M8 shutter fault - get Leica to repair it for free

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica are perfectly within their rights to tell you to seek redress from your dealer.

 

And that's exactly what they should do.

[Guest PhotoWebb.co.uk]

So have you called ffordes? if not why not?

 

Read my post above.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[andybarton]

So have you called ffordes? if not why not?

 

He hasn't called ffordes, because he knows what they will say.

 

"Sorry chum, it's out of warranty"

[Guest PhotoWebb.co.uk]

Leica are perfectly within their rights to tell you to seek redress from your dealer.

 

And that's exactly what they should do.

 

You're right about that. They are perfectly within their legal rights to do this and I do not disagree with that point.

 

I am just asking that they repair the camera because I bought it on the strength of their statements about it.

 

On that note, good night all. Don't be too upset and angry about this - after all, it's only a camera.....

Edited February 7, 2010 by PhotoWebb.co.uk

[earleygallery]

I can't imagine Leica giving any other response Andy. To do so would be very foolish on their part.

 

Leica are an honorable company, as evidenced by the issue with the faulty Digilux 2 sensors. That was a known/accepted manufacturing fault (by a third party supplier).

 

If Leica give in to the demands on this case, especially given the high profile you have created, they will open the floodgates for all sorts of out of warranty claims. Hell, I might as well send in my lllf and demand that the shutter is replaced as it's no longer 100% accurate.

[Guest PhotoWebb.co.uk]

He hasn't called ffordes, because he knows what they will say.

 

"Sorry chum, it's out of warranty"

 

I had problems getting Ffordes to pay for a sensor clean when I bought a used Canon 1Ds from them and it arrived with more muck on the sensor than I'd ever seen - I know that road is not going to be an easy one, if I have to go down it.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But their statements mean nothing. At all.

 

BMW reckon I should get 56 mpg from my car. Their adverts say so. I don't.

 

Should I sue them? Or should I sue my dealer?

 

Or should I just put this down to advertising bull shit.

 

Since I am a man of the 21C, I choose the latter option. Persil doesn't wash whiter. And in 1974, I couldn't get seriously attractive women just by smoking a pipe full of Old Shag (but, then again, I was only 13...)

Edited February 7, 2010 by andybarton

[andybarton]

I had problems getting Ffordes to pay for a sensor clean when I bought a used Canon 1Ds from them which had more muck on the sensor than I'd ever seen - I know that road is not going to be an easy one, if I have to go down it.

 

Cleaning a sensor? You can do that yourself (and will need to in the future on any digital camera)

 

Thank goodness you didn't buy a NEW M8... their sensors were covered in grease and oil..

[Guest PhotoWebb.co.uk]

I can't imagine Leica giving any other response Andy. To do so would be very foolish on their part.

 

Leica are an honorable company, as evidenced by the issue with the faulty Digilux 2 sensors. That was a known/accepted manufacturing fault (by a third party supplier).

 

If Leica give in to the demands on this case, especially given the high profile you have created, they will open the floodgates for all sorts of out of warranty claims. Hell, I might as well send in my lllf and demand that the shutter is replaced as it's no longer 100% accurate.

 

They might ask me to sign an NDA if they do fix it for free. My silence will probably be evidence that it was sorted out to my satisfaction.

[andybarton]

They won't.

[Guest PhotoWebb.co.uk]

Cleaning a sensor? You can do that yourself (and will need to in the future on any digital camera)

 

Thank goodness you didn't buy a NEW M8... their sensors were covered in grease and oil..

 

Hahaha - were you cool about that when yours arrived covered in crap?

[bill]

So you will go after the ''easy'' target, making as much noise about it as a dog stealing sausages. You won't go after ffordes because you know that they will give you short shrift, and you are blaming Leica because you have rather naively taken their advertising copy as an offer rather than an invitation to treat. Nobody forced you to buy a secondhand camera. Everybody sympathises with you for your unfortunate problem but you are abdicating your own responsibility in this matter and expecting Leica to bail you out of your misfortune... Remarkable.

[earleygallery]

OK so you haven't contacted the dealer whom you purchased your second hand camera from because you fear that they will decline liability, as the warranty is now out of date? Even though legally speaking your contract is with that dealer, and any redress you may have - whatever the reasons - is with the dealer not the manufacturer.

