Frontosa IT - Faulty Headset

[reactor_sa]

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.

Can't be too crappy if you kept them for WEEKS/MONTHS... Just saying.

 

[BaTouSai]

Frontosa IT just sent me a mail

"Good Day ,

I just need all the accessories and we will credit :

3.5 mm audio cable
Rca to 2.5 mm jack cable
Power connectors (universal ac adapter connectors )"

This is the kind of service I am accustomed to

Thanks Frontosa

 

[BaTouSai]

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.

I never said it was unfair just asked advice that's all.

 

[Dean]

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.

I don't call it ****ty service, I call it fair service. Going above and beyond (ignoring their own T&Cs to still credit the unit without packaging) is a completely different story, and one that should be rewarded with further business/brand advocacy. I call that exceptional service.

Hey - all's well that ends well, but let this be a lesson for the future - when the amount in question may be R20000 and not R2000

 

[Drunkard #1]

I don't call it ****ty service, I call it fair service. Going above and beyond (ignoring their own T&Cs to still credit the unit without packaging) is a completely different story, and one that should be rewarded with further business/brand advocacy. I call that exceptional service.

Hey - all's well that ends well, but let this be a lesson for the future - when the amount in question may be R20000 and not R2000

No, it's called trying to avoid their name being dragged through the mud any more than it already has been, a potential investigation of their Ts and Cs for compliance with the CPA, and the possibility of a 10%-of-their-annual-turnover fine. My complaint wasn't handled the same way, which is why I will continue to drag their name through the mud. At best, I'd call their service pathetic. Complaints need to reach a national forum before they're resolved, while everyone else gets told to "**** off".

They're still living in the dark ages, but they'll be dragged into the CPA era, kicking and screaming if need be. And no, packaging requirements are not "fair"; they're repeatedly used solely to renege on guarantee claims. IIRC, the National Consumer Commissioner has said that packaging requirements can't legally be put into Ts and Cs, (but don't ask me to prove it, I can't find the article), which is fair in my opinion - Why should the consumer have to foot the bill for storage of packaging which will only be used in the event of a product turning out to be defective. The CPA is clear: all risks and all costs resulting from defective products are for the account of the supplier.

 

[Dean]

Yea it's always a pity when we can't find any evidence to back up our claims. Especially with Google's indexing of almost every document on the web

But sir, continue to drag brands through the mud... after all, that right is constitutional.

 

[Drunkard #1]

Yea it's always a pity when we can't find any evidence to back up our claims. Especially with Google's indexing of almost every document on the web

But sir, continue to drag brands through the mud... after all, that right is constitutional.

I'm sure I can find something in the CPA that fits, even if it's just the "Ts and Cs cant be unfair or one-sided" clause.

But you carry on supporting illegal and unfair business practices.

 

[Mystic Twilight]

They're still living in the dark ages, but they'll be dragged into the CPA era, kicking and screaming if need be. And no, packaging requirements are not "fair"; they're repeatedly used solely to renege on guarantee claims. IIRC, the National Consumer Commissioner has said that packaging requirements can't legally be put into Ts and Cs, (but don't ask me to prove it, I can't find the article), which is fair in my opinion - Why should the consumer have to foot the bill for storage of packaging which will only be used in the event of a product turning out to be defective. The CPA is clear: all risks and all costs resulting from defective products are for the account of the supplier.

Im not defending or championing any cause. Logically speaking packaging is a part of the product, most people would think of simple and cheap plastic items but you do get far more elaborate and elegant packaging that would cost a pretty pen by itself. So it is reasonable for a store/supplier/shop/salesman to include the packaging as part of the return. When buying goods, a certain percentage of the cost is for the packaging (while shipping and other indirect costs is part of the cost of sales, its irrelevant because that falls under company expenses and is part of the purchaser(reseller)/seller(distributor) relationship, not the consumer. As far as I can tell, the OP is using the product under personal use, the fact the OP is a employee of the company is irrelevant.). When seeking a return for defective goods on full refund/credit it would be logical to include packaging, otherwise the refunded amount would be the amount paid minus the cost of packaging if packaging is irrelevant, and in future retailers/suppliers would rather sell goods without packaging (as in remove packaging when items are sold and keeping packaging, only an idiot would think i was suggesting removal of packaging from manufacturing process onwards. Packaging for transportation is essential for protection of goods) similar in style to the early assembly lines. The argument that packaging is essential for marketing, customer satisfaction (feel good response from visual and physical feedback) and increasing revenue only holds true for certain goods, whereas, for example, if Coca Cola were to introduce a selling system whereby the consumer is allowed to bring their own containers of any size and were simply charged per liter (lets assume price per liter is the current 1L price in store, R8-R10 or whatever it is from pick n pay. Note that price in store includes the cost on manufacturing the plastic bottle container. A tangent here, if I were to return my defective coca cola then surely i can do so without the bottle since the bottle is simply packaging and a container (same as a box), the manner in which they receive and transport the liquid is their problem. As ridiculous as it sounds, I surmise this isn't an exception to the CPA?), I wager they would still make a profit, if not potentially eating into profits from their normal bottle producing business if we separate the two.

Just an observation.