Frontosa IT - Faulty Headset

B

BaTouSai

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
403
Reaction score
1
Hi

I bought a Razer Chimaera 5.1 Headset from Frontosa JHB in December 2011.

I have a lot of issues with it.

Headset jumps in and out of local coms mode until it gets stuck in local mode and leaves you with no sound.
Volume will go to max on it's own and you can't turn it down without switching the headset off for about 5 minutes.
Mic volume is terrible. When you are in a xbox live party with max volume you can't hear a thing when party member speaks.

So I contacted Razer and they told me I should RMA it. Arranged with Frontosa and told them I have used the headset for two months and I already sent back a client's unit in January so I do not want a replacement I want credit so that I can get something that works.

The Technical Manager told me it's fine I must send the unit in for testing and if it's faulty they will credit me.

So I thought ok it is faulty and I need sound so I ordered a set of speakers from them to replace the headset thinking that I'll get my credit.

The Technical Manager just phoned me and told me the headset is faulty and he spoke to his General Manager and they can credit me if I provide them with the original packaging and cables that came with the headset.

I did send in all the cables and the headset but I don't have the plastic box it came in anymore :cry:

I only keep the boxes a few days if there is a DOA claim and the I throw it away.

Now I bought the speakers for R1500 and I really need my credit on the headset.

I have no use for a replacement now and I can't afford to have a R1700 headset lying around.

What can I do?

Thanks
 
Not much you can do with Frontosa. They're c..ts who think the CPA doesn't apply to them. The national consumer commissioner will take at least 6 months to reply and the courts are too costly for such a small claim. Try begging.

Also, if you're a company with a turnover over R 3m a year, the CPA won't apply.
 
Drunkard #1 said:
Not much you can do with Frontosa. They're c..ts who think the CPA doesn't apply to them. The national consumer commissioner will take at least 6 months to reply and the courts are too costly for such a small claim. Try begging.

Also, if you're a company with a turnover over R 3m a year, the CPA won't apply.
Click to expand...

They don't sell to the public, so why would the CPA apply to them?

Also, your R3m statement is the wrong way around
 
I've forwarded this thread URL onto someone at Frontosa.

I'm sure they are not the 'bastards' people are making them out to be.
 
You're lucky to have been offered a credit. Usually it's a swap out.

About 6 months ago I have returned a faulty Corsair AX750, they would only credit it if I brought full packaging and modular cables (I upgraded to AX850). If no packaging etc. they swapped. Perhaps their terms. Sounds kinda fair?

CPA doesn't apply to them, but generally their service is top notch.
 
xrapidx said:
They don't sell to the public, so why would the CPA apply to them?

Also, your R3m statement is the wrong way around
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it apply to them? The list of transactions it doesn't apply to is a very short list. One exclusion being transactions where the purchaser is juristic person with a turnover of over R 3m. They cannot legally exclude themselves from the Act in any other way. Any term in their Ts and Cs that attempts to hinder the purchaser's rights is illegal in itself. The CPA must apply. Not even an agreement between the parties can prevent that, because that could be used to bully purchasers into signing away their rights.

Even if that was the case, it would still apply to them in so far as some sections of the CPA allow an end user to directly claim from a manufacturer, importer or distributor, specifically, the sections dealing with defective goods, and damages caused by defective goods (which cannot be limited by Ts and Cs anymore.)

What do you mean my R 3m statement is wrong?
 
Drunkard #1 said:
Why wouldn't it apply to them? The list of transactions it doesn't apply to is a very short list. One exclusion being transactions where the purchaser is juristic person with a turnover of over R 3m. They cannot legally exclude themselves from the Act in any other way. Any term in their Ts and Cs that attempts to hinder the purchaser's rights is illegal in itself. The CPA must apply. Not even an agreement between the parties can prevent that, because that could be used to bully purchasers into signing away their rights.

Even if that was the case, it would still apply to them in so far as some sections of the CPA allow an end user to directly claim from a manufacturer, importer or distributor, specifically, the sections dealing with defective goods, and damages caused by defective goods (which cannot be limited by Ts and Cs anymore.)