 

So you are trying to apply public pressure on Leica to accept liability instead, for a camera which is outside of their warranty period too, and which they haven't inspected to ascertain how the shutter became damaged.

 

Even though this camera is a few years old and has been used how much? you expect them to replace the shutter for free (bearing in mind that the existing shutter has given a few years trouble free service).

 

As I've said before, yes you might have some grounds for a case on the basis that a camera should last more than 3 years, but you will need to take the proper course of action, and be prepared to pay the costs for doing so.

 

What's the saying, crap or get off the pan?

 

(Bill replied first!)

[lct]

He hasn't called ffordes, because he knows what they will say. "Sorry chum, it's out of warranty"

Showing that they don't know what statutory rights may mean either. Hence the OP's efforts to find an amicable settlement directly with Leica. If he fails, he will be entitled to sue Ffordes who will have no alternative but to sue Leica in turn, this will cost a lot to everybody and at the end of the route a judge will probably say that a shutter fault at 10,000 actuations is not acceptable from a Leica. 2+ years of litigation to state the obvious if you ask me.

BTW this case looks like one of mine in Paris. I will follow it with great interest.

[stunsworth]

Hahaha - were you cool about that when yours arrived covered in crap?

 

I bought a new M8, The shutter was perfectly clean when I bought it, and I never had a problem with oil on the sensor.

[farnz]

They might ask me to sign an NDA if they do fix it for free. My silence will probably be evidence that it was sorted out to my satisfaction.

You wouldn't be cunningly trying to set yourself up with a 'get out of jail free' card for this thread would you, Daniel? Once you've finally accepted that you've chosen the wrong route you simply stop posting and pretend that you've signed a NDA.

 

I recall from the first post in this thread that you claimed your reason for following this course was for an article on Leica's response:

 

I will be starting an article on my website ... which will detail the steps that I am going to follow together with the outcome so that other Leica users who have either in the past or are now having this problem can have some way of recourse.

 

If so, surely you wouldn't accept a NDA in return for having your shutter fixed for free would you or was the statement about the alleged article just a cheap ploy to apply some pressure to Leica?

 

Or would you just immediately abandon your altruistic intentions (and "other Leica users") to gain personal satisfaction for yourself by accepting a free shutter repair for a NDA?

 

Something's starting to smell fishy, Daniel.

 

Pete.

[earleygallery]

Showing that they don't know what statutory rights may mean either. Hence the OP's efforts to find an amicable settlement directly with Leica.

 

But he hasn't even given them the opportunity to reject - or accept - liability. That's the real issue here. If only he'd listen, people are actually trying to help.

 

Edit Pete, LOL well spotted!

Edited February 8, 2010 by earleygallery

[stunsworth]

But he hasn't even given them the opportunity to reject - or accept - liability. That's the real issue here. If only he'd listen, people are actually trying to help!

 

Well not only that, he's not only failed to contact the people who are actually responsible for any claim - Ffordes, but he's also demanding that Leica repair the camera when they haven't even inspected the camera to see what the cause of any possible fault may be.

[Nicoleica]

Although I have some sympathy for the OP in having his pride and joy fail in this way, I do believe that he may not be going about solving this in the best way.

Most people tend to react more positively if you are friendly. A friendly call or letter to the dealer may have produced a solution that made everyone happy.

In my belief, litigation should only be used as a last resort, and even then, only when you have a clear documented history that all other means have been exhausted.

Vendors that I purchase goods from know me, and after years of doing business with me, know that I treat my goods well, and do not misuse them. There have been a few occasions where something has failed after the guarantee ran out, and in most cases the vendor has rectified the fault to my satisfaction at little or no cost to me.

 

However, you must also accept that sometimes things just do go wrong, and that it's down to you to pay for a repair. For example, my previous tumble drier came with a three year guarantee. It worked perfectly during this period, but then, 2 hours after the guarantee expired it suffered a terminal failure. (Yes, I know, after I'd checked my paperwork, I kicked myself for not doing my laundry earlier that day!) The shop I had purchased it from was no longer in business, and so I couldn't ask them if they would repair or replace it as a goodwill gesture, and I had to accept that it was my bad luck and I bought a new one. Such is life.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

But he hasn't even given them the opportunity to reject - or accept - liability....

Must be a lawyer.