NOW WILL YOU NOT CALL THIS CHEATING. THE
FACT IS THAT MACK DOES NOT WANT TO PAY AT ALL…
Nov 25, 2005: Camera defect intimated to MACK
Dec 1, 2005: MACK sends local repair request form
Dec 1, 2005: Filled-in local request form, Invoice, and MACK warranty card emailed to MACK
Dec 9, 2005: Luana, a MACK employee replies that she would look into the paperwork
Dec 9, 2005: I reply to Luana if this can be speeded up as already 2 weeks have passed.
Dec 12, 2005: Control number is N50275 is allocated. I am asked to filled up another form and send a written estimate.
Dec 16, 2005: Repair estimate from CANON India Limited for INR 187,744.00, and the filled up form is sent back to MACK. It is also mentioned that 1 USD = 46 INR.
Dec 22, 2005: Luana at MACK, repies that estimate will be reviewed and I will be advised.
Dec 29, 2005: MACK approves the estimate. However it approves on USD 46 as cost of repairs. 1/100th the cost of the estimate and equivalent of the USD – INR exchange rate.
Dec 29, 2005: 3 phone calls are made with long holds and no good response, in addition to many made earlier. MACK refuses to call back. They say that it is expensive to call, so the customer MUST call.
Dec 29, 2005: MACK is informed of the typing and calculation error in the estimate. Corrected approval order is asked for.
Jan 21, 2006: MACK is sent another email as there is no response from MACK for now more than 3 weeks.
Jan 25, 2006: Luana at MACK replies that the email has been handed over to her manager. They are reviewing the situation.
When I call them, the Manager is rude and does not want to fulfill the warranty. He does not name himself, but claims to be the owner of the company.
March 26, 2006: 4 months since the Camera repair was asked. And many more calls made. They were now reviewing the situation for over another 2 Months!
Another email is sent to MACK. An option of refunding the cost of the Camera, i.e USD 2795/- is given to MACK, if it does not want to pay for the repairs.
March 28, 2006: Luana replies that the paperwork is forwarded to the owner of the company.
March 31, 2006: MACK now wants the camera to be shipped to New Jersey, after wasting 4 months since the problem was reported, and after having approved a repair estimate in principle.
March 31, 2006: The following email is sent to MACK:
You have been provided with the estimate of repairs by Canon India Limited, which as per terms of International warranty you must approve. However since you find the estimate more than the purchase price of the camera, you were given the option of refunding the entire amount of the camera at the purchase price.
There is no question of having you evaluate the cost of the camera since you must approve the repair estimate in the first place. It has been more than four months since the problem was reported to you.
April 1, 2006: Another email is sent to MACK since the owner threatens me on the phone to spoil my business contacts:
I see no point in communicating with you any further since you have taken more than 4 months to tell me of this new policy. Every time you have something new to say. This clearly says that you want to keep harassing and at the end the your company wants the customer to give up.
I have done everything your company wanted. And you have been sitting on all procedures asked for earlier… You were given the estimate months ago. Where was this policy then?
Nothing prevents from justifying that your company has been indulging in unfair trade practices and what you are telling me now is no more than gaining a few more months.
Refund the cost of the camera or approve repairs. You have time until Monday April 3, 2006. And that is the limit I suggest your company must NOT cross.
April 4, 2006: MACK asks for the camera to be sent to New Jersey
April 4, 2006: Following is my answer… sent to MACK:
The camera was taken to Canon’s own service center in New Delhi and their estimate of repairs as per your terms of International warranty were sent to you in December 2005.
Your company has been playing a game here and that fact has been established since you people have come up with a new version of story all the time. In more than 4 months your company has done nothing to approve of the repairs that it warranted for.
You have also not transferred the money required for repairs nor have compensated for the full cost of the camera at the purchase price as that was an option given to you. Your time limit to complete this by April 3, 2006 is over and this matter has been referred to my lawyer and is being sent to photographer associations/websites world over.
I already have many more emails that speak of your companies unfair ways of dealing with warranties from other photographers. I strongly feel that your company must be exposed.
I cannot deal with you any more on this issue and you can communicate with my lawyer. Your company will be responsible for all damages howsoever caused by posts on the internet or otherwise.
May , 14 2008: Emails are forwarded to Scott at MACK, since he claims that his company is not a cheat.
May 14, 2008: Scott replies that the emails are forward to someone as he is not in the same department.
May 15, 2008: Laura Bufis asks of the camera was repaired?
May 15, 2008: Laura is sent the following reply:
This issue is close to 2 1/2 years old.
The problem with my Canon 1D was reported on November 25, 2005. Your company asked for repair estimates. I got them from Canon India Limited.
The estimate was for 187744.00 Indian Rupees. In todays terms USD 4693.60
One dollar was then equal to 46 rupees. Your people approved USD 46 for repairs for an estimate of USD 4693
how amazing
Your company kept going back and forth from November 25, 2005 until April 1, 2006 and finally paid nothing.
No the camera was not repaired and I had to buy another camera… since the cost of repairs was more than the cost of the camera, and your company filed to live up to the commitment.
It is best that MACK pays me the cost of the 1D camera in question, at purchase price of USD 2,795.00
May 15, 2008: MACK wants the camera back in New Jersey probably to com out with some other excuse looking at the past experience. A repair that was need in 2005 has no meaning now. New camera was purchased by me as this repair was NOT compensated by MACK.
NOW WILL YOU NOT CALL THIS CHEATING. THE FACT IS THAT MACK DOES NOT WANT TO PAY AT ALL…
via RSS
via email
