Mustek refuses to repair damaged laptop

Posted :Friday, February 25, 2011by Milan Send Maill   

Mustek Refuses to fix damaged Laptop “The Sequel”
I had purchased a laptop for a customer from Mustek on the 9th of February. It arrives the next day in a sealed Acer box and as usual I then sign the waybill as customers do not prefer open goods. The customer later arrives on my premises ready to receive the laptop. Upon opening the laptop box we spot the corner of the laptop to be bent. A call was then logged with Mustek within a space of 2hrs after delivery.(15:32 to be exact the 9th of February).
The Laptop was then sent in on Friday the 11th with the impression that the laptop would be repaired or replaced as I assumed it to be DEAD ON ARRIVAL(DOE). To my surprise after speaking to the sales agent Degracia she had informed me that I would need to speak to the Acer Brand manager. The brand manager in response said that it would all depend on the CCTV footage.
I asked her what would be the purpose of this as I live by the philosophy that “The customer is always rite” and this would directly be implying that I had damaged the laptop. She then informed me then having met with her team that they had decided it to be customer damage and the customer would be liable for the cost. This was ridiculous as I had previously purchased items from them with no previous returns and you would expect a Mustek to re-issue a new laptop as this is what customer service is about.
I followed up again on Monday(13th) and spoke to Liesel Weber whose serves the role of the “Customer Care Manager”. She informed me that a final decision will be made with regards to the laptop at the end of the day. I later got a phone call from her informing me that she had taken the final decision based on the Service supervisor ”Jeetash Govind” attributing the damage to that done by a customer. I asked her if I could speak to him as I was angered by this. Frustrated by this I called him and asked him why was I being billed for the damage. He made it clear that judging from the CCTV footage he can confirm that the laptop was not damaged on the line. I told him that this was very unfair and that they cannot do this to a customer especially since I had known that I did not drop the laptop.
He said that the proof was in the CCTV footage and that my view of this was irrelevant. Knowing that my customer was waiting I agreed that the laptop should be taken to Acer for a repair quotation. I was told that a quotation would be sent to me.
I followed up again on the 14th, 15th then finally on the 16th I was “awarded” a personal assistant in the form of beautiful lady by the name of Charmaine. Charmaine kept me up to date with regards to the situation with the laptop and was very helpful.
On the 21st the quotation for the repair “Painfully” arrived amounting to R662.00 for the replacement of the damaged cover and no labour charges to which Liesel adds, “Due to the situation we will not be charging labour”. I then asked her to put me through to the Service Manager Jeetash Govind whom I had still not received a call from with regards to his final decision as I was still angered that he did not see otherwise. I recalled earlier that he said the laptop box was damaged but it did not seem to match the damage on the Laptop, I assume that he meant either it was damaged before being put in the box or by me. Jeetash phoned me the next day prior to which I had left a message for him. I had also asked him if I could review the CCTV footage.
I then asked to see the CCTV footage on the 22nd to which I got no reply. I phoned back on the 23rd and left a message with one of his colleagues whom informed me that he was busy with a government contract and did not have the time to attend to my matter and that I should book an appointment at the month end. I was very angered by this.
The laptop arrived on the 23rd, I relooked at the box and the scenario. This made me more eager to have a look at the CCTV footage. On arrival the laptop failed to log on to the net due to a operating system error and the dvd failed to read on a number of occasions. This was reported the next day to Charmaine whom advised me to bring the laptop in. (64km journey). I was then helped by a friendly technician named Ivan who managed to sort the operating system out and let me know that if any problem occurred I should contact him.
I finally was able to look at the CCTV footage which was roughly on a 328px X 330px screen. I then asked Jeetash if he could zoom in on the laptop so that we could see the entire laptop and make a final decision with regards to it condition. He replied, “He cannot zoom in as the resolution is too low”. This I agree with very much.
On the matter described above I understand that Mustek does not have enough evidence to prove that the client had in fact drop the laptop.(Since the decision was based on CCTV footage)
The laptop was re-delivered to the customer on the 24th. The customer phoned to inform me that one of the speakers malfunctioned and he did not want the laptop and preferred a refund as he had found this very unprofessional. I then logged a call with ACER South Africa and asked if this is in fact what customer service was about, the technician then advised that I should send this “ESSAY” to Acer Europe via email. I eagerly await ACERs response with regards to this matter.
In total I have made over 15 calls to Mustek and have sacrificed 3-4hrs a day for 13 working days which I could have used on my own career goals. I have also done a combined mileage of 134km.
I recently read an article whereby David Kan, Mustek CEO describes the It channel as “Promising” and prides Mustek on aftersales service and repairs. Mr Kan only if you knew the trouble and many migraines later that I was put through would you reconsider you outlook on your companies ethos.
To my fellow dealers beware the “Waybill-Fine print” and don’t let the Sharks in the channel bully what is solely yours. Together we can fight to make the IT channel a safer place.

http://www.cybernatic.co.za