Digimate (DGM) Monitors

[perplexity]

What kind of fools does this company employ?

 

As I pointed out before, it seems that DGM employs another company, Repairtech, so what exactly would the contractor's incentive be?

[Neonin]

As I pointed out before, it seems that DGM employs another company, Repairtech, so what exactly would the contractor's incentive be?

 

I know I shouldn't, but I can't help myself...

 

Assuming you are referring to Repairtech as the contractors, what do you mean what is their incentive? How about doing the job that DGM pay them to do? You know, like any other business. The incentive is to do a good job so you can get paid and attract more customers/contracts.

[perplexity]

Incentive, n.

 

1. [

2. An incentive payment, scheme, etc.

 

[Oxford English Dictionary]

[Neonin]

You're seriously going to quote the dictionary at me as if I don't understand the word? Believe me, I've known what that word means for a LONG time.

 

Now, answer my question. Are you referring to Repairtech's incentive to deal with this issue? If so, read my previous post. If not, then explain what on earth you're talking about because I have no idea myself.

 

Actually forget reading my previous post, I'll spell it out:

 

Repairtech = Contractor for DGM.

 

DGM = Pays Repairtech money to deal with these issues.

 

Incentive = Repairtech want to keep receiving money from DGM.

 

They should not NEED any more incentive than that. It's simple business practice. Good job = more customers/contracts = healthier company. Bad job = less contracts = bust.

[perplexity]

How would you know that "Repairtech want to keep receiving money from DGM"?

 

For all I know, the subcontractor might have put in a tender that the contract obliges them to to stick to, so there is nothing more to be gained, except perhaps to back out of a bad deal because there is far too much to have to cope with, from DGM.

 

Do you know which is in fact the case or do you just pretend to?

 

Your version fails to explain their reluctance to do the work. Mine would.

[Jasper1965]

As I pointed out before, it seems that DGM employs another company, Repairtech, so what exactly would the contractor's incentive be?

 

As the forum expert in semantics would you please answer the following questions Perplexity?

 

1) Where exactly in the phrase "What kind of fools does this company employ?" do I say What kind of fools does DGM employ?

2) "So what exactly would the contractor's incentive be?" I originally thought this was very clever giving the clue in the question....... But then your later riposte got me thinking that you really didn't know you'd done it or possibly even what the answer is so here's the same phrase but I've given you a clue about the clue.

"so what exactly would the contractor's incentive be?"

 

people in trouble or experiencing problems don't need a smart arse on their case, you're obviously an intelligent person why the need to act the clever dicky all the time. nothing would be more helpful than your contentious posting.

[perplexity]

I'd hoped that somebody with appropriate experience could be helpful enough to tell us what exactly a subcontractor's offer to DGM is likely to have been.

 

An attempt to persuade Repairtech to perform is in effect a third party's enforcement of their contract with DGM, so it might be a good idea to see what the terms consist of.

 

Otherwise, I suppose, it will just have to be beyond us, why it took five weeks to to assess, diagnose and confirm a fault.

 

One may also wonder why Trading Standards have not seen fit to get back to eBuyer, the original supplier who is thus responsible for the quality of the goods.

[Neonin]

One may also wonder why Trading Standards have not seen fit to get back to eBuyer, the original supplier who is thus responsible for the quality of the goods.

 

eBuyers take on the issue was that since DGM supplied me with a brand new replacement, it fell to them to deal with warranty issues according to previous cases they had involving Trading Standards. One would assume TS agree with that or they would have got on to eBuyer by now, I did mention it in my correspondence with them.

[perplexity]

Having referred a complaint to a manufacturer, the supplier of goods should want to know if the tactic fails, for if it fails too often, the supplier should cease to market the product.

 

The need is then to apply the pressure where, when and how it is that much more likely to count, in terms of incentive. I routinely urge consumers to refer themselves to Trading Standards when and where there is an offence to prosecute, defined in law as such because the law prescribes a duty to enforce, the incentive being to avoid an action against the enforcement agency which is feasible if they fail to perform.

 

What the law does not prescribe is a duty to act on behalf of a consumer in the event of a civil dispute. What you therefore rely upon is their own good will if they happen to have the time to spare. I am not therefore so surprised if the strategy was not so effective, with all said and done.

 

As soon as the need arose, I would have by passed the manager at Repairtech in order to deal with DGM directly, because it is that much easier for a buyer to enforce the terms of a warranty, than it would be for the third party to enforce an agreement between Repairtech and DGM, whatever it may happen to be.

[Neonin]

You notice the bottom of the emails, I will point out again, say "DGM Customer Services" right? This means as far as I am concerned I am dealing with a representative of DGM. It doesn't matter if the person is on the payroll of DGM or is a contractor working for Repairtech, as they have identified themselves as "DGM Customer Services" that is what they are, unless you are trying to suggest this person is misrepresenting themselves?

 

Your point seems to be that I should be dealing with someone at DGM and not Repairtech. My point is that, as far as I am concerned, I AM. They have identified themselves to me and Trading Standards as such.

[perplexity]

From what I have gathered so far, "DGM Customer Services" is not a person.

 

If you send a summons or a letter before action it would have to be addressed to a particular person, a company or an individual personality.

[Neonin]

*sigh* Such a summons would be addressed to the male individual who has identified himself as " *** DGM Customer Services" along with his name (blanked out for good reasons) in every single email he has sent to me and Trading Standards. What more do you want?

[labrat]

this is perp he wants what he always wants, attention to feed his insecure ego

[perplexity]

Were I so insecure, in need of attention, I could start a thread to solicit unremunerated advice.

 

Somebody else did that, not me.

