companies "sale" of faulty parts

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Steve Robertson, Feb 28, 2004.

  1. I went to a "sale" in AK today. fault/RMA tags on all the parts
    Some poor smucks are going to use the parts to make a 'faulty PC'

    Ive seen the same thing at an auction a few years back. 90% of the parts
    had tags stating the faults yet the auctioneer stated they where all in
    good working condition (even after he was confronted about the fault tags)

    Surely these parts should go in the bin??
     
    Steve Robertson, Feb 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:21:04 GMT, Steve Robertson wrote:

    > I went to a "sale" in AK today. fault/RMA tags on all the parts
    > Some poor smucks are going to use the parts to make a 'faulty PC'
    >
    > Ive seen the same thing at an auction a few years back. 90% of the parts
    > had tags stating the faults yet the auctioneer stated they where all in
    > good working condition (even after he was confronted about the fault tags)
    >
    > Surely these parts should go in the bin??


    Not while there's a buck to be made - either honestly or otherwise. In
    general, auctioneers are not renowned for scrupulous honesty - and (if I
    recall correctly, and I could be wrong) they are not bound by the Consumer
    Guarantees Act. /*Caveat emptor!*/
    --

    Nicolaas.



    - Don't play "stupid" with me ... I'm WAY better at it!
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Feb 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>Ive seen the same thing at an auction a few years back. 90% of the parts
    >>had tags stating the faults yet the auctioneer stated they where all in
    >>good working condition (even after he was confronted about the fault tags)
    >>Surely these parts should go in the bin??


    > Not while there's a buck to be made - either honestly or otherwise. In
    > general, auctioneers are not renowned for scrupulous honesty - and (if I
    > recall correctly, and I could be wrong) they are not bound by the Consumer
    > Guarantees Act. /*Caveat emptor!*/


    I seem to remember reading that aswell... something about as long as the
    prospective bidders were able to view the items, they accepted the quality.

    --
    Http://www.Dave.net.nz
    Play Hangman
    Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.
     
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Feb 28, 2004
    #3
  4. Steve Robertson

    SteveM Guest

    (Steve Robertson) wrote in news::

    > I went to a "sale" in AK today. fault/RMA tags on all the parts
    > Some poor smucks are going to use the parts to make a 'faulty PC'
    >
    > Ive seen the same thing at an auction a few years back. 90% of the
    > parts had tags stating the faults yet the auctioneer stated they where
    > all in good working condition (even after he was confronted about the
    > fault tags)
    >
    > Surely these parts should go in the bin??


    Where abouts?

    SteveM
     
    SteveM, Feb 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Steve Robertson

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <121uqzozwae01$>,
    Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
    >
    >Not while there's a buck to be made - either honestly or otherwise. In
    >general, auctioneers are not renowned for scrupulous honesty - and (if I
    >recall correctly, and I could be wrong) they are not bound by the Consumer
    >Guarantees Act. /*Caveat emptor!*/


    That reminds me of a certain local auction house specialising in IT
    equipment. I used to provide telephone support for a PC product. I started
    getting calls from people with no support contract for the product. On
    questioning, it turned out they had bought the product at auction and had
    been assured that the manufacturer would provide support. A week or so later
    I attended an auction at which some of the product was being auctioned, and
    heard the auctioneer make the same claim. I stood up and told him he was
    wrong, and that he could not make that claim. He retorted that I didn't know
    what I was talking about. I replied that I was an offical representative of
    the manufacturer and the person responsible for rejecting all support calls
    for the product sold via his auctions, and if he didn't desist we would be
    seeking redress in light of the damage being done to the manufacturer's
    reputation. He desisted, but it didn't stop him trying to make the same
    claim later in the same auction when he thought I'd gone.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
    national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
    software and decent hardware support."
     
    Don Hills, Feb 28, 2004
    #5
  6. On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:11:01 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    > Not while there's a buck to be made - either honestly or otherwise. In
    > general, auctioneers are not renowned for scrupulous honesty - and (if I
    > recall correctly, and I could be wrong) they are not bound by the Consumer
    > Guarantees Act. /*Caveat emptor!*/


    Correct, up to a point (There was a story in the AA member rag a few yeas
    back about a nissan bluebird sold which had a chassis so badly messed up
    that when AA inspected it was pink stickered and found to be not worth
    repairing. The auction house had to make good on the sale)

    Most Auctioneers I know will NOT buy _anything_ at auction.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 28, 2004
    #6
  7. Steve Robertson

    Charlie G Guest

    "Steve Robertson" <> wrote in message

    >yet the auctioneer stated they where all in
    > good working condition (even after he was confronted about the fault tags)



    Hmmm..

