02-09-2012 02:33 AM
Here my reply to the latest warranty misrepresentation:
You state that "the base warranty doesn't cover the cracks on the plastic parts of the computers".
This does not correspond to the warranty information you then refer to, which says:
"Plastic parts [...] that have been cracked or broken by excessive force".
Could you please clarify that you are denying me warranty service on the premise that I caused the crack through "excessive force".
02-09-2012 10:15 AM
I also feel that they should replace it for customer satisfaction especially since you are under warranty.
However i think if they want to be stick the rules, I believe they have listed in the warranty where plastic external parts are not covered. In fact that is the only reason I get thinkpad protection plan which cover those.
It will be tough for you to prove that there is a design flaw of some sort since I haven't really heard of this happening. I do wish you good luck and hope perhaps Mark can help you on here.
02-09-2012 10:58 AM - edited 02-09-2012 10:59 AM
We are continuing to discuss / review the situation with the appropriate teams. I understand your frustration with the delays and some of the answers you have received and hope that you can continue to work with us on this.
02-10-2012 04:19 AM
Thanks again for getting wheels going. The customer service people have now promised to have the laptop checked at the "L2 lab" and will arrange a pickup. Fingers crossed!
02-10-2012 04:35 AM - edited 02-10-2012 04:36 AM
Just to reply to Aaronho: actually the problem is that everyone refers to this blanket exclusion of "plastic parts" when there is no such exclusion if you "stick to the rules"! If you look at the warranty wording, it says that plastic parts, amongst others, aren't covered *if they've been damaged by excessive force*. That's not the same as plastic parts just not being covered. That would just be weird, given that this laptop is plastic-heavy: the warranty just wouldn't provide the minimum reasonable or statutory protection.
02-10-2012 08:48 AM
02-28-2012 01:47 PM
Well, after one week without a laptop while Lenovo "analysed" it in their "L2 lab", I have once again received a Lenovo customer service email that manages to turn the rules of logic, good business and decency on their heads (I will comment on this in my next post):
I have received the statement of the machine analysis from our technicians.
The cracking symptom, the unit sent here is affected with, was not recognized as the manufacturing, quality or design problem classified as the known issue for X201 models.
The conclusion is that the damage reported has been caused by excessive pressure on the palmrest area has been exposed to.
Based on this conclusion, I have to reject the repair.
Please be aware that this is the final statement from our side on this issue.
We will send the machine back to you.
I will inform you on the shipment date.
02-28-2012 02:23 PM - edited 02-28-2012 02:37 PM
So, this e-mail communicates the necessity to refuse warranty service for my laptop, together with the technical "conclusion" upon which that necessity is based.
I would like to argue that neither the conclusion nor the necessity are valid:
Let's start with the conclusion.
The basis of the conclusion is that the crack "was not recognised as the manufacturing, quality or design problem classified as the known issue for X201 models."
Let us for now give Lenovo the benefit of the doubt, that a qualified technician actually made a bona fide inspection of the laptop, despite the fact that this technician is referring to the wrong model of laptop (it is an X220 not an X201).
In that case, they are stating that they have not so far classified cracks of this type as a "known issue" for a laptop model that hasn't even been on the market for a year.
They then claim this as the basis for the conclusion that the crack was caused by "excessive pressure on the palmrest". So, this technician is apparently arguing that, any new fault that has not yet been classified, cannot be classified as a fault.
That's neat! Pretty airtight logic. Here's a question for Lenovo customer service: where. is. your. evidence ???
Here's my theory. I've had exclusive use of this laptop since I shelled out to buy it. I never did anything but type stuff on it. And no I didn't perform handstands on the palmerst or any other tricks to cause the casing to crack whilst miraculously leaving no evidence of misuse. Lenovo Customer service want to... what's it called ? Rip me off. Defraud me. Dupe me. Fleece me.
I've made so many phone calls, written so many emails, posted to this forum too many times. After having so much time wasted I thought, finally Lenovo were going to own up and fix my laptop, so I spent half a day backing up and wiping the hard drive and packing the laptop in a box for dispatch, and then I spent a week without a laptop to work on at my faculty... and you know what? I don't think the Lenovo customer service team in Bratislava ever intended to do a bona fide inspection of my laptop for evidence of misuse in accordance with the terms of the warranty that is part of the contract Lenovo made with me when I paid $1,200 for this laptop. I think Lenovo customer services just wanted to be able to say they inspected the thing to justify this despicable treatment of a customer.
Mark, or anybody else at Lenovo who cares about customers - is there no-one who has the good sense to see what any small claims judge will say when they see this straightforward case? This laptop is faulty. I have not damaged it. There is no evidence I damaged it. The nominal "inspection" report even confirms it! Seriously, stop messing me around!!
02-28-2012 02:33 PM - edited 02-28-2012 02:52 PM
Oh yes, and then the necessity:
Lenovo customer service agent, you do not "have" to deny me service under warranty. Your technical conclusion is not valid, but also your customer service since my first phone call to your colleagues a month ago has been ham-handed, slow, inaccurate, uncourteous, etc. (The only person who speaks any sense so far is Mark here). For that reason alone, you should be fixing, exchanging or refunding my laptop. And frankly I think I'm owed an apology and some appreciation for the amount of time and good faith you've cost me.
02-28-2012 02:47 PM
For the record, here is my reply to the the latest message from Customer Service:
My laptop is an X220 not an X201. And it seems your technician has found no evidence of misuse that could have caused the crack. Merely stating that Lenovo has not made some classification of such cracks does not justify the conclusion that the palmrest was subject to excessive pressure. Neither your inspection nor my statements indicate damage from misuse or accident.
So, what is the basis for your decision to deny me warranty service?
Also, do you appreciate the poor quality of the customer service that I have so far received regarding this issue. I see no explicit or implicit reference to this fact in your communication.
With kind regards,