Over the course of two letters and two phone calls from me, and two letters from Casio, we've finally arrived at a point where my watch is now being repaired under warranty

As expected Casio were trying to make the case that, as an accident had occurred this had to have been the cause of the watch breaking, and it must therefore be accidental damage and thus outside the warranty. My contention was that the watch hadn't hit the cab or the road, and neither my bike nor the cab door were damaged in the impact anyway (and none of them were marketed as the world's toughest cab, bike or hand) and so I didn't think it was the cause and the repair should therefore be under warranty.

I think what clinched it in my favour in the end was asking what they base the claim of "world's toughest watch" on? They naturally exclude failure after deliberate or accidental damage from the warranty, so it can only be an implied resistance to accidental damage, and one small but significant part of the watch didn't resist it at all. Or possibly it was just more cost-effective for them to acquiesce. Either way, it hardly speaks well of their expectations for latter G-shock models if they're content to see a cosmetically unblemished but internally-damaged 4-day-old watch back for repair and not think to either deal with it quickly or with an emphasis on customer service. Their engineers never did determine what had caused the screen to leak, but whatever it was was my fault. I didn't think that was particularly fair either.

What a contrast though - I bought a second-hand Lenovo laptop late 2006, last week it developed a sticky "0" key. I rang Lenovo on Friday to see what my options were and a brand-new keyboard arrived this morning, provided under warranty. No questions even asked about why or how the button was sticking. I know whose brand I'm more likely to recommend in future.

Thanks to all for your comments and advice.

INH.

Thanks for the replies and sorry, I'm a bit pants at this quoting thing)

I totally agree, MrShed, there has to be a limit on what one expects a product to withstand under "normal wear & tear", I understand companies have to protect themselves from excessive warranty claims. Equally, I understand the fault lies with the plum who opened the cab door without looking and myself for not being more thorough when assessing damage caused.

However, as I mentioned before, my previous G- was indestructible and it was a further buy-in to the technology with this new purchase that made me not even think of checking it before leaving the scene. The old one survived 2 motorbike crashes where bones were broken, numerous impacts of varying degrees directly to the case through building work, waterski-ing, coming off jetskis etc., and nothing in 8 years made the slightest damage. On Sunday all I did was, at a low speed, go from upright to a position 90 degrees to the right & my hand landing on the floor stopped me (or the watch) from actually hitting the deck. The only injury the watch sustained was the shock through my wrist as my hand hit the floor.

As the Casio literature posted by Bookworm (thanks for that!) makes clear - these things are meant to be tough. By comparison with the last G-Shock I had, this one should have had a big pink Barbie "B" on it, not a nice big G.

I'll let you know what they say...

I wouldn't mind it so much if it was actually me they were chasing!

Naah, no insurance. I should do really, but it's one of those things on the must-get-around-to-sometime-or-other-but-not-at-the-moment list.. Since we had kids I'm no longer allowed to ride a motorbike, and household ins frequently includes public liability, which is handy if you ride a pushie the way I do!

Thanks for the quick response and the 'phone number as well, I'll give it a try in the morning. The guy in the shop said they only send stuff up to HO Mondays, Weds & Fri's so I'll prob get in there before they've even seen the watch!

BTW, the best tactic I've found for ensuring a quick attitude adjustment (and when you've exhausted all other options) is a final letter with a copy N1 "to be lodged at court in the likely event you refuse this last option to honour your obligations", and in the remedy on the N1 I state I want the company ordered to re-train all their front-line staff in correct understanding of consumer protection law so that no other customer has to suffer the distress I have endured .

It seemed to be the only thing to sting my ex-mobile phone company into action, and it got me out of the remaining 9 months of a contract, a brand-new W800i to replace the two naff brand-new ones (not refurbs) they'd sent me previously and I got to port my existing mobile no to my new network all FOC. That was a good day's work!

I had a Casio G-Shock watch for about 8 years and it was fantastic, the thing was harder than any Tonka toy. Very annoyed at myself for losing it last week but, as I live not far from the Casio G-Shock shop in Carnaby Street, all was not lost. I was able to nip in last Thursday, find a new watch I liked, fork over my hundred quid and come away contented.

On Sunday evening some numpty decides to get out of the off-side door of a cab without checking the road and opens the door onto the front wheel of my bike as I was passing, knocking me off balance and, as the road was wet, the wheels slipped out from under me and I went over sideways & hit the deck (I'd seen the cab pulling over so I wasn't going past it at more than about 10-15mph). Since there was no immediately-obvious damage to me or my bike (even the cab door was undented, that's how slow-speed it all was) I had a bit of a swear and we all went on our way. When I got home, I realised the main multifunction LCD screen on the watch had cracked, the liquid crystal had leaked, and the screen was now black and unreadable.

Took it to the shop today and was told by the manager that as it was "accidental damage" it wasn't covered by the warranty and they would not therefore give me a replacement there and then whatever the law said. It would have to go to head office and they would decide what to do.

