Lenovo return policy
Vincent Lascaux
I want to share my story with you and get feedback on the behavior of
Lenovo's customer support. I bought a X61 tablet laptop online on
Lenovo's website.
I made a mistake and ordered the "wrong" screen: they have two
different options for the screen, a multi touch at 1024x768 and a
cheaper higher res screen without multitouch at 1400x1050. I want the
higher res one and ordered by mistake the multi touch version.
I realized that too late, reading the shipment confirmation email. I
received the package but haven't opened it yet, since I know the
laptop inside it is not what I want.
I contacted Lenovo's customer service, and they told me I have to pay
a 15% restocking fee on the entire laptop (around $280!) in order to
get the screen changed, regardless of the fact that the package was
unopened.
I find that surprising, and I don't want to pay a 15% restocking fee
on the entire laptop when all I want is to change the screen.
Is it common to have such return policies? Am I the only one to have
such a bad experience with Lenovo?
Thanks,
Vincent
SpammersDie
"Vincent Lascaux" <vincent.lascaux@invalid> wrote in message
news:gc7cj35pq3l6hecq3...@4ax.com...
If you think you can get better than 85% of retail for a used laptop, you're
free to sell the thing on ebay rather than return it to Lenovo.
bat
VL> on the entire laptop when all I want is to change the screen.
VL> Is it common to have such return policies? Am I the only one to have
VL> such a bad experience with Lenovo?
Some companies charge for returning opened package; but some charge in any
case. I would ask to speak to a supervisor and explained that the package
was not opened. If he does not cooperate, then call the carrier (UPS?) and
tell them you want to reject the package. They will come and pick it up the
package. Then it's technicaly not return. Lenovo does not have a provision
for rejected packages, so hopefully they will have to issue full refund. If
not, dispute 15% with credit company, emphasizing that in order to return,
you had to accept it first.
regards
Rod Speed
> Some companies charge for returning opened package; but some charge in any case.
In spades with systems that are configured for the buyer before shipping.
> I would ask to speak to a supervisor and explained that the package was not opened.
Irrelevant with systems that are configured for the buyer before shipping.
> If he does not cooperate, then call the carrier (UPS?) and tell them you want to reject the package.
Wont change anything on the restocking fee.
> They will come and pick it up the package. Then it's technicaly not return.
Wrong in this case.
> Lenovo does not have a provision for rejected packages, so hopefully they will have to issue full refund.
Nope, you watch.
> If not, dispute 15% with credit company, emphasizing that in order to return, you had to accept it first.
They're unlikely to buy that, and its flagrantly dishonest anyway.
JerryL
"bat" <b...@bats.com> wrote in message
news:SDvZi.45112$eY.3...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
Why should any company be penalized because of a mistake the customer made?
Your advice is immoral and unethical. I'll bet if you were in the same
position as Lenovo in a business of your own, you wouldn't recommend what
you just did to one of your customers. The whole problem with our society
today is that many people do not want to take responsibility for their
actions. Remember the sign in the store "You broke it, you own it"? This
person custom ordered a laptop, Lenovo built as per order. The customer
should either eat it or pay the restocking fee.
Shawn Hirn
"JerryL" <jl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Not to mention that if the OP returns the package, the company is free
to do with it as it wishes and there is no guarantee that the OP will
get his money back or a replacement computer.
Dan
for IBM for their business customers in the U.S. Refusing the package would
have been the wrong thing to do. When the customer wanted to return thier
item (laptop, desktop, whatever), we did not charge a restocking fee. Even
if the package was opened, we would refund the entire purchase (sometimes
minus shipping costs, but there was usually no shipping costs for business
customers). The only time we did actually charge 15% restocking was when the
customer outright refused the package. I'm not sure why this was, but IBM
seemed to frown upon refused packages, as opposed to refunding an opened
purchase. I would ask to speak to a supervisor and state your claim. Tell
them explicitely that you have not opened the package, and want an exchange
for a same spec'd machine, just with a different screen. Also, if you have
any correspondance with IBM (ex email) of conversations with them regarding
the screen issue (before the machine shipped) I would hang onto those and
use them as backup to your story. As stated above, I don't specifically know
what lenovo's policies are right now, just what ibm's were when i worked
there. Hope this helps.
