. :)

3071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1551


  Reply # 1471921 15-Jan-2016 13:25
Send private message

So did they repair the phone for you?

My understanding is that under the CGA they cannot charge for return shipping nor can they charge a 'bond' although it is quite common. I could stand corrected.

A quick google on my phone and found this http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/legislation-policy/policy-reports-and-papers/discussion-papers/consumer-law-reform-a-discussion-paper/12.-consumer-guarantees/multipagedocumentsection.2010-06-11.6413180929/12.1.3-issue-bonds-to-assess-faulty-goods




Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



2173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 359


  Reply # 1471984 15-Jan-2016 15:14
Send private message

Surely you would have had the option of dropping the phone off or sending it in, to me it seems reasonable that onus of responsibility is on the consumer to return faulty goods to place of purchase? I would expect most small device warranties would be on a return to base scenario?

So the only hidden cost is the $40 inspection fee which is refundable if claim accepted? Overall the cost to consumer for an accepted warranty claim is nothing? 

I had an issue a few years ago with a faulty plasma TV, Samsung wanted a bond to assess the goods so it is nothing new and commonplace even for a major retailer, mind you they collected tv from my house at their own cost which was nice given the average 42" plasma weighed close on 50kg back then :P 

FWIW Parallel importing has been common place at least in Auckland for 10 years. maybe i am numb to it as i can recall all the horror stories from the old days. My device failure rate is ridiculously low but I still buy local where ever possible, only exception is where i can't get what I want locally then i self import



gzt

10187 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1560


  Reply # 1471992 15-Jan-2016 15:26
Send private message

Sanco: I called the people at Parallel Imported and told me I had to pay the shipping back to them, which I pretty much suspected, and $40.00 upfront to them refundable if the issue is discovered to be covered by warranty.

This actually seems normal to me. To me what counts is the time required to complete the service and the quality of that work.

Johnr, is the retailer required to provide shipping in both directions for warranty service under CGA? I was not aware. Good if it is true. : ).

Glurp
8243 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3792

Subscriber

  Reply # 1472002 15-Jan-2016 15:28
One person supports this post
Send private message

johnr: Go back to them and bring up CGA shipping is not at your cost


Darn, I sure wish I had known that before. At the end of 2013 I bought a sub-woofer amp from an outfit in Auckland called Surplustronics. It looked like it was what I needed, but a week after it arrived an electrolytic capacitor in the psu went bad. At first they were friendly, but when I tried to claim on the warranty they turned sour and tried to get out of it, even suggesting that it must somehow be my fault. Fortunately I knew what I was talking about and stood my ground, and when it became clear I wasn't going to back down, they finally reluctantly accepted it back as a repair job. The repair was properly done and I have never had trouble with the unit since then, but they made me pay the shipping cost and I didn't know they were not supposed to do that. Sub-woofer amps are not light and the shipping was expensive. I wish I had known.

I hope you are reading, Rowan. You are a jerk and your company Surplustronics deserves to be pilloried for this. Maybe we should have a thread here for companies that act in bad faith.
 




I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


502 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 119


  Reply # 1472185 15-Jan-2016 19:59
Send private message

gzt:

Johnr, is the retailer required to provide shipping in both directions for warranty service under CGA? I was not aware. Good if it is true. : ).


By law, yes. All of the big retailers I've used have argued with me over this point, but they eventually come to the party.

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11


  Reply # 1472200 15-Jan-2016 20:25
Send private message

wsnz:
gzt:

Johnr, is the retailer required to provide shipping in both directions for warranty service under CGA? I was not aware. Good if it is true. : ).


By law, yes. All of the big retailers I've used have argued with me over this point, but they eventually come to the party.




Not exactly. From the Consumer Affairs web site:


"If the goods are large and you are unable to deliver them yourself, the retailer is responsible for collecting them."

You might be able to argue the semantics... the CGA is never very clear, but it doesn't say "and/or you are unable to deliver them yourself"

There is also no mention of who carries the cost to return the repaired or replaced items.


