XBox Smyths farmed out to Microsoft

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.


.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
peemac said:
Ring joe duffy? Are you serious?
Click to expand...

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..
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
 

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.
 
Last edited:
peemac said:
It is very common with technology products. - Apple is a classic example.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
peemac said:
The store is not negating their responsibilty in requesting you to deal direct.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.


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?


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
peemac said:
And Microsoft are not?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
peemac said:
You are assuming that the OP is giving a totally truthful account of events.
Click to expand...
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?

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

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?
 
peemac said:
you don't accept the could be another side to the OP's story?
Click to expand...
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.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register