"Vincent Lascaux" <vincent.lascaux@invalid> wrote in message
news:gc7cj35pq3l6hecq3...@4ax.com...
bat
J> your own, you wouldn't recommend what you just did to one of your
J> customers.
In fact, I was instructed to do that in similar situation by a customer
service representative of some company, many years ago,
J> The whole problem with our society today is that many people do not
J> want to take responsibility for their actions. Remember the sign in the
J> store "You broke it, you own it"? This person custom ordered a laptop,
J> Lenovo built as per order. The customer should either eat it or pay the
J> restocking fee.
Yes, if there indeed were restocking costs. But if the package is returned
unopened, then the company will see it and will skip the inspection, the
very "restocking". Unless it was a special-order unit (as you said "built
per order", which is most likely not the case at all - Lenovo builds some
thousands of the same model every day), Lenovo will ship it to someone else
on the same day without even opening the package, and their losses will be
pennies. That's why the company may very well advise to reject the package,
to really make sure it's unopened. Charging fo that some $150-200 - that's
what really would be "immoral and unethical".
SpammersDie
> J> I'll bet if you were in the same position as Lenovo in a business of
> J> your own, you wouldn't recommend what you just did to one of your
> J> customers.
>
> In fact, I was instructed to do that in similar situation by a customer
> service representative of some company, many years ago,
>
> J> The whole problem with our society today is that many people do not
> J> want to take responsibility for their actions. Remember the sign in the
> J> store "You broke it, you own it"? This person custom ordered a laptop,
> J> Lenovo built as per order. The customer should either eat it or pay the
> J> restocking fee.
>
> Yes, if there indeed were restocking costs. But if the package is returned
> unopened, then the company will see it and will skip the inspection, the
> very "restocking". Unless it was a special-order unit (as you said "built
> per order", which is most likely not the case at all - Lenovo builds some
> thousands of the same model every day), Lenovo will ship it to someone
> else on the same day without even opening the package, and their losses
> will be pennies.
As I said, if you really believe that, the OP is free to put up the laptop
on sale himself and advertise it as "brand new, never opened package. Trust
me."
If the OP can find a buyer foolish enough to buy his "new" laptop without
some sort of risk discount for the fact that he's not buying from an
established vender, more power to him.
And I would not knowingly buy from a vendor that ships returned uninspected
units to a customer that ordered a newly built laptop. I agree with the
others. The depreciation cost of returned units should be borne by those who
caused the unit to be returned. It should not be borne by another customer
who did nothing wrong.
bat
S> uninspected units to a customer that ordered a newly built laptop.
correct, you would (and often do) buy it unknowingly.
S> I agree with the others. The depreciation cost of returned units should
S> be borne by those who caused the unit to be returned. It should not be
S> borne by another customer who did nothing wrong.
There's no deprecation cost. For the company, there's absolutely no
difference whether the unit was sitting on the shelf unshipped because the
order was canceled 1 hour before it would be shipped, or it made a travel in
the box because it was canceled 1 hour after.
However, I do agree with your statement - that the deprecation cost should
be borne by those who caused the unit to be returned. That's fair. The
problem, however, is that in this case that cost would hardly be 5% of the
restocking fee even if Lenovo indeed opened and inspected the unit; while
95% would be pure profit. Thoughts?
aemeijers
package is still sealed and looks unscuffed. If I ordered something and
detected a previous layer of shipping tags, damn straight I would be on
the phone to the vendor immediately if not sooner. How do I know the PC
didn't take a 10 foot fall onto concrete in the first trip out the door?
Styro and cardboard packing doesn't buffer shock loads that much- they
mainly protect against crushing. Sensitive hardware often has G-load and
temp tattle-tales on the outside for that very reason. You can kill
hardware without opening the box.
I don't know if UCC addresses it, but in common commercial practice, it
just isn't done. They sell them out through either an in-house web site
or store as a clearly labeled return, or wholesale them to the secondary
market as a 'refurb'. Just like a new car isn't new once it passes off
the lot, once a PC goes out the door, it is a 'pre-owned' PC. Selling it
as new is fraud.
aem sends...
SpammersDie
> S> And I would not knowingly buy from a vendor that ships returned
> S> uninspected units to a customer that ordered a newly built laptop.
