# XBox Smyths farmed out to Microsoft



## GabbyTheKing (25 Oct 2017)

Hi Guys, had a faulty XBox recently that broke after a few months. Went back to the Smyths shop and was told that the company policy was not to issue refunds after 1 month of purchase even if the good is faulty and they gave me the number for Microsoft and farmed out their obligation(Sales of goods supply of services act) (Reasonable timeframe) to the manufacturer who I do not have a contract with while also telling me "the fault was very common" and "I was not the first person to complain about this". Refused to issue me with a replacement and laughed when I asked for a refund. The Head office said its at the discretion of the shop manager and they couldn't interfere with his decision. Absolute joke does any shop take their SGSSA responsibility seriously any more when it comes to electronics. Have many come across this with Smyths?


----------



## Palerider (26 Oct 2017)

Where is the issue, your console problem was referred through a process, engage with that process and if there is an issue regarding faulty workmanship then you will be looked after, it is common to have the manufacturer stand over there product after a short period after sale.


----------



## tallpaul (26 Oct 2017)

Smyths are not handling this in a very customer-focused way. The retailer has the choice of the R's under Sale of Goods legislation: Refund, Repair or Replace. Accordingly, they are entitled to send the Xbox off for repair and you are not entitled to a refund. HOWEVER, as your contract is with Smyths and not Microsoft, it is up to THEM to deal with your repair not you and I would be most insistent on this point. In most cases, any company with any reasonable standing will usually just swap out a faulty machine with a new one and then take the issue up with the company themselves directly. I would mention Small Claims Court to their Head Office and go as far as to submit a claim. That will probably soften their cough somewhat.

As a result you, and probably many others, will avoid Smyths for such purchases in the future. Ultimately this may have an effect on their policy in the future if the bottom line takes a hit.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Oct 2017)

Bottom line: don't buy tech from toyshops.


----------



## michaelm (26 Oct 2017)

tallpaul said:


> HOWEVER, as your contract is with Smyths and not Microsoft, it is up to THEM to deal with your repair not you and I would be most insistent on this point.


This is what you should insist on.


----------



## Páid (26 Oct 2017)

Microsoft have a team based in Ireland (at least they used to be) that handle Xbox returns.


----------



## tallpaul (26 Oct 2017)

Páid said:


> Microsoft have a team based in Ireland (at least they used to be) that handle Xbox returns.


While that may be interesting information, it is not really relevant though. The Smyths' customer shouldn't care less where Microsoft are as it is Smyths' problem, not theirs.


----------



## Leo (26 Oct 2017)

Perhaps contact the shop and give them one more opportunity to resolve this to your satisfaction before taking this to the Small Claims Court. 

See the CCPC site for more details on your rights. 

Do not follow the shop's advice on contacting Microsoft directly, as this absolves the shop of their responsibilities and may weaken your case in the event Microsoft do not resolve the issue fully.


----------



## Páid (26 Oct 2017)

Leo said:


> Do not follow the shop's advice on contacting Microsoft directly, as this absolves the shop of their responsibilities and may weaken your case in the event Microsoft do not resolve the issue fully.



Merely contacting Microsoft will not absolve Smyths of their obligations. I wonder if the OP would be happy if Microsoft offered a replacement? Or only if Smyths offered a replacement.


----------



## Leo (26 Oct 2017)

Páid said:


> Merely contacting Microsoft will not absolve Smyths of their obligations. I wonder if the OP would be happy if Microsoft offered a replacement? Or only if Smyths offered a replacement.



Correct, contacting won't be, but Microsoft will in most cases request you to return the device to them. Once you do that, you've significantly weakened your protection under consumer legislation. Once MS touch the device, or even if they replace it (quite often with a refurb), you're liable to loose your rights to refund/replace/repair under the Sale & Supply of Goods Act. Any replacement device may come with a warranty from MS, but it's not the device you bough from Smyths, so they have no responsibility to assist. 

So you really have nothing to gain by phoning MS and absolving the vendor. A few people have reported being burned by taking this approach on the gaming forums.