 

[Jasper1965]

I Suspect much of the unremunerated advice given you in such a thread would be very brief and involve the word "off!"

[perplexity]

It might be wiser to differentiate between what is known and what is assumed, or imagined.

[Neonin]

Were I so insecure, in need of attention, I could start a thread to solicit unremunerated advice.

 

Somebody else did that, not me.

 

 

Did you really just accuse every single thread-starter on these forums of being insecure and in need of attention? Really? What exactly did you think these forums were for? If you think it's so pathetic, why are you even here?

[perplexity]

There is a 'Find all posts' link to be found by way of the profile page of every member if you want to educate yourself , instead of speculating.

[Neonin]

Latest update!

 

I emailed TS the other day to say it had now been 8 weeks since they received the monitor and over four months since I first informed them of the fault, and I had still received nothing other than "We're waiting for parts". TS then emailed them today with the following:

 

Dear Sirs,

Mr Jenkins has contacted me concerning the unreasonable time being taken to repair and return his monitor. I understand that you have had the monitor for a total of 8 weeks.

Mr Jenkins now wishes to make "time of the essence of the contract" and requires you to deliver the monitor fully repaired within the next 7 days.

 

I would be grateful if you could contact me as a matter of urgency with your comments and intentions.

 

Regards,

 

 

******

Consumer Advice Officer

Trading Standards Service

Wolverhampton City Council

 

This received the following response approximately five hours later:

 

Good afternoon ******,

I cannot guarantee the monitor will be repaired within the next 7 days unfortunately. This is because we are still awaiting parts to be delivered to us from the manufacturer.

This has been escalated to management and they are aware that the repair is still on hold.

Kind Regards

*****

DGM

Customer Services

[Neonin]

And the emails are just flying today!

 

Dear ******,

Please can you provide me with the name of the individual who this matter has been escalated to along with a contact number?

I'm sure you agree that it is unreasonable for Mr Jenkins to continue to wait for a proposed repair whereby a part is required which you don't have. It is unfortunate that the delay has already taken 8 weeks for a repair to a fault which has resulted due to a manufacturing defect which you have accepted liability for.

I await your prompt response.

Regards,

******

Consumer Advice Officer

Trading Standards Service

Wolverhampton City Council

[jesterscup]

I'm in the same position,

no real need to elaborate on my story beyond:

1. monitor broke, got fixed quickly.

2. 1 month later it broke again,

3. it is now 6 months later........

 

same story " we can't give a replacement and we are awaiting the part to be delivered."

 

I'm pursuing this further, if you are in a similar boat please contact me directly, I'm trying to collect peoples details so that I can show this is happening to many people, since cases like this are often of interest to bbc's watchdog programme (and similar press / broadcast units).

 

Regards,

Jesterscup

[Neonin]

Well I've been keeping my nose clean, as it were, while Trading Standards did what they could. I have a lot of respect for the guy who's been dealing with the complaint for me and trying to get it sorted.

 

Basically they got in touch with the Warwickshire TS (the one local to RepairTech) and got them to get in touch about the complaint, but RepairTech told them exactly the same as they told my local one: They can't speed up the process because they can't speed up the delivery of parts from China/Taiwan/wherever the DGM Head Office is.

 

Trading Standards have reached the limit of what they can do, and said my only two real options are to wait it out (bear in mind it's now been over 6 months since I contacted RepairTech/DGM about the problem and three since they took the monitor away) or sue.

 

The problem is suing costs money, calling in Baliffs to enforce the judgement assuming it goes in my favour costs more money, and although it would all be claimed back I'm not actually sure what I can sue them for.

 

Any further advice would be greatly appreciated, because as things stand it looks like my only realistic option is to just wait like a good little sheep.

 

By the way Jester, if you want to pass on the link to this thread and my saga as part of your collection feel free. If you need any personal information send me a PM.

[LesterPiglet]

I'm in the same boat.

 

Good Afternoon L*** ******,

Your monitor is currently awaiting a TFT panel. As we are the warranty repair centre for DGM, we are awaiting a delivery of parts from them.

As soon as we have this available, and your unit has been repaired, we will contact you to arrange a delivery back.

I do apologize for the delay.

Kind Regards,

Harriet

DGM Customer Services

Tel: 0871 250 8000

Fax: 0870 495 82 34

 

The monitor was picked up from me 27/04/11

[perplexity]

Trading Standards have reached the limit of what they can do, and said my only two real options are to wait it out (bear in mind it's now been over 6 months since I contacted RepairTech/DGM about the problem and three since they took the monitor away) or sue.

 

 

Is that what they told you?

 

The option provided by Section 48C of the Sale of Goods Act is a reduction of the purchase price or rescission of contract, when the seller fails to repair or replace within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

 

This would apply to the seller rather than another company contracted to repair, so the thing to do is get back to the original supplier to tell them that an indefinitely extended completion date is an unreasonable period of time and a significant inconvenience. They would be mad to expect a judge in a county court to disagree with that.

 

They could also be prosecuted under Section 6 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations on the basis that their practice misleads the consumer, who would never have purchased to start with, were the truth of what to eventually expect were told. It is a strict liability criminal offence, to fail to meet the requirements of professional diligence with regard to a significant omission of information about arrangements for performance.

 

According to Section 19 of Regulations "it shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce these Regulations" and this binds the crown, by way of Part 8 of the Enterprise Act, so it is Trading Standards who I would be thinking in terms of suing. It is their job to put a stop to this sort of nonsense. They have the power and if they tell you they don't, they are lying.

[Neonin]

The TFT panel was what needed to be replaced in the first one I sent back, and it took four months before I got a replacement monitor instead because they were "awaiting parts". This was last year. Something fishy is going on with this company...