As a side note- I had a claim under guarantee with Parallel Imported years ago and they gave me the runaround no end. Sounds like they haven't improved much at all. 

On the other hand I've bought a lot of parallel imported cameras and phones from Expert Infotech in Auckland and they have replaced faulty goods without question on the spot.

14353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1866


  Reply # 1472202 15-Jan-2016 20:29
Send private message

shortcircuit:
wsnz:
gzt:

Johnr, is the retailer required to provide shipping in both directions for warranty service under CGA? I was not aware. Good if it is true. : ).


By law, yes. All of the big retailers I've used have argued with me over this point, but they eventually come to the party.




Not exactly. From the Consumer Affairs web site:


"If the goods are large and you are unable to deliver them yourself, the retailer is responsible for collecting them."

You might be able to argue the semantics... the CGA is never very clear, but it doesn't say "and/or you are unable to deliver them yourself"

There is also no mention of who carries the cost to return the repaired or replaced items.


As a side note- I had a claim under guarantee with Parallel Imported years ago and they gave me the runaround no end. Sounds like they haven't improved much at all. 

On the other hand I've bought a lot of parallel imported cameras and phones from Expert Infotech in Auckland and they have replaced faulty goods without question on the spot.


From the NZ Consumer website at https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/consumer-guarantees-act 

"If you have to post or courier goods back to be repaired, you don't have to pay for those costs."

Just show the retailer that webpage.

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11


  Reply # 1472218 15-Jan-2016 21:03
Send private message

From the NZ Consumer website...


And there's part of the problem. I was quoting directly from the web site of the organisation that administers the CGA. How can you expect retailers to tow the line and consumers to have a clear idea of what they are entitled to if it's all 'up for interpretation'?

21463 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4362

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1472219 15-Jan-2016 21:05
Send private message

My understanding and how we applied it was if we sent it out to you on our courier, then we would look after it both ways for repairs, but would bill you the return shipping if it was not faulty or was operator error etc.

If you picked it up or had your own courier collect it, then you dropped it back off, and if you wanted it sent out to you instead of picking up the repaired one, you paid for that.




Richard rich.ms

3390 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 467


  Reply # 1472221 15-Jan-2016 21:07
Send private message

I think a lot of people confuse the Consumer.org.nz website as a place to find FACTS on the CGA.
Yes, there's information, but there's a lot of opinion... and it could be argued that the opinion is often masquerading as fact.

14353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1866


  Reply # 1472224 15-Jan-2016 21:09
Send private message

shortcircuit: From the NZ Consumer website...


And there's part of the problem. I was quoting directly from the web site of the organisation that administers the CGA. How can you expect retailers to tow the line and consumers to have a clear idea of what they are entitled to if it's all 'up for interpretation'?


As consumer is an organisation whose main purpose is dealing with consumer matters in NZ, and deal with the CGA all the time, you would think that the information on their website was all accurate. Are you saying they are incorrect in their interpretation? The thing is that NZ Acts are all open to interpretation, as they are often vague and written in lawyer speak. So it is up to  organizations like this to put them into normal person wording. Consumer have had that on their website for years, so it doesn't look like anyone has successfully challenged their interpretation of it.

14353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1866


  Reply # 1472227 15-Jan-2016 21:11
Send private message

Dunnersfella: I think a lot of people confuse the Consumer.org.nz website as a place to find FACTS on the CGA.
Yes, there's information, but there's a lot of opinion... and it could be argued that the opinion is often masquerading as fact.


So are they incorrect? That is their interpretation of the law, do you have a differing one that counters it? You would think that they would be in a better position to interpret it, than 99% of people reading the Act, who weren't lawyers. If they were wrong and giving people incorrect information, you would think that the ministry would tell them to correct it.

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11


Reply # 1472229 15-Jan-2016 21:17
Send private message

Dunnersfella gets a gold star

 1 | 2 | 3
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.