Leica Q warranty invalidated due to 'impact damage'

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Again, I call bullshit on Leica.

.

You may well do so, but as long as we do not know the  cause of the failure  and the damage to the mechanism it is impossible to judge whether it was caused by the knock/scrape/whatever or not.

OP: If you got a quote, there is a list of repairs and parts needed. We haven't seen it yet.

[Guest jvansmit]

 

OP: If you got a quote, there is a list of repairs and parts needed. We haven't seen it yet.

 

 

From Leica customer care:

 

"Necessary labour costs: Exchange focal length adjustment ring, exchange lettering ring/ classification, adjustment of all parts

 

Necessary materials: Lens, complete

 

Repair cost : HK$12,550.00"  (= EUR1501.83 or USD 1618.81)

 

 

[ramosa]

I'm really sorry to learn of your predicament, but I'm not surprised at all by Leica's response. 

 

IMO, it's really wise to have a valuable personal property insurance policy specifically for camera equipment. I have had one for at least seven years. Although I have never needed to use the policy, it's well worth it just in terms of peace of mind.

[geesbert]

each impact damage excludes the warranty'. 

 

 

 

Does that mean the Lenny Kravitz Leica Correspondent doesn't come with a warranty?

 

 

[hoppyman]

I agree $1500 sounds very expensive for what appears to be just a sticking button. Personally unless this includes a full refurbishment/replacement of all the damaged parts I would probably just take the camera back and use it as is. When shooting using the EVF and holding the camera to your eye it is easy just to keep your finger on the tab with it pushed against the AF stop. Also I wonder if some dirt or something may have got into the tab locking button. last thought maybe you could ask for an estimate just to repair the button and leave the rest as is

The small amount of information given to the OP in the quote doesn't make it very clear, however Leica Camera won't part repair a camera or lens with a problem and return with with still existing faults. All the normal functions are checked, adjusted etc plus any cleaning needed at a repair and a warranty for the whole camera/lens (not just the specific repair item) is provided.

 

What can't be seen externally of course is what damage or problems exist inside the mechanism. In the case of my Summilux M 50 ASPH, I only saw the dented lens hood and could not detect any problems in focus mechanism movement for example. However to restore the calibration state the whole lens was essentially rebuilt. It depends on the design of the particular item what work is required of course. In another lens design the work might be simpler.

Again to provide the example from when I dropped my M (typ 240) and lens, after return from repair I later found that the connection for the multifunction grip did not work. I had never used one before. The fault proved to be a broken connection on the board that may have come from the impact too (or pre-existed). Either way it was fixed promptly and for free.

[Guest jvansmit]

Just to keep the record straight, after escalation, I've just heard back from Leica that they will fix my Q under warranty with a small service charge. Given that the repair involves the replacement of the lens assembly, I think this is a very fair solution. I was also contacted personally by Leica's chairman which shows some class.

 

 

 

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good news for you, but, why did Leica insist that you would have to pay for the repair in the first place and now changed their mind? What happened that meant they were willing to repair for free when they weren't a few days ago?

 

And if we look at the 'who dropped their Q thread' there are lots of people who admit just dropping their cameras and Leica have repaired for free. Some may be covered by passport warranty perhaps but I doubt all are.

 

It seems it's just a case of who shouts loudest and longest gets what they want.

[jaapv]

My experience with repair departments, not just Leica, is that the knee-jerk reaction to visible external damage is to deny warranty. Good  customer service -like Leica- is open to argument, i.e. that the damage is not connected to the fault.

[earleygallery]

Good  customer service -like Leica- is open to argument, i.e. that the damage is not connected to the fault.

 

It's hardly good customer service Jaap, to deny some customers warranty (as they originally did) yet give others free repairs for the same issues (as noted in the 'dropped Q' thread.

 

Consistency would be better.

[Guest jvansmit]

My experience with repair departments, not just Leica, is that the knee-jerk reaction to visible external damage is to deny warranty. Good  customer service -like Leica- is open to argument, i.e. that the damage is not connected to the fault.

 

 

I think that's correct, Jaap, the customer care person insisted that the warranty was invalid based on an initial visual inspection. After a few emails back and forth, I  escalated via an informal route to the top of the company who then asked the service head to resolve the issue which he did very promptly. 