I pointed out that as it's called a g-shock and specifically marketed on the strength of its shock-absorbing abilities I expected it to, you know, withstand a shock, which was what it had completely failed to to. I also pointed out that we were having this conversation in the shop under a big sign saying "The toughest watches in the world" and did he not see any discrepancy or irony between that claim and the actuality in this instance? He acknowledged my point-of-view but returned to the "company policy" schpiel.

I then drew the manager's attention to SoGA and SaSoG (or whatever its' acronym is) and that as we were well within 28 days since purchase I believed I was entitled in law to a replacement there and then whatever his company policy was. He apologised and repeated the stock phrase once more. It drives me nuts when companies try this sort of caper, like their company policy takes preference over the law.

I've successfully argued the toss over this numerous times in the past, so I'm fairly confident of my position with these lot. I was just posting this for reference really and wondering is there anything in the new unfair trading regs that further strengthens my arm?

Cheers

Result

Sounds to me like disaster capitalism getting started (google it - scary stuff).

If the credit crunch, and higher prices for food/energy/every-bloody-thing bite us further and cause lots of people to lose their home those people will almost certainly have rakes of household stuff (TV, hifi etc) they don't want to lose or have to sell in the knowledge they'll have to replace it all sooner or later. Stands to reason they'll need somewhere fairly cheap and easily accessible to store that stuff 'til they get housed again won't they?

Just think, in 30 years we'll think these were the good old days...

Thanks for the replies peeps. If I hear from them again I'll send the letter Andrew1's linked to and if a saga develops after that I will kick a new thread off.

Regards

Just a quick g'day really.

I came here having googled the name of a DCA that many of your members have already come across.

Fantastic site, I never knew about statute barred cases and looking for info on the DCA I've accidently found loads of links & legislation I can start quoting at the people dealing with my old debt (if I ever hear from them again).

So hello and thank you already !

PS: Sorry for the mega first post!

Hi all. Like many, googling the name Mackenzie Hall led me here. What a great site, I've just spent a very illuminating 2 hours reading all 35 pages of this thread!

In the last few months I've had quite a few calls to my ex-dir tel no from MH asking for someone I've never heard of. I've tried explaining that I've lived here 6 years, none of the post that ever turned up for former tenants when I first moved here had the name on that they were on about either but it doesn't stop them calling. In common with another poster here I tried an air-horn on 'em and that got shot of them for about 6 weeks, but like all pests they're back again. I've had a good eff and blind at them on more than one occasion and put the phone down on them once or twice too. Reading what a pile of turd they are I feel a lot less bad about that now!

Funnily enough, I have an old debt from about 1990/91 that never got settled, or at least got passed to Thames credit, because of the circumstances at the time it got ignored and even they gave up eventually. Seeing what sneaky methods MH use I'm glad I wasn't daft enough to confirm my name when denying I wasn't who they claimed they were asking for. It sounds like a variation on the deliberately-wrongly-named-creditor enticement they've tried on other posters on this thread. With this in mind, can anyone confirm or deny that obtaining a copy of one's own credit report from Equifax or whoever will ultimately advertise to any/all DCA's that a name they might be looking for is now confirmed to live at a now-confirmed address and could ultimately result in yet more phone-calls/correspondence?

On the one hand I'm glad it's not me they're (apparently) after, but on the other hand I'm a bit peed off they've got my number, as this can only be from my ISP (who also supplied my phone), as I don't put it anywhere in the public domain at all, ever (it was a year before my mum realised having broadband meant I must have a landline and could she have the number please... !).

What strikes me most is this: This thread started in March 2006 and, from the tone even then, it seems MH were already well known to be tow-rags of the lowest order. Posters were exhorted to report MH to TS & OFT etc. It's now June 2008 and, despite the helpful Mr Stewart in east Ayrshire and whatever little the OFT has done, these scabs are still operating with impunity. I can't tell you how many 's feel appropriate right now. What's the point of laws and sanctions if the regulatory bodies just sit idly by and do nothing? :evil::evil:! How big a file does it take before the OFT does something?

Sorry, I realise I obviously need to up the dosage and perhaps watch V for Vendetta while I wait for it to kick in. Again. Grrr!

Fair play to everyone posting here and not taking any crap from this company. It's nice to see Brits getting off their backsides and doing something for themselves for a change. Luckily (?) I did my debt burnout 20-odd years ago, and I don't have a mortgage or any credit cards any more (parking-ticket battles are more my thang now). I'm just really naffed off that:

A) we pay far too much for everything in this country and get shafted time and time again by unscrupulous businesses AND the offices of local and national govt. that are allegedly there to represent & defend us against said scumbags

and

B) It looks as though I've got little or no chance of getting this sodding company to stop calling me. Aaaargh.

I really should've stopped reading this three hours ago, so well done to all who've got one over on MH and best of British to everyone still struggling with them.