sjdigital wrote:

Please feel free to continue to talk about this.

And it's £10 including VAT, not plus VAT.

And your source is? Asus has been far from clear about this, and that's another bone of contention. If they could perhaps, like, have a meeting, and decide what they're going to tell us, and then make sure everyone knew that, we'd perhaps get a straight message from them. But we've gone from arguably-accidental-misinformation to complete-b*ll*cks-lies, and most of us, though clearly not all of us, have had enough.

I certainly hope the offer is £10 flat. But then such a nominal amount raises the question of why bother to charge anyone anything. Oh, but then the last few weeks have given us the answer to that, haven't they?

I hope those Watchdog people are having a lovely holiday. They're going to need it...

A few of us have that email - however the same few have had various emails stating various versions of the so called 'Summer Promotion' as well! Until it's official I don't trust a word they say....  I think the leaked 'memo' between the asterisks the other day proves they still haven't a clue what the hell they are doing... customer service my ****!

Why is it not on their website yet if it's the official announcement eh>?

Last edited by adamelphick (2008-06-15 5:09:11 pm)

All I can say is that I have a Word document sent my ASUS Technical Support setting out the replacement scheme as I have explained above. Anything else, e.g. the £7 business, including or excluding VAT, etc., seem to be coming from telephone conversations with ASUS support staff who clearly aren't native English speakers and who seem to interpret the guidance given in a variety of ways. As far as I am concerned, therefore, until ASUS put something different in writing, the scheme is as set out in their document and it seems perfectly clear to me. Should that change, then perhaps my opinion will also change, but until then I see no point in debating the hypothetical.

norm2002 wrote:

I also have now received the Word doc called "Special summer promotion for ASUS eeePC 900 (8.9” LCD panel) battery".

Unfortunately, mine in para 3 says "Please refer to the paid battery upgrade service procedure as below." There is no procedure "below" so I am still no wiser. I have asked them about this but not yet received a response. Is your's different?

Did you register at vip.asus.com or did you inquire with a regular email or the Suggestion Box link on the Eee PC?

I have now received a reply to my querying what the paid battery upgrade service procedure is.

--------------------------------

Dear customer,

Starting from the 23rd you can call the hotline on 08701208340 who will instruct you on what will happen.

Kind regards,
Asus Support Team

It's actually an 0870 number (slightly less exhorbitant) but the principle still applies.

I have a similar problem for the 701, which which Asus are refusing to issue a replacement. If anyone else has a similar issue with a 701 Eee PC please can you post in the following forum:


http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php? … 61#p291761



Thanks,
Mike

Hi Shade,

It would probably help to add this to your opening post.

Col wrote:

Hi Shade,

It would probably help to add this to your opening post.

added

Col wrote:

Asus could not have handled this situation more poorly if they tried.

It's early days yet...

Got this back from my local Indy retailer where I got my EEE 900 - seems totally at odds with what ASUS are saying too - but that doesnt surprise me after reading this thread!!

*****

We have been in contact with Asus regards to your query and unfortunately you have to
deal direct with Asus,
they won't be dealing with any retailer as regards to battery upgrades.

I have also done a some research into this and Asus's official statement on this is that
the 4400 battery is the
standard battery shipped to most european countries (including the UK), only a few
countries in the world received
the 5800 battery as standard, they were Australia, Italy and the USA. Even when they sent
the pre-release models
out for review some were sent with 4400 batteries and some were sent with 5800's.

When they use the word FREE they mean that the battery is free but they do charge for
shipping, this is where the £10
charge comes into effect. There is a bios upgrade that is available to increase the
running time by 30-45 mins, it has also
been suggested that you may have a faulty battery as we have sold these to a few regular
customer and they are reporting
about 2.5 hours battery life (with the bios upgrade). The upgrade service has been
running since the beginning of the month.

***

Hi all,

Last Thursday, I had my letter ready to post, but a question arose at the last moment - I have only just posted my letter to Dixons. There are particular circumstances with the situation with Dixons that meant that I might well have another cause for complaint. Having had further help from Trading Standards, I've redrafted the letter to inform Dixons that I will be returning the eee900 under the Distance Selling Regs. I include the letter here:

DSG Retail Ltd
t/a Dixons Online
Litigation Team
Maylands Avenue
Hemel Hempstead
Herts
HP2 7TG

17th June 2008

BY RECORDED DELIVERY

Dear Sir/Madam

Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended); Consumer Protection (Distance Selling)
Regs 2000

On 15th May 2008 I purchased an Asus eee900 ultraportable laptop from Dixons Online. On or about 23rd May 2008, I became aware of a problem with the laptop - namely that the battery capacity/specification did not comply with its description. I made your contact centre aware of this on 27th May 2008, and requested that I return the goods for a full refund.

