Jump to content
wlaidlaw

Astounded and livid at the advice I have received from Leica CS

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wilson ...... this is clearly a 'computer says no' issue ......

 

The fact that you and Jaap couldn't register the items on the Leica site indicates some sort of database glitch right from the start .......

 

The oft repeated situation of an allegedly sane and sensible human believing rubbish just because it comes out of a computer and 'must be' correct. 

Edited by thighslapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have dealt directly with Wetzlar. In fact, when my 18-56 died, I called Leica store Lisse where I bought it and asked do you send in or do I. They told me that they would be happy to but doing so myself would expedite matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with dealing directly with Wetzlar.  Nothing wrong with dealing with your dealer.  I probably would have started with my deal simply because they are in easy driving distance and might have been willing to replace both camera and lens on the spot.  If not, there is certainly no reason you can't go through Leica support, especially given your registration as a Leica Professional.  

 

So sorry to hear about your bad experience.  Hopefully they will quickly realize their error as soon as they see your response to their price estimate.  Sounds like it was an honest mistake--computer said one thing, and they didn't read carefully enough to realize the computer was wrong.  I'm sure it will get cleared up to your satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem has sort of been resolved. Apparently the serial number was allocated in 2014 but the lens was supposedly manufactured in 2016. I am not wholly sure about this, as CS has apparently, a record of this lens both in 2014 and 2016, indicating to me that it may be a previously returned or refurbished lens, maybe twice. However, I am not going to go around accusing folk at Leica, who I respect, of being economical with the truth. Apparently the debris in the lens is now described as fluff but it was shiny and reflective when I shone a powerful LED torch into the lens from both ends and looked metallic to me. 

 

The €191 invoice from Leica has been cancelled and replaced by two FOC warranty repair pro-forma invoices for the camera and lens. 

 

I would still really very much prefer both items replaced rather than repaired. Similar issue for the CL body as on my M240, which returned broken after the strap lug refixing and tightening. I returned it to Leica on the basis I had bought a new camera, not one that had had two major repairs and wanted it replaced, which they did. The lens has at best, an uncertain history. 

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would still really very much prefer both items replaced rather than repaired. Similar issue for the CL body as on my M240, which returned broken after the strap lug refixing and tightening. I returned it to Leica on the basis I had bought a new camera, not one that had had two major repairs and wanted it replaced, which they did. The lens has at best, an uncertain history. 

 

Wilson

 

 ........ not necessarily the best option ....... bearing in mind the assembly was clearly at fault and the technicians who do the repairs are invariably better skilled and more careful when it comes to re-assembly and testing ..... 

 

I've sent plenty of lenses back that have been imperfectly calibrated from new ..... but only once had one back from 'repair' that was less than perfect ..... and then only because my acceptance of tolerance is less than Leicas .....

 

I get the impression it tends to be main dealer demo stuff that goes back for refurbishment and re-sale ....... and had a prolonged run in with Leica Mayfair over my 'as new refurbished ex demo M9' which turned out to have 15,000 actuations and crud in the viewfinder. It was exchanged for a new one. As I said at the time....... if I buy a car dealers ex-demo model I don't expect a years mileage on the clock .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem has sort of been resolved. Apparently the serial number was allocated in 2014 but the lens was supposedly manufactured in 2016. I am not wholly sure about this, as CS has apparently, a record of this lens both in 2014 and 2016, indicating to me that it may be a previously returned or refurbished lens, maybe twice. However, I am not going to go around accusing folk at Leica, who I respect, of being economical with the truth. Apparently the debris in the lens is now described as fluff but it was shiny and reflective when I shone a powerful LED torch into the lens from both ends and looked metallic to me. 

 

The €191 invoice from Leica has been cancelled and replaced by two FOC warranty repair pro-forma invoices for the camera and lens. 

 

I would still really very much prefer both items replaced rather than repaired. Similar issue for the CL body as on my M240, which returned broken after the strap lug refixing and tightening. I returned it to Leica on the basis I had bought a new camera, not one that had had two major repairs and wanted it replaced, which they did. The lens has at best, an uncertain history. 

 

Wilson

I agree with Steve, in general I very much prefer an item that has been through customer service.

As for the numbering, Leica's system of assigning lots has not changed as far as I know. The only thing that has happened to their numbering system since 1930 is the transfer of the chaos from ledgers to Excel as far as I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am still bothered by the idea that the warranty starts when Leica makes a lens rather than when the dealer invoices it to you.  I'm not going to start reading fine print to see if that belief belongs with Santa and the tooth fairy, but dealers have always described the US passport warranty in those strong terms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Wilson, you should get onto Ffordes immediately, they are responsible to you for this. As they have apparently sold you old stock - according to the manufacturer - I'd demand a refund for the lot and go elsewhere.

Well surely the kit couldn't have been 'old stock', the CL wasn't available in 2014 was it? A sealed 'kit' with a new camera and 3 yr old lens?

And Ffordes surely dont open every item to check for swarf between elements, especially as customers expect sealed boxes nowadays. Palming the problem off to the dealer rather than the manufacturer is ridiculous.