----------



## Páid (27 Oct 2017)

Microsoft honour the initial warranty. If you buy a new xbox and have a two year warranty (for example - I know it could be longer) and something happens that xbox after six months and you return it to Microsoft you could end up with;

A refurbished year old xbox with 18 months warranty left
A brand new xbox with 18 months warranty left
A refurbished month old xbox where a €5 part has been replaced with 18 months warranty left
Smyths are just going to return it to Microsoft anyway and it will take longer. The only benefit of going back to Smyth's is if the OP wants a refund and nothing else.


----------



## newirishman (27 Oct 2017)

Páid said:


> Microsoft honour the initial warranty. If you buy a new xbox and have a two year warranty (for example - I know it could be longer) and something happens that xbox after six months and you return it to Microsoft you could end up with;
> 
> A refurbished year old xbox with 18 months warranty left
> A brand new xbox with 18 months warranty left
> ...



There is no automatic entitlement to a refund. Agree that it might take longer, but first and foremost Smyth's is the point of contact for all warranty issues. Failing that (i.e., when the company you bought from no longer exists) you can try with the manufacturer, if that is an option.


----------



## Leo (27 Oct 2017)

Your protection under the Sale & Supply of Goods act lasts longer than the manufacturer warranty. Once you go down any of the options above directly with MS, you lose that extended protection. 

I don't understand why anyone would want to let the shop off the hook in terms of their responsibilities while also reducing their statutory protections.

Asking a customer to contact MS direct even violates Smyths published .


----------



## Páid (27 Oct 2017)

> *Manufacturing Faults*
> If you believe your product has a fault, then you can return this within a reasonable timeframe to your local store with your Smyths Toys receipt, where an assistant will be happy to inspect and, once the item is deemed to have a genuine manufacturing fault, offer a repair or replacement. If the fault present is deemed to be a non-manufacturing fault (due to accidental damage or mis-use) then we are unable offer you with a replacement or a refund.



OP is entitled to a repair or replacement under those terms which is exactly the same as what Microsoft will give.


----------



## Leo (27 Oct 2017)

Páid said:


> OP is entitled to a repair or replacement under those terms which is exactly the same as what Microsoft will give.



But they don't in all cases, also they often request that the consumer send the device insured and tracked at their own expense to the Czeck Republic. The manufacturer also isn't held to the same expectations in terms of any repair carried out being permanent like the shop is under the legislation.


----------



## mathepac (27 Oct 2017)

T McGibney said:


> Bottom line: don't buy tech from toyshops.


Boycott Smyths and other outlets who refuse to recognise their obligations to consumers under law here


----------



## vandriver (27 Oct 2017)

Smyths is Irish.


----------



## mathepac (28 Oct 2017)

It's a pity their behaviour as described is very Irish, contrary to Irish consumer law and their own returns policy  and faulty goods policy, published here


----------



## peemac (28 Oct 2017)

mathepac said:


> Boycott Smyths and other outlets who refuse to recognise their obligations to consumers under law here (Smyths, Ken Blacks and possibly more are trading names for the same UK-based company)


Smyths are 100% Irish.  Also family owned and headquartered in Galway.

Ken Blacks is not owned by Smyths - its owned by Ken Black. He has a long time friendship with Smyths and did joint purchasing - both were smallish players. Smyths continue to honour the agreement even though Ken Blacks is still smallish and Smyths are a giant.

As for the op. This is standard policy for most electronic goods and shops. Especially for computer type stuff.

Its not that the store is negating their responsibilities,  but they are giving you a far more convenient and direct route to rectifying the issue.

You could insist on the store doing it, but it simply adds another layer and potentially another couple of weeks.

Personally I much prefer this format than dealing with someone in a store that probably won't understand the issue.


----------



## mathepac (29 Oct 2017)

I don't care a fig for what retailers claim as their "policy" and it matters not to the OP what your preferences are. Retailers have contractual obligations with their customers under Irish (and EU) consumer legislation, they must honour them or suffer the consequences.


----------



## qwerty5 (30 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> Its not that the store is negating their responsibilities,  but they are giving you a far more convenient and direct route to rectifying the issue.



Having to ring a support line and arrange postage (even if the postage is free which I'm assuming it is) is not far more convenient than dropping the Xbox back to the shop. Presumably it'd be posted back too.