Because I intended to return the goods within 7 working days, I assumed I would be afforded protection under the DSRs (Distance Selling Regulations). However, your operative at the Dixons contact centre informed me that because I had used the laptop, I had lost my right to return the eee900. Similarly, Dixons state at http://www.dixons.co.uk/martprd/editori … %20returns and within the documentation supplied to me with the order confirmation e-mail, that:

Your product must be complete and in 'as new' condition e.g. if you have opened the box to examine the product you must have done so without damaging or marking the product or packaging. It must not have been used or installed. It should be returned with the original box, packing and accessories you received with it. Pre-recorded videotapes, DVDs, CDs, minidisc, memory cards and software must still be sealed. Any 'Free Gifts' received with the product must also be returned.

Your operative informed me that I may return the laptop for refund only if determined faulty by Technical Support. I contacted Technical Support as instructed by your customer care operative, but Technical Support (Asus) would not accept that the laptop operated incorrectly.

However, contrary to the advice given to me by your support staff, your website statement, and the information provided within the order confirmation e-mail, there is no requirement within the DSRs (Distance Selling Regulations) that the eee900 is 'unused' for me to return the goods. The OFT (Office of Fair Trading) are of the opinion that consumers are under a duty to take reasonable care of the goods while in their possession and that they can examine goods as they would if bought in a shop, including opening the packaging. The OFT is of the opinion that goods need not be returned as new in the original packaging - the DSRs do not link cancellation rights with a suppliers ability to resell items as new.

It is a requirement of the DSRs that the Cancellation Rights information are provided to consumers in advance, but in the event of this information not being supplied, the time allowed to return the goods under the DSRs is extended to three months and seven working days. Since the required information was not supplied to me (the information supplied was erroneous and attempts to erode my Statutory Rights), it is my intention to return the eee900 to Dixons for a full refund under the extended cancellation rights period, as provided for within the DSRs.


And in the alternative


Contrary to statements made by Asus to the online media prior to the release of the eee900 regarding the capacity of the battery and contrary to the Asus User Guide supplied with the product, the eee900 delivers less than 2 hours of use from a fully charged battery. The supplied User Guide states 'a fully charged pack will provide several hours of battery life'. A Dictionary definition of 'several' denotes a small counting number of three or more. As such, I feel I could expect three or more hours of normal use from the battery supplied. However, Asus technical support has confirmed by e-mail that I should only expect 1-2 hours use from the supplied battery. As I have explained, this is contrary to Asus' public statements and their User Guide. I feel that, as a product marketed as an ultraportable device, the fact that one can expect only 1-2 hours use from a fully charged battery renders the eee900 not only as not as described but also not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.

May I also remind you that, in addition to the rights inherent in the Sale of Goods Act in respect of implied terms as to quality and fitness and description, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 state that any public statements made by the manufacturer or producer about the specific characteristics of goods have to be factually correct and form part of the retailer's contract with the consumer. Asus made, by means of various media for a considerable period, claims about the life of the battery and these form part of my contract with Dixons Online.

I hereby give you notice that I expect Dixons Online to remedy this situation by 3rd July 2008. I am seeking replacement of the battery with one which complies with the capacity/specification I was led to expect (one which is capable of supplying 3 or more hours of use). If such a replacement is not available then I am seeking a replacement eee900 which works to the specification detailed by Asus and in the User Guide. If neither of these options are available to me, I am seeking a refund of £303.45. Failure to provide a reasonable resolution to my complaint on or before 3rd July 2008 will leave me with no alternative than to seek redress through the County Court.

If Dixons Online feels it is not liable for any or all of my claim then please let me have full reasons for the denial by 3rd July 2008.

I look forward to hearing from you.

You will notice that I have kept my original cause for complaint, but it is now in addition to my expectation to return the good under the Distance Selling Regs. The 'and in the alternative' is legal jargon, since I am using the alternative argument of breach of contract (based upon the Sale of Goods Act) if they somehow manage successfully to argue that I cannot return the goods under the Distance Selling Regs. I am inclined to believe that an action based upon DSRs would be successful, since on the face of it, they have not operated according to the Regs. Of course, I would expect the argument to be valid for all those who bought their eee900s from Dixons Online. If your retailer has used similar restrictive clauses to Dixons, you too may have legitimate cause for complaint even if you are beyond the seven workings days usually allowed for return of the goods by the DSRs.