I bought a Kia Carnival in 2017 and it came with a 7 Year warranty. I recently had an issue with the media head unit screen not working it at all and booked it in for repair. Kia informed me they will have to replace it and order one in. When it come in we took it to be fixed. I was not sure weather we would get the same media head unit or the new model one as they had upgraded it. When I picked up the car I asked them if they had put in the new Android auto version and they said no. I new that the Android Auto unit had been the standard since 2018 and was thinking they still could not have any of the old ones still available so I asked is it new and they informed me that it was not it was a recondition one.
I was a bit upset that they did this and read their current warranty conditions and it did state the could use reconditioned parts, My understanding is that under warranty item are either fixed and if they can not then replaced with new.
I think you answered the question yourself in reading the warranty . The change of an operating system can often mean sensors that send information to the system have to be changed to overcome any incompatibility issues . My car uses a Bosch based info - tainment unit but the newer model vehicle uses an Apple based system . They are incompatible and if my unit dies it will be replaced with a Bosch unit .
Under ACL you have the right in regards to a major fault to repair, replacement or refund for a major fault (not sure the Media Head unit is a major fault). If a minor fault it can be repaired, replaced or even refunded or compensated at the supplierās choice not the purchaserās. However in your case the use of Refurbished Parts does have some coverage under ACL:
" Refurbished goods or parts
A refurbished good or part is likely to be considered as a used good/part that has been reconditioned or restored to an acceptable working order.
If a repairer sometimes uses refurbished parts to fix defective goods rather than new parts, or sometimes replaces defective goods with a refurbished version, they must also give the consumer a repair notice before accepting goods for repair.
Unlike the notice for goods capable of storing user-generated data, the notice must include specific wording required by the ACL.
This wording is:
Goods presented for repair may be replaced by refurbished goods of the same type rather than being repaired. Refurbished parts may be used to repair the goods.
A repairer must provide this repair notice whether or not they know before inspecting the goods that they will use refurbished parts in a particular repair or supply refurbished goods instead of repairing the goods.
A repair notice can be included in another document provided by the repairer (for example in the terms and conditions document for the repair) so long as it clearly distinguishes the notice from other information in the document, stating that the notice is given under the ACL, and is not hidden or otherwise obscured within the document (for example, in fine print) and provided before the repairer accepts the goods for repair."
Iām not sure if the Warranty document is considered such a required notice in regards to the repairs you had undertaken or if a particular notice had to be generated for this particular repair. This is the only thing that would require clarification, if the warranty document is considered the notice you may not have a complaint you could raise with them, but you could still supply them with feedback about the issue and there is nothing to preclude you from asking if they would consider some compensation. If the Warranty document is not such a required notice and you before the repair did not receive the required notice you can make a complaint to your Fair Trading department and perhaps seek some compensation/redress in your Civil & Administrative Appeals Tribunal. You could seek some free legal advice to help determine the merits. As I am not a legal professional the advice I give is only my thoughts and should not be relied upon.
I think that they would argue that the infotainment unit they supplied is reconditioned to āas newā condition. If they repaired your 2.5+ year old system, it would still be an aged system. As you got an āas newā unit you are definitely ahead!
Perhaps you should have enquired about upgrading to the newer version when you were booking in to replace the faulty infotainment head unit. IF the newer version was compatible (as explained by @vax2000) you would probably have had to pay the differential cost.
If it was the only way to properly repair the unit they should not be subjected to further cost. Your point on if the purchaser chose to get a newer unit is very valid.
I think that @Euey was more concerned about the use of reconditioned parts rather than if they got a new unit or not as they said āwas thinking they still could not have any of the old ones still available so I asked is it new and they informed me that it was not it was a recondition one. I was a bit upset that they did thisā¦My understanding is that under warranty item are either fixed and if they can not then replaced with newā.
Yes indeed, I just pointed out that reconditioned parts require a notice and if they didnāt get one (and what actually is required as the notice??) they may have a case to seek redress of the problem.
Perhaps a CHOICE expert can answer what is the required notice, is a line in a Warranty document enough or does it need one to be produced for each repair?