----------



## MrEarl (30 Oct 2017)

Hello,

The more we all put up with this sort of thing, the more we will all have to tolerate it.

Smyths must obey the law, even if they don't want to provide good customer service, it's that simple.

I would make Smyths HQ aware of this discussion thread and tell them that you intend contacting RTE's Joe Duffy, along with various journalists if they don't do what they are supposed to do, without any further delay.  It is not up to you to contact Microsoft, arrange to get the damaged item to them etc. Ask them what value they put on negative publicity for their entire chain of stores at the stat of the Christmas season.

Then I would go to the store and make the manager there aware of your intentions. You could also offer to picket the store with some of your friends and make all potential customers aware of their failure to follow their legal obligations. Even invite a couple of local journalists down to take a few photos, or if you can't get them one or two of your friends so you can later upload the photos online and share them on Facebook etc.  A busy time of day for them (perhaps on a Saturday), when lots of their other customers can see and hear what is going on, would be ideal 

I would give them hell to be quite honest.... but obviously, without breaking the law myself.


.


----------



## peemac (30 Oct 2017)

Ring joe duffy? Are you serious? 

I would guess the original poster is not giving the absolute full conversation. 

It is permissable to request the customer to make contact directly with the manufacturer. 

It does not negate the store of responsibility. 

It is very common with technology products. - Apple is a classic example. 

It speeds up the process and ensures a far far better and quicker outcome for the consumer. 

And what is wrong with that?


----------



## peemac (30 Oct 2017)

qwerty5 said:


> Having to ring a support line and arrange postage (even if the postage is free which I'm assuming it is) is not far more convenient than dropping the Xbox back to the shop. Presumably it'd be posted back too.


Option 1 - drive to store,  drop it in, explain issue (hopefully staff understand) . Store contacts supplier / repair agent gives info you gave (hopefully they give correct info), they collect it, repair it, send it back to store. Store contacts you, you drive to store to collect it.

Option 2 - call the repair agent / customer service line. Explain issue. Company probably has experienced same issue with others. Knows immediately the solution.  Collects item, repairs/replaces, sends directly back to you.

Item working again.

At no time does it absolve the store of responsibility but common sense prevails for the quickest and best solution for the customer.


----------



## MrEarl (31 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> Ring joe duffy? Are you serious?



100% - dirty their name for poor customer service and failing to obey the law, it's no more than they deserve.



peemac said:


> ....It is permissable to request the customer to make contact directly with the manufacturer..



Perhaps if it's accepted by the customer, but only at the customers discretion I would expect.

If you were correct, then the law would state clearly that the retailer or the manufacturer would be responsible and jointly be the counter party to the contract or similar, but it doesn't and that's for good reason.




> It is very common with technology products. - Apple is a classic example.
> 
> It speeds up the process and ensures a far far better and quicker outcome for the consumer.
> 
> And what is wrong with that?



Just because it's common practice does not mean it's complying with the law.

It may or may not speed up the process, puts the burden on the customer to arrange safe, secure shipping of the item to the manufacturer etc.  Shifting work and cost to the consumer is not appropriate and while companies may fancy it and think it's a great idea, it is not and not the legal requirement.

Respectfully suggest that you go read up on the law, then give the CCPC a call to ensure you have your facts right, before posting anything more along these lines


----------



## qwerty5 (31 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> Option 1 - drive to store,  drop it in, explain issue (hopefully staff understand) . Store contacts supplier / repair agent gives info you gave (hopefully they give correct info), they collect it, repair it, send it back to store. Store contacts you, you drive to store to collect it.
> 
> Option 2 - call the repair agent / customer service line. Explain issue. Company probably has experienced same issue with others. Knows immediately the solution.  Collects item, repairs/replaces, sends directly back to you.
> 
> ...



Presumably he was in the shop when he spoke to the Smyth staff. And apparently, its handier to take it back home, ring Microsoft and arrange collection than just hand over to the counter to the staff member telling him to go away.
For many people, arranging a pick up or receiving it back by post is awkward. I work during the day so anything that is shipped to me has to go to a depot to be picked up. I cant deliver to work as they won't accept personal mail. Much handier to go into the shop when it's ready to be picked up.

