Complaint Review: GE Zurich Warranty Management

When I purchased a Xerox C20 copier for our department in June 2007, I also purchased a service contract and warranty from GE. I was excited becuase with names like Xerox and GE backing the product, I thought we were in for a significant improvement in meeting our copier needs. I have never been more wrong!

The manufacturer's warranty on the copier was for 90 days. The extended warranty was to kick in immediately afterwards. I called the service contract provider in November 2007. I was told that my warranty was not in effect because the copier had been purchase in October and still under the 90 day warranty. The first thing I had to do was prove when I purchase the copier so they could change the purchase date on the contract - their typo!

At that time, the copies were coming out with blank streaks. The toner cartridge and the drum had been changed on the copier; however, the service rep with whom I spoke on the phone insisted that they be changed again - so we did. Still, blank streaks on the copies. We were promised that a service tech would be out to look at the copier.

I continued to make calls to GE throughout December and finally saw a service tech in January 2008. We were told at this time that the paper and rollers of the copier were "drawing damp" when not in use and we would need to run about 20 copies each morning before it would work properly. The tech insisted this would solve the problem. He also told us that we needed a new motherboard and would order the part and return to install it. One morning I ran 250 copies and still had blank streaks on the copies. The copier would work on occassion, but for the most part, it was unusable.

As of February 29, 2008, I still had not heard from the tech about installing the new motherboard. When I called (twice) I was told by the customer service rep that they needed to take my phone number, research the incident, and give me a call back - which they never did. After many continuous calls, I finally spoke with "Bill" on March 25, 2008. He read from the incident report that "David C." had been out to look at the machine and he asked if the machine had been replaced in January. It had not; however, it was indicated in the warranty files that it had. Upon realizing that there was a "mess" in the computer regarding our account, Bill asked that he be allowed to research the situation and have a liasion call me back.

On March 26, 2008, I called again and spoke with Joe Bickler. He was very displeased with the service I was receiving, listened to my problems, and decided that the fuser was the issue with the streaks on my copies. He told me that he would have the fuser overnighted and order a technician out for the next day. The fuser arrived on March 28, 2008. The technician arrived on April 11, 2008. The technician was from Nexxus Technologies and, once scheduled, arrived when expected. With the fuser replaced, the copier began to produce clean copies.

On May 1, 2008, the copier began to jam repeatedly. When checking the paper path, it was obvious that the paper was hanging up on the rollers on the back side of the copier at the end where the manual paper feed is located. A call was placed to GE and they informed me they would schedule a service call. As of May 15, I had heard and seen from no one. When I called, I was informed that there was no request for a service call in their system. I was informed by "Darrin" that a service request was being placed immediately. On May 20, I contacted the company again; still there was no indication of a request for a service call on the account.

The first of June, a service tech arrived, checked out the machine and informed me that we needed new rollers. He came back the following week, asking for the rollers that had been delivered. I had not received any parts and he informed me that his company had received a call stating that I had confirmed their delivery. This was untrue. The parts arrived two days later and the tech returned to install them. With the new rollers installed, the copier still repeatedly jammed. The tech informed me that he would elevate the problem to the service company and have them decide what to do next.

On July 16, 2008, I had still not heard from the company. I called and was on hold for over 25 minutes. The call center rep showed no information in my file after the request for a service tech. They had assumed that the issue was resolved. I continued to hold for another 15 minutes while the call center rep talked with other individual, attempting to figure out how to help me. The conclusion? That someone will have to "get the ball rolling" and give me a call. The promise is that they will contact me within 24 hours. Time will tell.

During all these months, the copier has been functioning about 15% of the time. Valuable time has been wasted in waiting for GE to supply service and support. The contract originates with GE Zurich Warranty Management; however, they out-source these contracts to various companies, the one serving us is National IT. These out-sourcing companies in turn out-source again - in our case to Nexus Technologies. I have not had any problems with Nexus Technologies or their representative; however, the ball definitely gets dropped between GE and them. Additionally, when calling GE, they never take responsibility for the poor quality service, even when adamantly confronted with the issues. Their apologies are empty at best. The results are even less.

I am glad that the price we paid for this contract was minimal, but it reminds me of the adage that you "get what you pay for", which in this case, is minimal. By the time the copier is sufficiently repaired, I am betting that the extended warranty will be expired. Or, with the luck I am currently having, it will still be nonfunctioning when the warranty lapses and I will never have a functioning copier.

Cynthia
Columbia, South Carolina
U.S.A.

Clickhere to read other Rip-off Reports on Zurich'>Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on GE-Zurich