Returning a graphics card

[~Divine~Wind~]

So has everyone stopped flaming and realised that it's DSR territory without a doubt?

Hilarious.

You didnt contact Trading Standards, absolute load of tosh. What you might have done is rung consumer direct, who are NOT trading standards.

Trading standards DO NOT get involved with general members of the public - if you dont believe me firstly try and find a relevant phone number for them, then call them, you'll be told to ring consumer direct.

Strange that mate I've spoken to Trading Standards in Gateshead a few times now.
I'm just a general member of the public

The retailer also has 30 days to issue a refund so I doubt they'd be in a rush to do it before the goods are sent back.

They can't however say they will not refund until the item has been returned from how I read the DSR and the OFT guidelines for business.

I got a retailer recently to refund before return as they ballsed up on an order but expected me to foot the return costs. Gave them a going thru the DSR pointing out where they were failing it and lo and behold, refund issued and they're gonna arrange a courier to pickup the item.

Ive been looking around and I must say the implementation of the DSR across retailers is terrible. Looking at all the major retailers practically all of them quote stuff that is not allowed under the DSR

Mainly about packaging it must be said but even so its quite clear retailers are not following the strict rules.

They can Quote what they want in their own T+C's they cannot however remove any rights you have as a consumer. when they do't follow the rules however a quick chat with TS normally sorts em out

 

[ubern00b]

Can anyone spell lose or loose properly

I want to loose some weight, I am loosing my job, do you think England will win or loose, you're trousers are lose and baggy

Completely off topic but, the irony here is your use of "you're"...

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Sure - the DSR is intended to give consumers the opportunity to inspect an item as they would in a shop. This is the spirit behind it all and clearly putting it in your machine and trying it out goes beyond this.

It's impossible for them to prove that you have plugged it into a PC, the DSR allows you to carefully unpack and inspect the product as would be possible if you were in a shop! (Yes not all retailers allow you to do this but many do)

UN-Packaging of product is 100% allowed under DSR provided care is taken and unless your stupid and say anything it's pretty much impossible for them to prove that you have used/powered up most electrical products.

DSR is a good consumer law and long may it last imho.

 

[Jonny ///M]

R.e the bike thing. My boss totally didn't want to take it back and if it had been a shop sale he'd have flat out refused or taken 20% of the price or something. He spoke to trading standards and because the initial deposit was not done in store DSR applied.

Even after it had been used making it second hand...

 

[norm]

I think this is an abuse of the DSR regs to be fair.

If you'd simply said you changed your mind the retailer has to accept that, but you openly admitted you used it, why should the seller be forced to knowingly sell a used item as new.

You'd probably be first to complain (given your overreacton here) if you were buying it new and it turned out used.

 

[pete248]

I think this is an abuse of the DSR regs to be fair.

If you'd simply said you changed your mind the retailer has to accept that, but you openly admitted you used it, why should the seller be forced to knowingly sell a used item as new.

You'd probably be first to complain (given your overreacton here) if you were buying it new and it turned out used.

What would you do if you bought a graphics card, titled the same as your own, with no reason to suspect it won't work with your current one, only to find that actually it isn't the same card and it won't work with my system at all? Is wanting to return it an overreaction? Would you want to keep it?

Take a look at the screenshots of the product page: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22176618&postcount=48

 

[Martini1991]

I think this is an abuse of the DSR regs to be fair.

If you'd simply said you changed your mind the retailer has to accept that, but you openly admitted you used it, why should the seller be forced to knowingly sell a used item as new.

You'd probably be first to complain (given your overreacton here) if you were buying it new and it turned out used.

Obviously, they can't sell it as new, so they'd be in the wrong.
It'd be B-Garde/Bargain Basement stuff.

 

[ubersonic]

What would you do if you bought a graphics card, titled the same as your own, with no reason to suspect it won't work with your current one, only to find that actually it isn't the same card and it won't work with my system at all? Is wanting to return it an overreaction? Would you want to keep it?

Take a look at the screenshots of the product page: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22176618&postcount=48

I think the main issue with this bit is that they didn't mis-describe it or mis-label it. Your reaction is obviously understandable but its EVGA that chose the name for the product and not to make any reference to it being different to the v1 except from the smaller memory bus in the specs. However Amazon have added the "V2" to the cards name on their site so it could be argued the retailer should have done the same.

As mentioned before this is really something you should have checked yourself as its hardly the first time this situation has arisen in the minefield that is SLi. Changing the specs of a product isn't anything new, the Playstation 2 had gone through ~14 revisions before the "slim" was released which caused massive compatibility problems with 3rd party hardware as Sony called them all the PS2.