What do you mean my R 3m statement is wrong?
Click to expand...

So CPA applies to:

Asbis, Esquire, Frontosa, Pinnacle, Rectron, Sahara etc.?
 
PostmanPot said:
Cool, mind listing them? I thought the consensus was that CPA only applied to retailers/dealers and such.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused:

It's straight out of the Act.

5. (1) This Act applies to—
(a) every transaction occurring within the Republic, unless it is exempted by
subsection (2), or in terms of subsections (3) and (4);
(b) the promotion of any goods or services, or of the supplier of any goods or
services, within the Republic, unless—
(i) those goods or services could not reasonably be the subject of a
transaction to which this Act applies in terms of paragraph (a); or
(ii) the promotion of those goods or services has been exempted in terms of
subsections (3) and (4);
(c) goods or services that are supplied or performed in terms of a transaction to
which this Act applies, irrespective of whether any of those goods or services
are offered or supplied in conjunction with any other goods or services, or
separate from any other goods or services; and
(d) goods that are supplied in terms of a transaction that is exempt from the
application of this Act, but only to the extent provided for in subsection (5).
(2) This Act does not apply to any transaction—
(a) in terms of which goods or services are promoted or supplied to the State;
(b) in terms of which the consumer is a juristic person whose asset value or annual
turnover, at the time of the transaction, equals or exceeds the threshold value
determined by the Minister in terms of section 6;
(c) if the transaction falls within an exemption granted by the Minister in terms of
subsections (3) and (4);
(d) that constitutes a credit agreement under the National Credit Act, but the
goods or services that are the subject of the credit agreement are not excluded
from the ambit of this Act;
(e) pertaining to services to be supplied under an employment contract;
(f) giving effect to a collective bargaining agreement within the meaning of
section 23 of the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Act No. 66
of 1995); or
(g) giving effect to a collective agreement as defined in section 213 of the Labour
Relations Act, 1995 (Act No. 66 of 1995).
(3) A regulatory authority may apply to the Minister for an industry-wide exemption
from one or more provisions of this Act on the grounds that those provisions overlap or
duplicate a regulatory scheme administered by that regulatory authority in terms of—
(a) any other national legislation; or
36
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
(b) any treaty, international law, convention or protocol.
(4) The Minister, by notice in the Gazette after receiving the advice of the
Commission, may grant an exemption contemplated in subsection (3)—
(a) only to the extent that the relevant regulatory scheme ensures the achievement
of the purposes of this Act at least as well as the provisions of this Act; and
(b) subject to any limits or conditions necessary to ensure the achievement of the
purposes of this Act.
(5) If any goods are supplied within the Republic to any person in terms of a
transaction that is exempt from the application of this Act, those goods, and the importer
or producer, distributor and retailer of those goods, respectively, are nevertheless subject
to sections 60 and 61.
(6) For greater certainty, the following arrangements must be regarded as a
transaction between a supplier and consumer, within the meaning of this Act:
(a) The supply of any goods or services in the ordinary course of business to any
of its members by a club, trade union, association, society or other collectivity,
whether corporate or unincorporated, of persons voluntarily associated and
organised for a common purpose or purposes, whether for fair value
consideration or otherwise, irrespective of whether there is a charge or
economic contribution demanded or expected in order to become or remain a
member of that entity;
(b) a solicitation of offers to enter into a franchise agreement;
(c) an offer by a potential franchisor to enter into a franchise agreement with a
potential franchisee;
(d) a franchise agreement or an agreement supplementary to a franchise
agreement; and
(e) the supply of any goods or services to a franchisee in terms of a franchise
agreement.
(7) Despite subsection (2)(b), this Act applies to a transaction contemplated in
subsection (6)(b) to (e) irrespective of whether the size of the juristic person falls above
or below the threshold determined in terms of section 6.
(8) The application of this Act in terms of subsections (1) to (7) extends to a matter
irrespective of whether the supplier—
(a) resides or has its principal office within or outside the Republic;
(b) operates on a for-profit basis or otherwise; or
(c) is an individual, juristic person, partnership, trust, organ of state, an entity
owned or directed by an organ of state, a person contracted or licensed by an
organ of state to offer or supply any goods or services, or is a public-private
partnership; or
(d) is required or licensed in terms of any public regulation to make the supply of
the particular goods or services available to all or part of the public.
Click to expand...