 

Gerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not palming off.

The seller is the person who has the sales contract with the buyer; he is responsible for guaranteeing the product. It is irrelevant whether the guaranty is extended by the seller himself, his supplier, the factory or an independent company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the beaurocracy of capitalism.  I'm sure Jaap is right that the consumer who wishes to enjoy his rights must slap every wrist in the chain from the factory to his side.  But it is likely that Wilson took the most expedient path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how sales contracts work in the UK.

 

Your contract is always with the seller, not the manufacturer. This is the same for any goods you buy, from a tin of beans from Sainsbury's or a new car from your Porsche dealer. If you have any warranty or fault problems, it's the dealer's responsibility to resolve them.

 

Having a hot-line to Lord Sainsbury or Ferry Porsche is sometimes helpful, but does not mean that the retailer is not responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a background in consumer protection. Wilson could have gone back to the retailer under sale of goods legislation or exercised his rights under the warranty provided by the manufacturer. In this case he chose the latter which he was entitled to do. If the camera and lens were sold as a kit I would imagine that it would have the serial numbers of both items together on the box. It would not surprise me if Leica had indeed used old stock for the kits , but had not kept track of this fact giving rise to the situation described by Wilson. Leica's customer service leaves a lot to be desired and the idea that you have to know somebody and speak to them on the phone in German or English is not what I would describe as a 21st century standard of service. I am sure that, in modern parlance, customer service has been made into a 'profit centre' which can sometimes distort the viewpoint coming from Wetzlar. The really difficult situations arise when an issue with an item might have been caused by either a mechanical failure or some kind of knock while in use. I have found just last weekend that the rangefinder in my M10 is back focussing and lenses are going past 12 O Clock when they are mounted giving rise to issues with framelines. It could lead to some interesting conversations with Wetzlar. I am going on a holiday to Russia in a few weeks and so my M240 and/or my M9 may be getting a holiday they were not expecting. I intend to raise the general matter of customer service with Leica when I am in Wetzlar with LHSA next October. Stefan Daniel is organising a meeting with the CEO and other worthies. But, as I said already, customer service should be good at the interface and you should not have to know somebody to get your rights as a customer.

 

William

Edited by willeica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem has sort of been resolved. Apparently the serial number was allocated in 2014 but the lens was supposedly manufactured in 2016. ....

The lens has at best, an uncertain history. 

 

Wilson

Nothing surprising about this.  Apparently  there was unsold inventory of excellent quality T lenses and probably also of lovely hand-polished T bodies as well.  Something had to be done before the tax laws would require that all of it be scrapped.  And the result is a TL2 that works much better and the CL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffordes are taking up my corner with Leica (as I expected they would). I have asked them to lobby for replacement of both body and lens.

 

Whereas I trust CS on their work on mechanical issues on bodies, rangefinders and non-electronic M lenses, given indifferent past experience with my M8/M9/M240, which often required more than one visit to rectify, I am far less confident of their abilities with complicated electronic items. 

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how sales contracts work in the UK.

 

Your contract is always with the seller, not the manufacturer. This is the same for any goods you buy, from a tin of beans from Sainsbury's or a new car from your Porsche dealer. If you have any warranty or fault problems, it's the dealer's responsibility to resolve them.

 

Having a hot-line to Lord Sainsbury or Ferry Porsche is sometimes helpful, but does not mean that the retailer is not responsible.

Well I KNOW that of course, I have worked in photo dealers. But paroting the legalistic position is not helpful, and smacks of trying to exonerate the manufacturer and shift their CS and QC problems down the chain.

Clearly a manufacturing problem in the first place, and disatrous customer service and relations. The dealer comes out of it well with the customer, and at the mercy of the failings of Leica.

 

Gerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffordes are no doubt delighted that they’ve not had to deal with the issue.

 

It’s like being served a really tough gristly steak in a restaurant and going off to complain to the farmer.

 

Leica claimed the product was old, not me! Leica told Wilson he has no warranty.

 

Each to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffordes are no doubt delighted that they’ve not had to deal with the issue.

 

It’s like being served a really tough gristly steak in a restaurant and going off to complain to the farmer.

 

Leica claimed the product was old, not me! Leica told Wilson he has no warranty.

 

Each to their own.

 

Leica are bound by the warranty given and appear to be honouring it now. What happened to Wilson was a cock up of Leica's own making. It should not have happened, of course.

 

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - it shouldn't. The present problem in our part of the world is getting staff with a modicum of sense, as there is full employment for capable employees.

I suspect this was a trainee with the supervisor at lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffordes are no doubt delighted that they’ve not had to deal with the issue.

 

It’s like being served a really tough gristly steak in a restaurant and going off to complain to the farmer.

 

Leica claimed the product was old, not me! Leica told Wilson he has no warranty.

 

Each to their own.

Not really, there's a world of difference between a restaurant cooking and serving a steak, and a dealer selling a sealed box to a customer.

I can't really see how you can possibly think those are similar circumstances.

 

Gerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...