A cautionary tale

In January I noticed my remote screen was separating / detaching from the aluminium unibody, bulging out at the bottom, near the buttons. Pressing on the screen was causing the running activity to pause, which is how I really noticed it.

I contacted UC customer support and, I have to say, they were very good. In 24 hours Tia sent me a UPS return label. I marked the value as zero on the export documentation since this was a warranty return and I waited.

12 days later Tia got back to me - the remote was fixed, tested and they were sending it back with FedEx.

FedEx did an excellent job as usual and the remote was ready for collection a few days later. So far so good, within two weeks the remote was repaired and sent back to me at no cost, the company supporting the shipment fees both ways.

A few days later FedEx sent me a letter - there was a charge to pay - 88.91£ which was actually more than I paid for the original import. What happened was UC sent the remote back valued at 419€ and, although it was marked in small print as warranty return with no commercial value, HMRC kindly charged me 76.17£ to which FedEx added their own 12.75£ “disbursement fee”.

I contacted FedEx immediately and, after a lot of back and forth, yesterday they got back to me with a rather abrupt answer - the charge was correct, based on UC’s documentation. They could resubmit the documentation on my behalf, with proof of the original purchase, paid import fees etc at a cost of 60£ + VAT to me. Assuming I would get the 88.91 charge cancelled, I would still be 75£ out of the pocket. Or I could open a claim with HMRC directly, but in order to do that I would have to pay the duty in the first place, and then hope that it would get refunded by HMRC. Even if they would, FedEx would of course keep their fee.

And it gets worse. While I did not notice straight away, at some point I realised the physical buttons on the remote, D pad etc were not lit. I assumed it was my settings because I had reset the remote prior to shipping it and then I set it up from scratch once returned but the other day I checked and the backlight was set to 100%. It was not the settings, the backlight was proper dead.

It seemed UC’s team had fixed a problem (the detaching screen) and created another (killed the backlight in the process). I was also left to pay 88.91£ for the privilege and waste my own time now starting a claim with the hope of recouping at least some of that money - if HMRC would please.

Tia initially sent me a rather dry answer when I enquired why did they value this at 419 on the export documentation. I quote

We are required to report all package contents truthfully, by size, material, country of origin, HS code, etc. Your parcel was marked as “return”, with additional info on the invoice:

  • “Customer’s own item returning from warranty inspection, no advancement, no commercial sale”.*

But of course what Tia didn’t bother to check was that she was wrong because the shipment should have been declared under Returned Goods Relief (RGR) or equivalent, with either no commercial value declared for customs purposes (as I did when I returned it), or a clear customs declaration applying the appropriate relief procedure and referencing the original import.

Two days ago I contacted UC’s support team to report the new problem (backlighting) and ask them what are we going to do about it. I also expressed my dissatisfaction with potentially having to send this remote back again - another couple of weeks of Logitech Harmony and then potentially being hit with another 88.91£ VAT should Tia & Co deem fit to ship it back with the same documentation.

Separately, I have requested an amended invoice to reflect the warranty repair with no commercial value since no sale / transfer of ownership has taken place. I also asked the company how were they planning to address the small matter of the 88.91ÂŁ charge which was incurred due to their incorrect documentation.

It has been now over 48 hours with no answer from UC and, since the weekend is coming, it will be over 4 days before I hear back from the team. In the meantime I have a “repaired” remote control with no backlight and a 88.91£ charge to pay.

To be clear, I am not sharing this experience to criticise the company. I am first of all warning all of you that, should you have to service your remote, now or in the future, you should address this problem with their customer support upfront. Otherwise be prepared to pay duties again when you receive your remote back. I am sure they have not done this on purpose but, obviously, their “small” team is not familiar with the rules and regulations which, to be fair, vary from country to country and, to make matters worse, they don’t even report the original price paid by the Kickstarter backer for the remote but the current RRP price, resulting in a second, significantly higher, customs charge.

I also have to express my concern with having two hardware issues (although admittedly the backlighting is probably caused by the warranty “repair”) within a couple of months of ownership and the prospect of yet a few more weeks of being without my beautiful and expensive remote control which has just become 88.91£ more expensive. Was this a one off, the screen popping out? Is there a swelling battery underneath? Is that bonding agent not strong enough? Will this happen again? Your guess is as good as mine.

To be continued.

R2 or R3?

My own experience with UC customer service left a lot to be desired and a permanent distaste for both their customer service and another company officer who failed to be responsive or accountable and then publicly responded to a post of mine with misinformation designed to make me look like I was being unreasonable.

However, in their defense, I had a very similar issue with Hammerhead (owned by SRAM) and a bike computer where they gave me a discount code for an upgrade in product but then marked the customs documentation with the MSRP, not what I actually paid resulting in taxes and brokerage charges that were substantially more than what they should have been. They too gave me the runaround multiple times before finally refunding the brokerage fees (although it is up to me to recover the overpaid taxes).

I get the innocent mistake in both cases. Can’t stand the lack of accountability …

1 Like

I am talking about the brand new, bright and shiny R3 pledged in the Kickstarter campaign. Also, keep in mind, this was not a new purchase or an upgrade but a warranty repair. No transfer of ownership. No sale. No added value. The remote had already been imported and duties had been paid.

My expectation is that people own their mistakes. UC should have simply covered the costs you incurred because of their mistake.

UC (and others) fail to understand the value of good customer experience. Had they done the right thing, your post here (and maybe on reddit or elsewhere) would have been about what a standup company they are. Great product, even better people. That’s worth something, whether it’s your repeat business or someone on the fence between an X2 and an R3 going with UC. They opted for lip service and lack of accountability.

That was the point of the SRAM story … opted for lip service and lack of accountability. I haven’t lifted a finger to encourage people to buy a Karoo instead of a Garmin or Wahoo.