    Sounds like a breach of the Fair Trading Act to me - of course, you would
    have to prove the auctioneer said that... matbe just better to buy at a more
    honest dealer??


    Charlie
     
    Charlie G, Feb 29, 2004
    #7
  8. Steve Robertson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
    > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:11:01 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    >> Not while there's a buck to be made - either honestly or otherwise.
    >> In general, auctioneers are not renowned for scrupulous honesty -
    >> and (if I recall correctly, and I could be wrong) they are not bound
    >> by the Consumer Guarantees Act. /*Caveat emptor!*/

    >
    > Correct, up to a point (There was a story in the AA member rag a few
    > yeas back about a nissan bluebird sold which had a chassis so badly
    > messed up that when AA inspected it was pink stickered and found to
    > be not worth repairing. The auction house had to make good on the
    > sale)


    **** AA inspectors. I bought a car a few years back, paid $120-odd for an AA
    check before I parted with my money. They gave it a clean bill of health. On
    my way home with my 'new' car I had to brake hard due to some guy in front
    of me with ABS stopping really quickly. Ran straight into the back of him. I
    found out a bit later, when my car came out of the panel-beaters and I
    decided to get the brakes done up that the rear calipers were siezed and had
    been for a long time. (The car had been in storage) No wonder I couldn't
    stop in time, they were hardly working at all. AA inspectors, Pah! Cost me a
    small fortune and my Falcon Sportpac was never the same after the accident.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 29, 2004
    #8
  9. On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:47:40 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > **** AA inspectors. I bought a car a few years back, paid $120-odd for an AA
    > check before I parted with my money. They gave it a clean bill of health. On
    > my way home with my 'new' car I had to brake hard due to some guy in front
    > of me with ABS stopping really quickly. Ran straight into the back of him. I
    > found out a bit later, when my car came out of the panel-beaters and I
    > decided to get the brakes done up that the rear calipers were siezed and had
    > been for a long time. (The car had been in storage) No wonder I couldn't
    > stop in time, they were hardly working at all. AA inspectors, Pah! Cost me a
    > small fortune and my Falcon Sportpac was never the same after the accident.


    If what you say is true then the car should have failed its warrant of
    fitness inspection.

    AA inspection has gotten a pretty bad reputation since they started
    contracting it out. I certainly wouldn't use it anymore unless I knew who
    the mechanics were.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 29, 2004
    #9
  10. Steve Robertson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:47:40 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> **** AA inspectors. I bought a car a few years back, paid $120-odd
    >> for an AA check before I parted with my money. They gave it a clean
    >> bill of health. On my way home with my 'new' car I had to brake hard
    >> due to some guy in front of me with ABS stopping really quickly. Ran
    >> straight into the back of him. I found out a bit later, when my car
    >> came out of the panel-beaters and I decided to get the brakes done
    >> up that the rear calipers were siezed and had been for a long time.
    >> (The car had been in storage) No wonder I couldn't stop in time,
    >> they were hardly working at all. AA inspectors, Pah! Cost me a small
    >> fortune and my Falcon Sportpac was never the same after the
    >> accident.

    >
    > If what you say is true then the car should have failed its warrant of
    > fitness inspection.


    I know. I think it got it's warrant because the place issuing it issued the
    last one and it had only done 25km since it's last check (to and from the
    service station). Because of that I don't think they were very thourough, it
    was just a small place, no 'rolling road' or anything. Plus it was a fairly
    new car.

    > AA inspection has gotten a pretty bad reputation since they started
    > contracting it out. I certainly wouldn't use it anymore unless I knew
    > who the mechanics were.


    I wouldn't used them again fullstop.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 1, 2004
    #10
  11. Steve Robertson

    Chris Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in
    news:xZw0c.6431$:

    > Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
    >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:47:40 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>
    >>> **** AA inspectors. I bought a car a few years back, paid $120-odd
    >>> for an AA check before I parted with my money. They gave it a clean
    >>> bill of health. On my way home with my 'new' car I had to brake hard
    >>> due to some guy in front of me with ABS stopping really quickly. Ran
    >>> straight into the back of him. I found out a bit later, when my car
    >>> came out of the panel-beaters and I decided to get the brakes done
    >>> up that the rear calipers were siezed and had been for a long time.
    >>> (The car had been in storage) No wonder I couldn't stop in time,
    >>> they were hardly working at all. AA inspectors, Pah! Cost me a small
    >>> fortune and my Falcon Sportpac was never the same after the
    >>> accident.