But you also need the definitions and regulations to properly interpret it, and they're eight pages and 88 pages. Get a copy of the Act and the regulations.

Who's been spreading these malicious rumour that it only applies to retailers and dealers?
 
Last edited:
PostmanPot said:
You're lucky to have been offered a credit. Usually it's a swap out.

About 6 months ago I have returned a faulty Corsair AX750, they would only credit it if I brought full packaging and modular cables (I upgraded to AX850). If no packaging etc. they swapped. Perhaps their terms. Sounds kinda fair?

CPA doesn't apply to them, but generally their service is top notch.
Click to expand...

OP, you absolutely couldn't do without sound for a few days/weeks, so you bought yourself another system before confirming the the credit. Sure, in principle it may have been agreed to, but the whole point of sending it in was to determine that. You refused to go without your precious sound temporarily, and your own impatience f'd you over.

Almost all vendors/distributors - IT or otherwise - require packaging for a credit. The whole idea is that they can resell your one (if found to be sell-able) or send it back to the vendor for their own credit. It's hardly unreasonable in any way, and I wouldn't blame them one bit for that.

This is your own fault - as I'm sure you'll see from the rest of the resellers reactions.

Oh and regarding all this CPA rubbish - stop using it as some sort of safety net. The product you bought included the packaging - all that Frontosa is asking you to do is to return the product (ie. including packaging, manuals, whatever). You're unable to do that, therefore CPA or no CPA, they shouldn't be obliged to credit anything.
 
Last edited:
Dean said:
Oh and regarding all this CPA rubbish - stop using it as some sort of safety net. The product you bought included the packaging - all that Frontosa is asking you to do is to return the product (ie. including packaging, manuals, whatever). You're unable to do that, therefore CPA or no CPA, they shouldn't be obliged to credit anything.
Click to expand...

Why - the CPA is there for exactly this reason? If the CPA does apply to them - then they charge a repackaging fee?
 
Dean said:
OP, you absolutely couldn't do without sound for a few days/weeks, so you bought yourself another system before confirming the the credit. Sure, in principle it may have been agreed to, but the whole point of sending it in was to determine that. You refused to go without your precious sound temporarily, and your own impatience f'd you over.

Almost all vendors/distributors - IT or otherwise - require packaging for a credit. The whole idea is that they can resell your one (if found to be sell-able) or send it back to the vendor for their own credit. It's hardly unreasonable in any way, and I wouldn't blame them one bit for that.

This is your own fault - as I'm sure you'll see from the rest of the resellers reactions.

Oh and regarding all this CPA rubbish - stop using it as some sort of safety net. The product you bought included the packaging - all that Frontosa is asking you to do is to return the product (ie. including packaging, manuals, whatever). You're unable to do that, therefore CPA or no CPA, they shouldn't be obliged to credit anything.
Click to expand...

Oh boo-****ing-hoo. Suppliers have to act less like ****s because of a new Act. Cry me a ****ing river. They chose to do business in SA, they chose to sell crap goods, and they're making good ****ing money doing it, so if they now have to bear the costs of supporting the crap they sell, then I'm not going to shed a tear.
 
xrapidx said:
Why - the CPA is there for exactly this reason? If the CPA does apply to them - then they charge a repackaging fee?
Click to expand...

repackaging fee? you mean one that includes whatever it costs to send it to the Chinese factory it came out of to get another empty box? I'm not sure whether CPA covers this repackaging fee, but either way the implications would be highly impractical.