 

[pete248]

I think the main issue with this bit is that they didn't mis-describe it or mis-label it. Your reaction is obviously understandable but its EVGA that chose the name for the product and not to make any reference to it being different to the v1 except from the smaller memory bus in the specs. However Amazon have added the "V2" to the cards name on their site so it could be argued the retailer should have done the same.

As mentioned before this is really something you should have checked yourself as its hardly the first time this situation has arisen in the minefield that is SLi. Changing the specs of a product isn't anything new, the Playstation 2 had gone through ~14 revisions before the "slim" was released which caused massive compatibility problems with 3rd party hardware as Sony called them all the PS2.

While I appreciate that checking the specifications is important, would you have actually done this? Hindsight is all well and good but when it comes down to it im not an amateur when it comes to computer components, im not a professional either but I like to think I knew about what graphics card I was buying. Other people on this thread have also said they had no knowledge of this v1/v2 issue. And if the manufacturer causes confusion because of naming with their products, it is still up to them to liase with the retailers with this issue. The consumers should NOT be expected to be the fall guys for their bad branding/selling of the product.

Edit: Oh and additionally, how did they manage to find the specs of the card to post on the website when they weren't on the box? They even have the product number for the V2 card, i'd be very surprised if they legitimately thought they were selling a V1. (not suggesting they were trying to deliberately deceive me into buying a wrong card, but the title for the product just wasn't right if they knew they were selling a V2.)

 

[Nexus]

Obviously, they can't sell it as new, so they'd be in the wrong.
It'd be B-Garde/Bargain Basement stuff.

Argos never seems to have an issue with reselling items as new that have clearly been open and used, plus they are pretty much the kings of return culture.

 

[norm]

Obviously, they can't sell it as new, so they'd be in the wrong.
It'd be B-Garde/Bargain Basement stuff.

Where does it say in the DSR act that the retailer has to sell it as 2nds? I bet a high percentage of used goods returned under DSR in their original packaging end up sold as new.

Which is why I'm partially against it.

 

[norm]

What would you do if you bought a graphics card, titled the same as your own, with no reason to suspect it won't work with your current one, only to find that actually it isn't the same card and it won't work with my system at all? Is wanting to return it an overreaction? Would you want to keep it?

It's no different to you buying a CPU with a different type socket to your motherboard. The onus is on you to check its compatibility.

But besides that, you used the item and told the retailer, he is under no obligation to accept it back (and I fully agree with him in that no shop would let you try out graphics cards in store, they wouldn't even let you remove it from the packaging.)

The most reasonable thing you can do is trade your card for a V1.

 

[pete248]

It's no different to you buying a CPU with a different type socket to your motherboard. The onus is on you to check its compatibility.

But besides that, you used the item and told the retailer, he is under no obligation to accept it back (and I fully agree with him in that no shop would let you try out graphics cards in store, they wouldn't even let you remove it from the packaging.)

The most reasonable thing you can do is trade your card for a V1.

It's not exactly the same, as different CPUs have different names if they are a different spec. This GPU had the same name as a graphics card with a different (incompatible with cards of the same title) spec. If you were in my position (and didn't know about the V1/V2 issue), would you have checked specifically that the memory buses were the same/different (I assume you have seen the screenshots)? Even nVidia differentiate the cards on their website with V2 in the title of the V2 cards.

 

[norm]

You're still ignoring the fact you used the card. That's the first and main reason the seller is refusing it back.

 

[TheDean]

Is this still going on? Why on earth haven't you sent it back using RMSD and contacted your card issuer to start a charge-back? No need for the rest of this rubbish tbh

 

[pete248]

You're still ignoring the fact you used the card. That's the first and main reason the seller is refusing it back.

According to the Trading Standards Institute (citizens advice bureau) I should be able to return the product under the DSR (this was when I called them the first time). However, I just called them and a different advisor immediately said no I cannot return it if it is used. I said the previous advisor told me I could. So now he is investigating the issue and ringing me back later this afternoon.

I want everyone to know that I am completely level headed about this. If it turns out I cannot return the card under the DSR, I won't get angry, i'll accept that I was wrong and i'll check specifications more carefully next time. If I had just ordered this card, used it and decided I didn't want it anymore (for no particular reason) then requested a return I would agree this would be slightly immoral to the retailer. But due to the ambiguity with the titling/different versions of cards I don't think I'm being completely outrageous in wanting to return it, since the retailer didn't make this completely clear in the title as it being a different product.

 

[ubersonic]

Edit: Oh and additionally, how did they manage to find the specs of the card to post on the website when they weren't on the box? They even have the product number for the V2 card, i'd be very surprised if they legitimately thought they were selling a V1. (not suggesting they were trying to deliberately deceive me into buying a wrong card, but the title for the product just wasn't right if they knew they were selling a V2.)