In a practical sense the faulty āinfotainment unitā removed from @Euey vehicle may have been repairable. This would require a facility EG in S Korea, able to fault find, replace with new the faulty components, retest and return. The time involved in the repair could be substantial.
That Kia had as an alternative reconditioned replacement units available is a plus. Whether this meets the spirit and intent of Australian Consumer Law, is a separate point.
Is it also topical for other brands in this the brave new Aussie world of foreign manufactured vehicles.
Many car parts are similar where a reconditioned one may be used to replace a faulty part (think transmissions/engine replacement etc). I suspect that your head unit will possibly be sent away for a repair if the fault is repairable and be used in another vehicle in the future.
Apple has also been doing the reconditioned swap with the devices for many years to save the time to repairā¦a customer can enter and leave with a reconditioned device of the same model quickly. To have a repair means that the device may be away for repair form some time.
As long as the reconditioned model works perfectly and is in similar condition to the one it replaces, it would be considered fair under the ACL. KIA will possibly argue that the notice required under the ACL would be partially covered by the warranty conditions. There should have been an expectation that KIA made contact advising that a new one was not available and that under their warranty T&Cs, they would be substituting a reconditioned head unit.
Letting a customer know allows the customer to determine whether they accept the reconditioned one, or make an additional payment for a newer model (assuming it is comparable) instead.
My wifeās previous work car was a KIA Cerato and the heat unit failed after 3 years. It was replaced with the newer model as they couldnāt source any stock of the OEM version. The service agent/dealer also indicated that the fault with that head unit was known (and common?).
My concern is one how good and how old is the recondition part, My car has done very few Kmās. The part may work but how much life does it have left. I was hopping they would put the new Android media unit in as it is compatible. I was at least expecting a new replacement as it had to be ordered in it took 2 weeks to get in. Either way I would have been happy.
It is a concern when any item is replaced with a reconditioned item as you do not know the history of the item. I am going to contact Kia just to let them know I am not happy about. Thanks to everyone who replied it gave me food for thought. They also replaced the airbag module and that was a saga in its self, I hope that was a new part at least,
A reconditioned part should meet the same specifications as the new equivalent. I expect KIA would have tested it to ensure this was the case.
The reconditioned unit could also be a new head unit which was delivered in a new car, but failed when first used. Then it was repaired for use in case of a waranty claim. It could also be a head unit that failed factory testing, and was then repaired to fix the problem and boxed as a warranty replacement part. The two weeks lead in time may indicate that it could have been flown in from Korea.
It could be older with more or less use of yours which failed. It could be the same age and from the same production run.
No one will know its history but if it is the same model it replaced, it will be about the same age as your old one or potentially newer. Its hours of use will not be known.
One has to also remember that your head unit had been used and one could argue that requesting the new newer model head unit could also be unreasonable as it isnāt like for likeā¦replacing an older used head unit with a new newer model head unit.
The reconditioned head unut will also come with the same warranty if it was new.
If you want the newer model head unit, ask them how much (cost) it would be for the upgrade to a newer model. Say the cost should be based on you making the swap at the time the replacement was installed. You never know, they might offer a minimum cost to upgrade since you were not formally notified of the reconditioned part. It may not be accepted by KIA either, but if you donāt ask (and accepting upgrade cost), one will never know.
While investigating the issue with my head unit I found a thread on a forum and a person had the same issue as mine and they replaced it with the Android Auto head unit. I did not request an Android Auto head unit, but I was hopping for one it is not a crime to want something better for nothing. My thread was to make people aware that could happen and get some feed back. What I am upset about is I was not informed a reconditioned unit was being put because it is a point of stress for me. I might be crazy but that is the way I feel and I have no guilt about that if they put a new head unit in that was the same I would have still been happy.
You should not have to inquire weather new parts would be used to fix something.
And to make things worse I just read the service docket and this was written on it " Removed and replaced with new unit and reassembled and now all is working fine. "
Maybe it was a new unit after all. Maybe the person you asked was mistaken. Did you ask the technician who did the replacement or counter staff. Counter staff are unlikely to be able to confirm what was replacedā¦and may have given an answer based on past experience rather than your circumstance.