The CPA applies to everyone, including Frontosa... dont bother trying to find reason for it not to (to those who are) ...although buyers with a revenue in excess of a few million are not seen as consumers and that is the only exception.
 
Last edited:
Dean said:
OP, you absolutely couldn't do without sound for a few days/weeks, so you bought yourself another system before confirming the the credit. Sure, in principle it may have been agreed to, but the whole point of sending it in was to determine that. You refused to go without your precious sound temporarily, and your own impatience f'd you over.

Almost all vendors/distributors - IT or otherwise - require packaging for a credit. The whole idea is that they can resell your one (if found to be sell-able) or send it back to the vendor for their own credit. It's hardly unreasonable in any way, and I wouldn't blame them one bit for that.

This is your own fault - as I'm sure you'll see from the rest of the resellers reactions.

Oh and regarding all this CPA rubbish - stop using it as some sort of safety net. The product you bought included the packaging - all that Frontosa is asking you to do is to return the product (ie. including packaging, manuals, whatever). You're unable to do that, therefore CPA or no CPA, they shouldn't be obliged to credit anything.
Click to expand...

No I can't be without sound.

If I pay almost R2000 for a headset I want it to work atleast for a few months not a few weeks!
I sold one to a client and his unit worked for about 3 months.

This particular headset is crappy and I told them I do not want a replacement. If it was a cheap headset I wouldn't even bother with it but it's fscking expensive.

I can't see why a small plastic container with a Razer logo can be an issue.
 
BaTouSai said:
No I can't be without sound.

If I pay almost R2000 for a headset I want it to work atleast for a few months not a few weeks!
I sold one to a client and his unit worked for about 3 months.

This particular headset is crappy and I told them I do not want a replacement. If it was a cheap headset I wouldn't even bother with it but it's fscking expensive.

I can't see why a small plastic container with a Razer logo can be an issue.
Click to expand...

If you absolutely needed sound - you could have easily gone out and bought a R20 cheap pair of headphones to use while your credit was being attended to. You jumped the gun and bought an expensive replacement - it's really unfortunate but you can't blame anyone else.

Check those T&Cs you signed (and probably initialled on each page after 'reading' it) when you filled in your Frontosa registration forms. I'm sure they'll shed some light on your plight.

I'm sure it would have made a difference to you if you didn't get the packaging when you bought the headset. Now that it's not in your favour, it obviously doesn't matter to you.

Anyway, this is less about defending them and more about getting irritable with consumers who feel entitled to be unreasonable :sick:
...the fact that you're also a reseller (and as such should be pretty familiar with industry standard practices) makes this even more worrying. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
Dean said:
If you absolutely needed sound - you could have easily gone out and bought a R20 cheap pair of headphones to use while your credit was being attended to. You jumped the gun and bought an expensive replacement - it's really unfortunate but you can't blame anyone else.

Check those T&Cs you signed (and probably initialled on each page after 'reading' it) when you filled in your Frontosa registration forms. I'm sure they'll shed some light on your plight.




I'm sure it would have made a difference to you if you didn't get the packaging when you bought the headset. Now that it's not in your favour, it obviously doesn't matter to you.

Anyway, this is less about defending them and more about getting irritable with consumers who feel entitled to be unreasonable :sick:
...the fact that you're also a reseller (and as such should be pretty familiar with industry standard practices) makes this even more worrying. Oh well.
Click to expand...

It seems you are just accustomed to ****ty service from your suppliers.

Funny how I've never had an issue with Rectron or Corex.

They gave me credit for faulty LCDs time and again and then the LCD is not faulty in 2 months time but almost out of the 3 year warranty.

I have never heard them complain about packaging! Just a LCD and stand and then they give me an option between a replacement or credit.
 
As far as I know they say in their TC's that for credit returns you need the original packaging and within 14 days, less a 15% handling fee. If it's RMA then they are only obligated to a swapout as the swapout is covered by the manufacturer and not them directly. I don't see how your experience is unfair- unfortunate, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X