    >>
    >> If what you say is true then the car should have failed its warrant
    >> of fitness inspection.

    >
    > I know. I think it got it's warrant because the place issuing it
    > issued the last one and it had only done 25km since it's last check
    > (to and from the service station). Because of that I don't think they
    > were very thourough, it was just a small place, no 'rolling road' or
    > anything. Plus it was a fairly new car.
    >
    >> AA inspection has gotten a pretty bad reputation since they started
    >> contracting it out. I certainly wouldn't use it anymore unless I knew
    >> who the mechanics were.

    >
    > I wouldn't used them again fullstop.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >
    >


    I had no problems when I went to the AA to have a car tested but it was the
    actual AA not a contractor (that was nearly 2 years ago). Also, I stated
    to the seller (a car yard) that I wanted a WOF from Vehicle Testing NZ
    rather than the "local service station". Of course you need to live in a
    main center to do that.

    --
    Chris

    "Two men walk into a bar. You'd think the second one would've ducked..."
     
    Chris, Mar 1, 2004
    #11
  12. Steve Robertson

    EMB Guest

    "Chris" <> wrote in message
    news:Fbz0c.29494$...
    >
    > I had no problems when I went to the AA to have a car tested but it was

    the
    > actual AA not a contractor (that was nearly 2 years ago). Also, I stated
    > to the seller (a car yard) that I wanted a WOF from Vehicle Testing NZ
    > rather than the "local service station". Of course you need to live in a
    > main center to do that.
    >

    Many of the VTNZ stations are just franchises now, and the whole thing is
    privately owned (no more relationship to LTSA than the local garage). Under
    the new WOF quality assurance (read random audit) regime the local garages
    are doing better than many testing stations anyway. Some testing stations
    are still doing things as they always have with no regard to changes in the
    WOF rules over the last few years. Admittedly the VTNZ station is more
    likely to be independant than a "tame" garage, but there is no longer any
    totally impartial WOF issuing authority.

    EMB
     
    EMB, Mar 1, 2004
    #12
  13. Steve Robertson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Chris wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in
    > news:xZw0c.6431$:
    >
    >> Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:47:40 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> **** AA inspectors. I bought a car a few years back, paid $120-odd
    >>>> for an AA check before I parted with my money. They gave it a clean
    >>>> bill of health. On my way home with my 'new' car I had to brake
    >>>> hard due to some guy in front of me with ABS stopping really
    >>>> quickly. Ran straight into the back of him. I found out a bit
    >>>> later, when my car came out of the panel-beaters and I decided to
    >>>> get the brakes done up that the rear calipers were siezed and had
    >>>> been for a long time. (The car had been in storage) No wonder I
    >>>> couldn't stop in time, they were hardly working at all. AA
    >>>> inspectors, Pah! Cost me a small fortune and my Falcon Sportpac
    >>>> was never the same after the accident.
    >>>
    >>> If what you say is true then the car should have failed its warrant
    >>> of fitness inspection.

    >>
    >> I know. I think it got it's warrant because the place issuing it
    >> issued the last one and it had only done 25km since it's last check
    >> (to and from the service station). Because of that I don't think they
    >> were very thourough, it was just a small place, no 'rolling road' or
    >> anything. Plus it was a fairly new car.
    >>
    >>> AA inspection has gotten a pretty bad reputation since they started
    >>> contracting it out. I certainly wouldn't use it anymore unless I
    >>> knew who the mechanics were.

    >>
    >> I wouldn't used them again fullstop.
    >>

    >
    > I had no problems when I went to the AA to have a car tested but it
    > was the actual AA not a contractor (that was nearly 2 years ago).


    Yeah, this was the AA too, not a contractor. Big-ass office out the front
    with receptionist, a waiting room and shit-loads of pamphlets on membership
    and insurance. Spotless workshop out back, "mechanics" in white overalls,
    looked like they didn't like to get dirty.

    > Also, I stated to the seller (a car yard) that I wanted a WOF from
    > Vehicle Testing NZ rather than the "local service station". Of
    > course you need to live in a main center to do that.


