I am currently “communicating” with them over a NAS (IX2) that failed while under warranty. After a very long, tedious process (more than eight months now) involving me updating a replacement device, they finally agreed that it was not possible to remedy the situation and a refund was the only alternative. The refund process would take four to six weeks.
That was over 10 weeks ago!!
Now, twice a week, I receive the following, very reassuring e-mail:
“Dear …, I understand your concern and this is already escalated to our Refund Team and can be completed once there is an update on the same. I’m also awaiting for the update. Regards, Lenovo Support”
Of course, the warranty runs out this month. Should I expect a differently worded e-mail soon? I’m holding my breath.
Sorry to hear about the trouble @darylhutchins - completely unacceptable delay. I’d be giving your local fair trading or consumer affairs body a call to see if they can assist.
No, the product failed under their nominated manufacturer’s warrant period.
Even if it failed just outside their manufacturer’s warranty period, one could still claim a remedy under the Australian Consumer Law if it could be expected to last longer without fault.
Most companies run a billing/payment cycle with a maximum of 20 business days (at least one a month), so one could reasonable expect the maximum time to receive the refund of about 23 business days (3 days allowing for bank transfer times). 23 business days is just under 5 calendar wweks.
Agree with @BrendanMays about escalaring it. It maybe worth advising this to Lenovo as it may stimulate action on their part.
I certainly wouldn’t count on that from Lenovo. They do not care about the ACL at all, if it’s outside of what they think is the warranty period (statutory or not), you’re out of luck.
And before you say “they’re not allowed to do that”, we all know they’re not allowed to do that. The problem is there’s no recourse available for when the DO do that. You can’t complain to the ACCC or consumer affairs, they just tell you to take it up with the company directly. The only option is court, which is time consuming and expensive, and Lenovo knows this and uses it to their advantage.
That is mostly true when a company stonewalls. The ACCC requires the consumer to follow a formal documented process, but when a company refuses the ACCC position is at this page. A key point is they do not take on individual complaints and they prioritise everything else against market conduct and public safety.
State fair trading agencies ('xCATs) are supposed to fill the void for the individual, but in cases where a company declines the individual’s recourse is most often to lodge a formal complain through the ‘xCAT’ tribunal. Not something everyone would do for a few hundred dollar grievance.
It is correct many companies play the game and only respond when legally required by a court or tribunal. One reason for that is having to respond to a legal directive does not make precedent where the company has to respond to everyone, it is just a case of 1, so many companies see that as a legal preference. Ever wonder how many happy customers the cost of a single lawyer’s compensation would generate when there was a product fail and the relatively few who write a well documented ‘ACCC letter of demand’ got taken care of?
