- Report: #1013555
Complaint Review: Samsung - Ridgefield New Jersey
Reported By:
DaddyOfClaudine -
Laurel, Maryland, United States of America
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Samsung
85 Challenger Road Ridgefield, 07660 New Jersey, United States of America
Phone:
1-800-SAMSUNG
Web:
www.samsung.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Samsung Samsung Mobile USA Samsung withheld the truth and lost me as a customer. Ridgefield, New Jersey
Report Attachments
On February 6, 2013, I sent my Samsung Galaxy Note to Samsung's authorized repair facility in Plano, Texas, for a warranty repair.
On February 12, 2013, Samsung reported to me via my online account at its website that my Galaxy Note had been damaged by liquid and was "beyond economic repair." The phone was deemed out-of-warranty.
On February 13, 2013, I called Samsung's customer service line and requested evidence confirming that the phone was damaged by liquid, such as a photograph. The first- and second-level representatives both told me that the written comments by the repair technician were the evidence upon which I would have to rely and that they could not provide me a photograph of the damage. I stated that if I wanted to confirm the damage by disassembling the phone myself that I would void any warranty that was in effect up until I took that action.
I asked the second-level representative for contact information of someone at Samsung's corporate office with whom I could correspond. He provided me the "president's" e-mail (listed at the top of this report). I asked the "president" for independent evidence of the liquid damage, which the "president" provided to me 22 minutes later by reply to my e-mail. My inquiry was in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's "trust-but-verify" principle.
I see the liquid damage in the photo and concur with the repair technician's assessment.
However, Samsung's two separate statements that it would not be possible for me to receive a photo of the damage constitute grounds for my decision to never buy another Samsung product again.
For maintenance of healthy relationships between customers and vendors, I believe that the truth is of utmost importance.
On February 12, 2013, Samsung reported to me via my online account at its website that my Galaxy Note had been damaged by liquid and was "beyond economic repair." The phone was deemed out-of-warranty.
On February 13, 2013, I called Samsung's customer service line and requested evidence confirming that the phone was damaged by liquid, such as a photograph. The first- and second-level representatives both told me that the written comments by the repair technician were the evidence upon which I would have to rely and that they could not provide me a photograph of the damage. I stated that if I wanted to confirm the damage by disassembling the phone myself that I would void any warranty that was in effect up until I took that action.
I asked the second-level representative for contact information of someone at Samsung's corporate office with whom I could correspond. He provided me the "president's" e-mail (listed at the top of this report). I asked the "president" for independent evidence of the liquid damage, which the "president" provided to me 22 minutes later by reply to my e-mail. My inquiry was in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's "trust-but-verify" principle.
I see the liquid damage in the photo and concur with the repair technician's assessment.
However, Samsung's two separate statements that it would not be possible for me to receive a photo of the damage constitute grounds for my decision to never buy another Samsung product again.
For maintenance of healthy relationships between customers and vendors, I believe that the truth is of utmost importance.
2 Updates & Rebuttals
DaddyOfClaudine
Laurel,Maryland,
United States of America
Actually, they did have the photo.
#2Author of original report
Wed, February 13, 2013
Actually, Samsung did have the photo, which was taken by the repair technician yesterday when he opened up the phone to diagnose it. The company simply chose to misrepresent the truth about the existence of the photo this morning when I asked the customer service department for evidence of the liquid damage.
The photo was e-mailed to me by the "president" of the company 22 minutes after I e-mailed him or her. The "president" wrote me that the photo "can only be supplied by upper level management as in most cases these pictures are not provided, but are available for extreme circumstances." I interpret that to exemplify Samsung's lack of trust in me to, as Jack Nicholson might say, handle the truth.
Yesterday, per Samsung's update to my web site account, my phone was shipped back to me...although that's not exactly true either: I have confirmed with UPS and Samsung that the label was printed, but that UPS had not yet taken custody of the package as of approximately 11:00 AM Eastern Time today.
Ken
Colorado,USA
What is this "Truth" Samsung withheld?
#3Consumer Comment
Wed, February 13, 2013
"Samsung Samsung Mobile USA Samsung withheld the truth "
Looks to me like they told the truth about the damage, but you refused to accept their diagnosis. If you mean they lied about no photo, that's not true, they didn't have one and likely had to disassemble the phone again and get a camera to satisfy your disbelief ot the technicians finding. Moisture damage is absolutely unmistakeable. I was a tech for many years and it is not usually possible to repair and still have any reliability.
No Ripoff here, just stubborn, suspicious you.
No, I DON'T work for Samsung.