    I bought from a friend, she got the warrant done locally but said she'd pay
    for an AA check (she's a member) when I said I'd have prefered a VTNZ
    warrant. (I don't trust them anymore either but that's another story).

    Anyway it looks like I'll be having to rely on my own judgement from now on
    (I used to work in a service-station years ago and am probably as capable as
    the AA guys, I just don't have a hoist and the other equipment and aren't
    physically able to climb around under cars anymore). I'm firmly ensconced in
    the 'fixer-upper' price range of vehicles these days.

    The car I have now cost me $350 four years ago (it had been hit in the arse,
    me and my old man did some home panel-beating on it) and other than a minor
    rust repair has got WOFs fine, starts first turn of the motor in the morning
    and is reliable enough that I wouldn't have any qualms about driving the
    length of the country in it.

    Actually that's my gripe with VTNZ, when I first got it, it needed a repair
    on the roof. My brother is a mechanic and he took a grinder to it, chopped
    out all the rust and patched it with steel. I put a light skim of bog over
    it to tidy it up to paint and I had no trouble with the next two warrants.
    The third time I went there there was a new guy, still training. He wanted
    documentation of the repair. I told him that I'd bought it in pre-bog and
    showed the guy he replaced and he'd OK'ed it. The new guy said "Not good
    enough, if you don't have documentation then you'll have to rip it back to
    bare steel and let me see the repair myself". The repair was still fine, no
    deterioration, the guy was just an arsehole. It took me quite a while to
    finish the job off nicely when it was originally done and I wasn't going to
    undo all my hard work for this twat. I took it to a local garage and they
    pointed out that one of the flexible brake lines was perished and needed
    replacing (it was actually quite bad, seriously cracked) something the VTNZ
    guy missed.

    I'll be going back to them from now on. That brake line was damn dangerous
    and the garage was more than happy with the old rust-repair. I used to
    always go to VTNZ as it's important to me to have a safe car, I'm disabled,
    chronic back problems, and I'm not so nimble as I used to be, can't get
    under it and check stuff for myself. I used to think VTNZ was the shit. Now
    I know it's true, in the other sense, minus the "the".
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 1, 2004
    #13
  14. Steve Robertson

    colinco Guest

    In article <cDG0c.6994$>,
    says...
    > The third time I went there there was a new guy, still training. He wanted
    > documentation of the repair. I told him that I'd bought it in pre-bog and
    > showed the guy he replaced and he'd OK'ed it. The new guy said "Not good
    > enough, if you don't have documentation then you'll have to rip it back to
    > bare steel and let me see the repair myself". The repair was still fine, no
    > deterioration, the guy was just an arsehole.
    >

    You can check on what he is required to do

    http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/publications/vir-manual/index.html

    from the section on structure

    Note 3 The vehicle inspector may request additional relevant information
    from a repairer or other relevant person. The vehicle inspector should
    withhold the warrant of fitness if there is reason to believe that the
    vehicle has:
    a) structural damage, or
    b) inadequate structural repair(s), or
    c) corrosion damage.
    to the extent that it could affect the vehicle’s structural strength or
    one of the vehicle’s safety requirements. If the owner questions the
    decision, the vehicle inspector should recommend the vehicle owner
    obtain further written assessment from a panel beater.
     
    colinco, Mar 1, 2004
    #14
  15. Steve Robertson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    colinco wrote:
    > In article <cDG0c.6994$>,
    > says...
    >> The third time I went there there was a new guy, still training. He
    >> wanted documentation of the repair. I told him that I'd bought it in
    >> pre-bog and showed the guy he replaced and he'd OK'ed it. The new
    >> guy said "Not good enough, if you don't have documentation then
    >> you'll have to rip it back to bare steel and let me see the repair
    >> myself". The repair was still fine, no deterioration, the guy was
    >> just an arsehole.
    >>

    > You can check on what he is required to do
    >
    > http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/publications/vir-manual/index.html
    >
    > from the section on structure
    >
    > Note 3 The vehicle inspector may request additional relevant
    > information from a repairer or other relevant person. The vehicle
    > inspector should withhold the warrant of fitness if there is reason
    > to believe that the vehicle has:
    > a) structural damage, or
    > b) inadequate structural repair(s), or
    > c) corrosion damage.
    > to the extent that it could affect the vehicle’s structural strength
    > or one of the vehicle’s safety requirements. If the owner questions
    > the decision, the vehicle inspector should recommend the vehicle owner
    > obtain further written assessment from a panel beater.