My guess would be that they looked up the product number on EVGA's site and copied off the specs and name from there, or were sent them by EVGA, tbh I doubt the retailer even knew of or noticed the difference, IMO Nvidia screwed up royally on this by trying to dump their faulty chips this way and some manufacturers not making it clear/obvious that its a different architecture from the real 460 is pretty sucky. In fact Nvidia themselves fail to mention that the v2 are incompatible with other 460's on the 460 page.

The most reasonable thing you can do is trade your card for a V1.

As the V1 when OC'd is better than the V2 its doubtful anyone would be up for that. The 460 V2 is basically what they were doing with the GF114 cores that weren't good enough to be 560's until they added the 560SE.

 

[pete248]

My guess would be that they looked up the product number on EVGA's site and copied off the specs and name from there, or were sent them by EVGA, tbh I doubt the retailer even knew of or noticed the difference, IMO Nvidia screwed up royally on this by trying to dump their faulty chips this way and some manufacturers not making it clear/obvious that its a different architecture from the real 460 is pretty sucky.

If you look OCUK are currently selling two EVGA 460's one v1 and one v2 which no mention of the v2 being a v2 and I very much doubt OCUK will have done it deliberately so you can see how its an easy thing for a retailer to miss.

I understand this, but then it is hardly fair for the consumer to be the done over because the industry screwed up is it?

Anyway, update time! I got a call back from the citizens advice guy about the issue (after he initially thought I wouldn't able to return it as it had been used). He said that under section 13 of the regulations:

Exceptions to the right to cancel

13.—(1) Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the consumer will not have the right to cancel the contract by giving notice of cancellation pursuant to regulation 10 in respect of contracts—


(a)for the supply of services if the supplier has complied with regulation 8(3) and performance of the contract has begun with the consumer’s agreement before the end of the cancellation period applicable under regulation 12;
(b)for the supply of goods or services the price of which is dependent on fluctuations in the financial market which cannot be controlled by the supplier;
(c)for the supply of goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised or which by reason of their nature cannot be returned or are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly;
(d)for the supply of audio or video recordings or computer software if they are unsealed by the consumer;
(e)for the supply of newspapers, periodicals or magazines; or
(f)for gaming, betting or lottery services.

My graphics card might classify as computer software. I said well it's not really, it is computer hardware. He said that is up to a judge to decide and interpret the law as he sees fit, he called a trading standards guy and they concluded that my graphics card would be classified as computer software. But if I thought I was right then I could take it further, through a chargeback or through a court. I am not going to court, so i'm ringing my bank for a chargeback now, if this doesn't work then i'll try and find someplace to sell it and make sure I check specs any time I buy anything next time!

Edit: Bank have said that I have to wait 30 days from first requesting that I want to return and refund my items, then they can step in. However, after 30 days, they can reimburse me and then they deal with the company themselves. They also said the more proof I can get that I have tried to get my money back the better chance i'll have of getting a refund. As they are practically ignoring me now I don't think i'll get any more emails, so it's pretty much a waiting game until the 14th of next month. Might just be easier to see if I can sell it on in this waiting time actually. I'll probably just let this thread die unless anyone is on the edge of their seat wanting to see the outcome. <commence debate about whether the law includes hardware>

 

[Surveyor]

You're still ignoring the fact you used the card. That's the first and main reason the seller is refusing it back.

You're still ignoring the fact that according to the law it makes no difference if the card is used.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

he called a trading standards guy and they concluded that my graphics card would be classified as computer software.

What!?

Software is excluded from most things not to do with usage but due to pressure from that industry as people could copy/install then return. (Quite rightly so it should be excluded) But, Personally I believe that copy protected software should not be covered in this way, but thats a personal view and the legislation makes no differentiation.

This is the problem when you start talking to these people you will often find a layman (to all intents and purposes).
They are applying their own interpretation to this just as everyone else in this thread is. Even a judge would do the same, if he previous precedent to follow he would probably do that, but even thats not a guarantee.

Dell lost a case on DSR. They tried to use the tailored to customer specs argument on laptops and desktops. It was clarified that using non-standard components was customer order and ruled out of DSR but using their own off the shelf components offered as options was included within the DSR and they could not rely on that exclusion. (Eg if you added optional memory Dell were trying to say this is customers own spec and hence excluded from DSR).

Years ago Argos basically had in their supplier terms that they could return any product returned from a customer for remanufacture at no cost to themselves. So basically they would just return any customer return for credit, the company would have to either out as a second or refurb back to new spec (probably just packaging). I have no idea if this is still how they operate.