>
> correct, you would (and often do) buy it unknowingly.
>
> S> I agree with the others. The depreciation cost of returned units should
> S> be borne by those who caused the unit to be returned. It should not be
> S> borne by another customer who did nothing wrong.
>
> There's no deprecation cost. For the company, there's absolutely no
> difference whether the unit was sitting on the shelf unshipped because the
> order was canceled 1 hour before it would be shipped, or it made a travel
> in the box because it was canceled 1 hour after.
As someone just pointed out in a reply, there is a difference. In the latter
case, the unit has been out of the control of the seller and its agents and
shipper and Lenovo can no longer ethically vouch for the integrity of the
unit. People pay the premium for "new" because of the assurance that only
the seller and its agents and shipper have had access to it.
> However, I do agree with your statement - that the deprecation cost should
> be borne by those who caused the unit to be returned. That's fair. The
> problem, however, is that in this case that cost would hardly be 5% of the
> restocking fee even if Lenovo indeed opened and inspected the unit; while
> 95% would be pure profit. Thoughts?
Ultimately, only the free market can judge what the true depreciation cost
is. The OP is free to put that to a fair market value test by selling his
unwanted laptop (with full disclosure) to some third party that gives him a
better offer than Lenovo. I just know I wouldn't buy it through this unknown
middleman just for a $14 discount on $1866 laptop.
.
bat
S> latter case, the unit has been out of the control of the seller and its
S> agents and shipper and Lenovo can no longer ethically vouch for the
S> integrity of the unit.
But does not 100% the same applies to regular shipping, i.e. shipping to
you? the only difference is that there were two trips instead of one.
Yes, there's possibility that whoever has rejected the package has abused it
before it was picked up by "10 foot fall onto concrete", but I'd think that
the possibility of this is rather theoretical.
S> People pay the premium for "new" because of the assurance that only the
S> seller and its agents and shipper have had access to it.
This still applies to rejected package, meaning access to the contents.
??>> However, I do agree with your statement - that the deprecation cost
??>> should be borne by those who caused the unit to be returned. That's
??>> fair. The problem, however, is that in this case that cost would
??>> hardly be 5% of the restocking fee even if Lenovo indeed opened and
??>> inspected the unit; while 95% would be pure profit. Thoughts?
S> Ultimately, only the free market can judge what the true depreciation
S> cost is.
Um, no. Cost is cost, i.e. whatever it actually costs Lenovo. Anything the
customer pays on top of that, is taking advantage of the customer, and
extracting profit from thin air. Market can judge about the price, but not
about the cost. This inflated fee is very similar to banking fees for
insufficient funds and such - when they extract very sizeable profits not by
creating a product but rather by taking huge advantage of customer's
mistake. This is not healthy for the economy, and I think nobody thinks this
is ethical, or related to "free market". This restocking fee where only 5%
is for restocking, is practically the same practice.
SpammersDie
> S> As someone just pointed out in a reply, there is a difference. In the
> S> latter case, the unit has been out of the control of the seller and its
> S> agents and shipper and Lenovo can no longer ethically vouch for the
> S> integrity of the unit.
>
> But does not 100% the same applies to regular shipping, i.e. shipping to
> you? the only difference is that there were two trips instead of one.
If you mean that items can be damaged during shipping, yes, there's a
non-zero risk of that happening and the customer will have factored that
risk into the price he's willing to pay for the laptop.
When you add the risk of a second trip plus its time in the hands of the
other customer, that's additional risk and the properly informed customer
will no longer be willing buy said item at the same price as before.
Lenovo cannot ethically sell this laptop without disclosure that it has been
pre-owned and it goes without saying, this will knock something off the
price that the laptop can fetch.
> Yes, there's possibility that whoever has rejected the package has abused
> it before it was picked up by "10 foot fall onto concrete", but I'd think
> that the possibility of this is rather theoretical.
Not to sound like a broken record but the OP is free to search for a buyer
who will consider this "theoretical" enough not to demand a 15% discount off
the "new" price. Are you making an offer here? :-)
I don't think there's any dispute that this "theoretical risk" will still
result a very non-theoretical reduction in the price you can realistically
get for selling the laptop. Conversion of "theoretical risk" into real
dollars happens all the time in commerce and not just in the insurance and
credit industries either.