I suppose Smyth are refusing a repair (by telling customer to deal with supplier). Ask for that in writing. Then ask for the refund or replacement. If they refuse that a valid next step is the small claims court.


----------



## mathepac (31 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> It is very common with technology products. - Apple is a classic example.


Apple is a classy outfit, head and shoulders above other manufacturers/retailers in their treatment of consumers and acknowledgement of their rights under the law.

https://www.apple.com/ie/legal/statutory-warranty/ How many others who sell to consumers post that information on their websites, acknowledging their legal obligations. We still have the mealy mouthed motor traders with their Del Boy "3-month parts and labour, engine and gearbox only" style warranties and the Smyths of this world wriggling out of their obligations.


----------



## peemac (31 Oct 2017)

MrEarl said:


> 100% - dirty their name for poor customer service and failing to obey the law, it's no more than they deserve.
> 
> Just because it's common practice does not mean it's complying with the law.
> 
> ...


The minute a customer mentions Joe Duffy, then the retailer will not want that customer as a customer and will do the absolute minimum. Act with decency, manners and respect and most retailers will go way beyond the SOGA. 

You are assuming that the OP is giving a totally truthful account of events. I usually find there are two sides to every story.

The store is not negating their responsibilty in requesting you to deal direct. They effectively have the manufacturer / manufacturer's repair agent acting on their behalf if you want to be pedantic about it. For 99% of people this is far more convienent and usually ensures a better and faster outcome.    

Possibly the manager in Smyths could have explained it better and explained the advantages. (maybe he did and the OP is just not giving all the info) But possibly the OP went in thinking he/she had more rights than he/she did and was not happy when he/she was tunred down for a refund.

Maybe all stores should stick to the absolute letter of the law - next time you have a dishwasher break down or fridge or washing machine - haul it back to the store. - Or go with the spirit of the law and allow for the store to request you to call, the manufacturer's service agent which will mean you don't have to haul the good back to the store.


I doubt if you'll accept what I'm saying, but c'est la vie.


----------



## peemac (31 Oct 2017)

mathepac said:


> Apple is a classy outfit, head and shoulders above other manufacturers/retailers in their treatment of consumers and acknowledgement of their rights under the law.


And Microsoft are not?

Apple don't have any retail operation here. Its all third party retailers. So your argument makes no sense and if anything means you accept that a third party can be involved on behalf of the retailer.  

and do you accept that Smyths is an Irish owned store and that Ken Blacks are not owned by Smyths as per your erroneous post above?


----------



## Leo (31 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> The store is not negating their responsibilty in requesting you to deal direct.



Under the legislation they are, there is no provision that allows them to outsource their responsibilities, and one you deal with a third party, beyond the basic protections of your warranty, you will lose all further protection provided in the legislation.


----------



## qwerty5 (31 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> The minute a customer mentions Joe Duffy, then the retailer will not want that customer as a customer and will do the absolute minimum. Act with decency, manners and respect and most retailers will go way beyond the SOGA.



I agree with this bit. I used to work in retail. Two ways to turn off a retailer are to say "I'm going to ring Joe" or scream "I know my rights" when you really don't.



peemac said:


> For 99% of people this is far more convienent and usually ensures a better and faster outcome.


I'm in the 1% that don't want to sit at home waiting for a pickup or delivery. I didn't know that 99% of consumers would prefer to do this.



peemac said:


> Possibly the manager in Smyths could have explained it better and explained the advantages. (maybe he did and the OP is just not giving all the info) But possibly the OP went in thinking he/she had more rights than he/she did and was not happy when he/she was tunred down for a refund.



The OP asked for a Repair / Replacement / Refund. They were turned down for the last two and told to go to a third party for the first. What other rights did they mention in their post? How did they get their rights incorrect?



peemac said:


> Maybe all stores should stick to the absolute letter of the law - next time you have a dishwasher break down or fridge or washing machine - haul it back to the store. - Or go with the spirit of the law and allow for the store to request you to call, the manufacturer's service agent which will mean you don't have to haul the good back to the store.