    Yep, I'm aware of the laws. However, surely the previous inspector who saw
    the repairs uncovered by bog or paint should have made a note of it
    somewhere? It's just ludicrous to me that, after showing them (the same
    branch) the repairs in the 'raw' state, they insist later that I rip it back
    to bare metal to show them again.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 1, 2004
    #15
  16. Steve Robertson

    colinco Guest

    In article <6SP0c.7430$>,
    says...
    > Yep, I'm aware of the laws. However, surely the previous inspector who saw
    > the repairs uncovered by bog or paint should have made a note of it
    > somewhere?
    >

    It's also a visual inspection only, did your bog job look iffy?
     
    colinco, Mar 2, 2004
    #16
  17. Steve Robertson

    EMB Guest

    "colinco" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > >

    > It's also a visual inspection only, did your bog job look iffy?


    When we do a WOF at work if we see an obviously old but imperfect bog job we
    just make a note on the checksheet to the effect that it was noted, no
    evidence of workmanship was provided, and that as a visual only check we
    can't do any more. The LTSA are happy with this as it covers them and us
    without annoying the customer. Repairs that are obviously new are a
    different story, and any sign of newtech type filler is an instant fail.

    EMB
     
    EMB, Mar 2, 2004
    #17
  18. Steve Robertson

    SteveM Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in news:c20qmt$g2i$:

    >
    > "colinco" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> >

    >> It's also a visual inspection only, did your bog job look iffy?

    >
    > When we do a WOF at work if we see an obviously old but imperfect bog
    > job we just make a note on the checksheet to the effect that it was
    > noted, no evidence of workmanship was provided, and that as a visual
    > only check we can't do any more. The LTSA are happy with this as it
    > covers them and us without annoying the customer. Repairs that are
    > obviously new are a different story, and any sign of newtech type
    > filler is an instant fail.
    >
    > EMB
    >
    >
    >

    What makes Newtech a candidate for an instant fail?

    Just curious

    SteveM
     
    SteveM, Mar 2, 2004
    #18
  19. Steve Robertson

    EMB Guest

    "SteveM" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94A1238B3787sdmccremovemeparadis@202.20.93.13...
    > >

    > What makes Newtech a candidate for an instant fail?
    >
    > Just curious
    >

    Generally used to poo over large structural problems without any replacement
    steel being welded in - which is exactly what it's designed for.

    EMB
     
    EMB, Mar 2, 2004
    #19
  20. Steve Robertson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    colinco wrote:
    > In article <6SP0c.7430$>,
    > says...
    >> Yep, I'm aware of the laws. However, surely the previous inspector
    >> who saw the repairs uncovered by bog or paint should have made a
    >> note of it somewhere?
    >>

    > It's also a visual inspection only, did your bog job look iffy?


    Not at all, it was a *very* fine smear of bog over the welded metal, sanded
    back to conform to the original contour and primed and painted (almost)
    body-colour. (I took pride in it) The only clue that it had been repaired
    was that the over-lying paint was a slightly different hue to the rest of
    the body and a very slight crack (read: hair-line) in the bog, due to the
    thinness of the layer and two years I believe.

    I had a small repair done since. As I was piqued at the previous experience
    I asked the guy to leave it bare metal, told him I didn't give a shit about
    appearances, I'd just put rust-preventative paint and primer on the bare
    metal and leave it at that. He refused, mentioned professional pride. He did
    take digital pictures before and after, plus he has one of those 'approved
    repairer' stamps he put on the WOF form. I don't see how that's going to
    prevent similar occurances down the track though, once that form is 'lost'
    in the system.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 3, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. 123
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    536
    Petit Alexi
    Sep 22, 2003
  2. Gavin23601

    Faulty disk or faulty player?

    Gavin23601, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    602
    Stan Brown
    Oct 22, 2003
  3. J. A. Mc.

    AD: Ultra-Sharpen 7.0 Pro On Sale - Sale Ends 9/30/05

    J. A. Mc., Sep 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    1,083
    Stacey
    Sep 9, 2005
  4. Graham Fountain

    Faulty Camera or Faulty Photographer?

    Graham Fountain, Sep 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,176
  5. dstvns

    Parts parts....PARTS!!! ARGHHH

    dstvns, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    595
Loading...

Share This Page