It isnāt a crime. It is also not within your rights under the Australian Consumer Law to ask for a new model/upgrade either.
It appears KIA in your case fixed the problem/fault you had with your old head unit, and replaced a faulty one with one which works (which now looks like could have been new by your paperwork)ā¦and was like for like. As a result, they met their obligations under the ACL.
If you wish to have a newer/upgraded model with more features, as outlined above then you could ask what the differential cost would be to see if KIA is interested in doing a swap.
Because you didnāt get a newer/upgraded model is not KIAās issue, but a belief you may have an entitlement/right to one.
I expect if KIA didnāt have the same model head unit to replace your faulty one, they may have had to do a replacement with an equivalent oneā¦which could have been the one you are after (which may have been the case as evidenced by a work car in a previous post or as you have found on an online forum). This didnāt occur as they had replacement like for like models in stock/available.
You shouldnāt feel hard done by as you have a working replacement head unit in your KIA, replaced under warranty and appears with little grief from KIA in doing so.
It definitely is not a new one. You seem to be making assumptions towards me that you would not have a clue about. You seem to be very protective of the Kia brand for some reason, maybe to protective. A lot of could haves and could beās do not add up to the facts. Everything you have written seems to try rewrite everything I have said and even suggests that I was trying to be dishonest and have an ulterior motive.
A possible issue is that this is in effect a second hand part and the dealer is not a licenced second hand dealer . On the other hand, a reconditioned part that has been fully tested can be as good as new, maybe better . After all , if they had repaired your part it would have been reconditioned but not have gone through as many checks as if it was thoroughly reconditioned and tested .
I often recommend refurbished/reconditioned laptops etc to friends as purchase options. What has failed has been fixed, it is unlikely as percentages go that a second failure will be found during the expected lifetime of use. When reconditioned they are more often than not more rigorous in testing to ensure no other component has been affected than if it was a brand new unit.
I believe there is a place for buying secondhand goods or reconditioned goods as you can get a good peace of equipment at a good price. I have never bought an item like this although I have been tempted. I expect that Kia should have informed me that were installing a reconditioned unit and then I could have found out the options available.
As I wrote above in another post I am not sure whether the Warranty is a notice as required under ACL or if the need to provide one before they actually commence repairs is the requirement. The ACL has this āA repairer must provide this repair notice whether or not they know before inspecting the goods that they will use refurbished parts in a particular repair or supply refurbished goods instead of repairing the goods.ā which indicates to me that it is an individual notice but I definitely could be wrong. If however Iām not then the repairer should have given you a notice stating that they may use reconditioned parts (not they have or will but just that they might). If they didnāt give the required notice then they would have breached the ACL requirements. If they have breached you may be entitled to compensation but as I donāt know I can only suggest you get proper legal advice.
Bolding above was mine to highlight the mention of the āparticular repairā not a broad warranty document covering all possible future repairs.
The fact that they used reconditioned parts, if they indeed did as the document suggests they used new parts, is entirely within their right to do so. All they have to do is warn you they might use reconditioned parts beforehand. So before the repair you could say no I donāt want that and they can then offer you an alternative fix that may very likely cost you money. The ACL is clear that the use of reconditioned items is entirely acceptable.
I read it as it could be a general notice such as a notice within the repair service centre or even as T&C associated with a standard repair works being performed.
A repair notice can be included in another document provided by the repairer (for example in the terms and conditions document for the repair) so long as it clearly distinguishes the notice from other information in the document, stating that the notice is given under the ACL, and is not hidden or otherwise obscured within the document (for example, in fine print) and provided before the repairer accepts the goods for repair.
It appears that KIA does not have to issue a specific notice for each individual time that a refurbished item is usedā¦just a standard notice that can be displayed or attached within the T&Cs. I read it as it could include a sign within the repair centre customer area indicating that they may use refurbished itemsā¦and available to be seen by the consumer before commissioning works. It may not need for specific attention to be brought to the notice.