They do stick to the letter of the law. If their warranty doesn't mention how the repair is done then you have to take it back to the shop. But you'll know that once a warranty is included with a product then it is covered by law and must be used in addition to the SOGA. It can't replace the SOGA, it just augments it.
Obviously no fridge or washing machine seller is going to be able to sell items locally if they won't repair them with a visit within the first year. They're not including this cover for the good of their health. It's built into the price.
To test this theory try ringing them on day 366 of having your fridge and see who they send out to you for free or if they say something else. I'm guessing the words "outside warranty" will be repeated. Then you'll be sticking to the letter of the SOGA law.


----------



## MrEarl (31 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> The minute a customer mentions Joe Duffy, then the retailer will not want that customer as a customer and will do the absolute minimum. Act with decency, manners and respect and most retailers will go way beyond the SOGA.



Go back and read the original poster's comments....

It is very clear what has happened here, the purchaser did the right thing and returned to the retailer who sold them the Xbox.  The retailer (Smyths) is refusing to comply with legislation and cannot be allowed to get away with it, they have had the opportunity to comply with legislation but refused, their HQ was then also given opportunity to resolve the issue but also elected not to do so.  

The fact that the original poster even contacted the head office, shows they were being "decent" about it by giving the business a second chance to do the right thing here. 

The now deserve all the negative publicity this story can get them.





> I doubt if you'll accept what I'm saying, but c'est la vie.



No need to have any doubts here, I do not accept what you are saying and you will find that I am not the only one, when you read the other comments above, but hey don't let that stop you (or even make you pause, while you go check your facts with the CCPC etc.)


----------



## mathepac (31 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> And Microsoft are not?


I have no idea. Do they summarize Irish consumer legislation and their obligations to consumers under the law on their Irish site? Do they show which level of consumer protection, some optional or purchased, applies during a product's life-cycle?

You introduced Apple into the discussion and I wanted to contrast their published policy regarding consumer protection with the OP's experiences and policy with an Irish company, I wasn't comparing Apple to Microsoft.



peemac said:


> Apple don't have any retail operation here. Its all third party retailers.


Similar to Microsoft's then, acknowledging they both have online retail presence.



peemac said:


> and do you accept that Smyths is an Irish owned store and that Ken Blacks are not owned by Smyths as per your erroneous post above?


Smyths is an Irish company. Smyths and Ken Blacks use pretty much identical catalogues and Ken Blacks operate from former Smyths Toys premises, in Kilkenny for example.


----------



## Leo (31 Oct 2017)

mathepac said:


> Smyths is an Irish company. Smyths and Ken Blacks use pretty much identical catalogues and Ken Blacks operate from former Smyths Toys premises, in Kilkenny for example.



To clarify, both are Irish companies, one formed in Dec. 1986 by 4 Smyth brothers in Claremorris, but now headquartered in Galway. Blacks was formed two months earlier by Frances and Ken Black and is headquartered in Dun Laoghaire. They are separate companies.


----------



## mathepac (31 Oct 2017)

peemac said:


> You are assuming that the OP is giving a totally truthful account of events.


What reason have you to doubt the OP's truthfulness? I find your implication disturbing.


peemac said:


> Possibly the manager in Smyths could have explained it better and explained the advantages. (maybe he did and the OP is just not giving all the info) But possibly the OP went in thinking he/she had more rights than he/she did and was not happy when he/she was tunred down for a refund.


Do you have an inside track or some knowledge about how the manager in Smyths treated the product failure other than that reported by OP? It seems to me you have or are possessed of some psychic power.

Similarly, you seem astonishingly clear on the OP's expectations of the interaction with Smyths - mind reader or someone with a vested interest in absolving Smyths of all responsibility for ignoring consumer law?

Anti-consumer posting in a consumer site smacks to me of a vested interest or amazing, magical powers surfacing at Hallowe'en.


----------



## peemac (1 Nov 2017)

mathepac said:


> What reason have you to doubt the OP's truthfulness? I find your implication disturbing.
> Do you have an inside track or some knowledge about how the manager in Smyths treated the product failure other than that reported by OP? It seems to me you have or are possessed of some psychic power.
> 
> Similarly, you seem astonishingly clear on the OP's expectations of the interaction with Smyths - mind reader or someone with a vested interest in absolving Smyths of all responsibility for ignoring consumer law?
> ...


I'm in retail and have been for over 30 years.