 

Sadly, the local Hong Kong distributor has now decided to inflate the small service fee (their margin?) to an amount that would pay for a couple of very good restaurant dinners!

[jaapv]

It's hardly good customer service Jaap, to deny some customers warranty (as they originally did) yet give others free repairs for the same issues (as noted in the 'dropped Q' thread.

 

Consistency would be better.

It certainly would be better. Problem is, this is a judgement call and thus variable. I never had a problem with "impact damage" though, as the note from Leica was always sufficient to get the insurance to pay up.

[hoppyman]

Good news for you, but, why did Leica insist that you would have to pay for the repair in the first place and now changed their mind? What happened that meant they were willing to repair for free when they weren't a few days ago?

 

And if we look at the 'who dropped their Q thread' there are lots of people who admit just dropping their cameras and Leica have repaired for free. Some may be covered by passport warranty perhaps but I doubt all are.

 

It seems it's just a case of who shouts loudest and longest gets what they want.

James I think that is a pretty tough assessment. We don't know the whole story of course but the camera did suffer impact damage according to the owner. Whether the other fault was related we don't know. A good will action by Leica Camera is great news for the OP and not the first time that they have done that. In this instance if the OP is now paying only a small service charge then the fault stated to be unrelated to the impact is being repaired and so is the impact damage , all for the small service fee mentioned. I would say that was very good of Leica Camera. I think it would be unreasonable to expect that a goodwill gesture be extended to every customer else the warranty conditions would just be ignored.

[DandA]

There was a period of time not all that long ago (when the world economic crisis hit) that quite a few manufactures resposnses to warrented equipment being sent in, responded with "-not covered

[DandA]

There was a period of time not all that long ago (when the world economic crisis hit) that quite a few manufactures (most notably Nikon), responded to warrented equipment being sent in, with "not covered, impact damage" and a heafty estimate. More often than not there was barely a scratch or even any marks on said equipment and most had zero impacts, but it seemed a new avenue for income. Others joined the bandwagon to a lesser degree.

 

I'm sure web searches will turn up hundreds if not into the thousands of these stories and quick calls or protest letters to upper level management resulted in all charges to be dropped.

 

I knew four cases personally where equipmentdeveloped issues and this stunt was pulled. Up till that time I always thought of these respected companies fair and balanced eith regards to impact damage assessment.

 

When the D600 fiasco hit Nikon and eventually they were forced to deal with that camera, the horde of these impact damage assesments wained.

 

With all this said, I have always felt Leica is generally reasonable but repairs as expected when required and paid by customer, are often surpringly high

 

Dave(D&A)

[earleygallery]

The other issue here is, if there's a fault that might be down to the customer, it seems if they hassle enough they'll get a free repair.

[Guest jvansmit]

The other issue here is, if there's a fault that might be down to the customer, it seems if they hassle enough they'll get a free repair.

 

 

....except that I didn't 'hassle' anyone at Leica. I simply put forward a straight-forward and polite case that I didn't think the fault was due to the scrape marks which occurred nearly 6 months before the fault. It was Leica service who used the term 'impact damage' to describe the scrape marks.

[imants]

 Put it out there on the forum and Leica will relent bad publicity is not good PR

[lucerne]

....except that I didn't 'hassle' anyone at Leica. I simply put forward a straight-forward and polite case that I didn't think the fault was due to the scrape marks which occurred nearly 6 months before the fault. It was Leica service who used the term 'impact damage' to describe the scrape marks.

 

This polite approach is more likely to work.  Aggressive naming and shaming publicly irritates chief executives and there could be a backlash that might jeopardise the outcome. Discussion on the forum is ok, but attempting to discredit Leica is just intimidation.

[Pete McGill]

Sorry for the late post.

 

I added this camera to the "listed items" under my homeowners policy.  It covers all peril including accidental damage.  It was 79USD per year, and there is no deductible - full replacement.  I would encourage anyone in the US to add this coverage.

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[ropo54]

Sorry for the late post.

 

I added this camera to the "listed items" under my homeowners policy.  It covers all peril including accidental damage.  It was 79USD per year, and there is no deductible - full replacement.  I would encourage anyone in the US to add this coverage.

 

Your point is well taken, but as a lawyer I would advise against making "small claims" as your carrier is likely to drop you upon renewal, and then  you will deal with higher premiums for several years, etc . . . . Generally not worth it; the insurance carriers are not your friends.