> S> People pay the premium for "new" because of the assurance that only the
> S> seller and its agents and shipper have had access to it.
>
> This still applies to rejected package, meaning access to the contents.
Actually, it means the whole package, not just the contents. As pointed out,
an intact package does not mean the contents could not be damaged. And
shipping packages aren't exactly counterfeit-proof either.
> ??>> However, I do agree with your statement - that the deprecation cost
> ??>> should be borne by those who caused the unit to be returned. That's
> ??>> fair. The problem, however, is that in this case that cost would
> ??>> hardly be 5% of the restocking fee even if Lenovo indeed opened and
> ??>> inspected the unit; while 95% would be pure profit. Thoughts?
>
> S> Ultimately, only the free market can judge what the true depreciation
> S> cost is.
>
> Um, no. Cost is cost, i.e. whatever it actually costs Lenovo. Anything the
> customer pays on top of that, is taking advantage of the customer, and
> extracting profit from thin air. Market can judge about the price, but not
> about the cost.
The cost to Lenovo isn't just the labor cost of restocking the unit, it's
the lost revenue from the original legitimate sale minus whatever Lenovo can
resell the used laptop for. And that latter figure is indeed the pre-owned
unit price which is determined by the free market.
As I see it, Lenovo has no obligation to accept the return at all beyond
whatever return guarantee accompanied the original sale in the case of
non-defective merchandise that matches what was ordered. The OP has a
legitimately sold computer that he doesn't want. That computer has a resale
value (that is logically less than the "new" retail value as it's not
"new.") Lenovo has extended an offer to purchase this laptop for 15% off the
"new" retail value. Whether that 15% is called a restocking fee or a pigeon
doesn't change the nature of the fact. OP is free to reject the offer and
look for a better one. Lenovo is not obliged to raise their offer.
K. Miczinski
In general, it's not wise to trust Chinese-made products, especially
when the company is owned by a bunch of capitalist-wannabe communists!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
krw
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aeme...@att.net says...
Why do you think the first trip out the door was worse than the
second? The box could have been punted at any time.
> I don't know if UCC addresses it, but in common commercial practice, it
> just isn't done. They sell them out through either an in-house web site
> or store as a clearly labeled return, or wholesale them to the secondary
> market as a 'refurb'. Just like a new car isn't new once it passes off
> the lot, once a PC goes out the door, it is a 'pre-owned' PC. Selling it
> as new is fraud.
While I agree that a returned item shouldn't be resold as new (cars
are a special case), it is done quite often in practice. There is
often wording on the device that says something like; "all components
are new or equivalent to new".
--
Keith
bat
k> are a special case), it is done quite often in practice.
I still don't quite understand why the unit that was never unwrapped does
not qualify as new. If it's now new, then it's used, right? but the customer
did not even touch it, not to mention used. Is there any physical
difference, however small, that makes this "not new" unit different from
"new"?
regards
aemeijers
was been anywhere other than the vendor, or a direct shipment from the
vendor, you take your chances. And if something is wrong, who do you go
back on? Sealed box, no apparent damage. How to tell if it took a 100g
shock load, or a week in a 150 degree car trunk in the desert? You can't.
If it has been sold, it ain't new.
Don't get me wrong- I buy returns and 'refurbs' too. But in exchange for
the risk I am taking, I expect a discount.
aem sends...
bat
k>>> While I agree that a returned item shouldn't be resold as new (cars
k>>> are a special case), it is done quite often in practice.
??>> I still don't quite understand why the unit that was never unwrapped
??>> does not qualify as new. If it's now new, then it's used, right? but
??>> the customer did not even touch it, not to mention used. Is there any
??>> physical difference, however small, that makes this "not new" unit
??>> different from "new"?
??>>
a> Probably not, but there is no way to be sure. When you buy anything that
a> was been anywhere other than the vendor, or a direct shipment from the
a> vendor, you take your chances. And if something is wrong, who do you go
a> back on? Sealed box, no apparent damage. How to tell if it took a 100g
a> shock load, or a week in a 150 degree car trunk in the desert? You
a> can't.
Yes, but all of it 100% applies to the shipping from vendor to me as well.
Just a longer trip.