If I had a euro for everytime a customer exagerated their issue or left pertinent information out, I'd be extremely well off. - One particular customer swore at me that they purchased a product from me when I never stocked it. - and yes they said they'd ring Joe Duffy. 

And not just in consumer area - there are two sides to every issue.

On Smyths, I do know that in the UK they have won the Parent's magazine customer service award 3 years running and are known in the retail industry for their level of service - for that reason I suspect that there is a different side to this.

But some people will only want to hear one side and make their mind up and assume there there is opnly one side. Just like some people assume its a big multinational based in the UK  (a very quick search would tell you they were a family owned Irish company).


----------



## mathepac (1 Nov 2017)

peemac said:


> If I had a euro for everytime a customer exagerated their issue or left pertinent information out, I'd be extremely well off. - One particular customer swore at me that they purchased a product from me when I never stocked it. - and yes they said they'd ring Joe Duffy.
> 
> And not just in consumer area - there are two sides to every issue.


And this connects with the OP's honest version of events in what way? All your customers may be chancers or untruthful, that does not translate into all customers being chancers or untruthful and it certainly doesn't mean you can tar all consumers with the same brush.


peemac said:


> On Smyths, I do know that in the UK they have won the Parent's magazine customer service award 3 years running and are known in the retail industry for their level of service - for that reason I suspect that there is a different side to this.


And this connects with the OP's honest version of more current events, in a different jurisdiction, with different consumer protection legislation, enforced differently in what way?


peemac said:


> But some people will only want to hear one side and make their mind up and assume there there is opnly one side. Just like some people assume its a big multinational based in the UK (a very quick search would tell you they were a family owned Irish company).


Already corrected, disposed of, post edited by mods. Is there e'er another tune to that fiddle of yours that "some people" might enjoy?


----------



## peemac (1 Nov 2017)

mathepac said:


> And this connects with the OP's honest version of events in what way? All your customers may be chancers or untruthful, that does not translate into all customers being chancers or untruthful and it certainly doesn't mean you can tar all consumers with the same brush.
> And this connects with the OP's honest version of more current events, in a different jurisdiction, with different consumer protection legislation, enforced differently in what way?
> Already corrected, disposed of, post edited by mods. Is there e'er another tune to that fiddle of yours that "some people" might enjoy?


so you don't acept that there could be another side to the issue?

WOW!

and considering that you made a statement of fact that Smyths was a UK company and Ken Blacks was part of the same UK company for which you were proven wrong on both statements very quickly because someone else gave another side to the issue which proved you to be wrong and they to be correct. And you accept that, yet in the same vein you don't accept the could be another side to the OP's story?


There's always another side to an issue and it gets resolved by both sides listening to each other. Arguments start when one side won't listen or accept that there is another opinion.

Possibly smyths could have handled it better, possibly the OP could have approached it differently.


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Nov 2017)

peemac said:


> There's always another side to an issue and it gets resolved by both sides listening to each other. Arguments start when one side won't listen or accept that there is another opinion.



No there isn't. It's entirely possible for one side to be entirely wrong and one side to be entirely right. 
This doesn't come down to opinions, it comes down to consumer legislation. 
If your attitude is reflective of Smyths, it entirely explains why the OP is having issues with them if they are falling back on "hope-inions" instead of fulfilling their legal obligations.

I could have an opinion that I'm ok to drive faster than the speed limit because I'm late for an appointment. 
I'd still be entirely wrong.

How do you know it is the OP that won't listen?


----------



## mathepac (1 Nov 2017)

peemac said:


> you don't accept the could be another side to the OP's story?


Even if the entire world were to accept that an alternative truth to the OP's honest story exists, we don't have it, and more significantly, neither do you! Not now and not umpty some posts ago.


peemac said:


> and considering that you made a statement of fact that Smyths was a UK company and Ken Blacks was part of the same UK company for which you were proven wrong on both statements very quickly because someone else gave another side to the issue which proved you to be wrong and they to be correct.


Is there e'er another tune to that fiddle of yours others might enjoy? I can supply regular sheet music of fiddle tab if you prefer.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Nov 2017)

Guys, this thread has been reported a few times. I have no intention of reading it all. 

Brendan


----------

