Epirb recall

[Fergus]

I have a gme epirb which is subject to a recall and a foc replacement of the whole unit. On contacting sartech I have been told that as they have no service record they want £150. The unit states battery should have been replaced in 2011 but still test fine. Should I feel a bit miffed?!

 

[prv]

What's the problem that the recall is for?

If it's a serious cockup on their part, I reckon they should give everyone a new one and just be glad there wasn't an accident in which their error prevented someone being rescued.

If it's relatively minor, I can understand them being a bit unwilling to hand out new for (very) old - but I'm still not convinced that they should be making the free recall conditional on a correct service record.

Pete

 

[duncan99210]

No.

 

[greeny]

"Standard Communications Pty Ltd GME Accusat EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon). ... Due to a microprocessor malfunction, the EPIRB may fail the self test procedure.
10 Jul 2014"

http://www.recalls.gov.au/content/s...ing=epirb&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&Search=Search

I assume that this is the recall information for your unit.
I would definitely feel miffed.
I don't see why the fact you hadn't had it serviced should affect the fact that it has a faulty micro in it. It was sold to you and by this admission is not fit for service as it's self test cannot be relied on. Servicing the unit would not have changed this fact.

 

[Giblets]

I have a gme epirb which is subject to a recall and a foc replacement of the whole unit. On contacting sartech I have been told that as they have no service record they want £150. The unit states battery should have been replaced in 2011 but still test fine. Should I feel a bit miffed?!

Our old unit had a battery expiry date of January 2014 and, as we had missed that date they also wanted £150 but we opted to pay an extra £63 for a new GPS type which showed a considerable saving on the cost of a new one from normal suppliers.

 

[FullCircle]

The manufacturer had a service schedule (not onerous in this case) and my 2005 unit went back in 2011 to SARTECH for the 95 quid service.
Therefore, it was proven to be in good operating condition in 2011.

You have been asked for 150 quid which seems to me reasonable as you had not observed manufacturers maintenance schedule, and had not forked out for a service.

They were therefore able to offer me a free replacement (and I opted for the GPS MT403G upgrade for 60 quid)

Bear in mind that you will be offered another unit with a new battery and therefore a further 6 years of use before you have to have it serviced again. I think you have got a bit of a bargain to be honest.

I think GME have acted most responsibly in this case.

I have worked in Automotive OEMs for years, and the thorny subject of recalls is always difficult. Speaking to SARTECH, some 'customers' have been very abusive to them when asked to pay due to non adherence to schedule. Not fair on them, they have a set of rules put in front of them to adhere to, and I thought they did a professional job in dealing with me.

 

[FullCircle]

"Standard Communications Pty Ltd GME Accusat EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon). ... Due to a microprocessor malfunction, the EPIRB may fail the self test procedure.
10 Jul 2014"

http://www.recalls.gov.au/content/s...ing=epirb&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&Search=Search

I assume that this is the recall information for your unit.
I would definitely feel miffed.
I don't see why the fact you hadn't had it serviced should affect the fact that it has a faulty micro in it. It was sold to you and by this admission is not fit for service as it's self test cannot be relied on. Servicing the unit would not have changed this fact.

Au contraire, they replace the battery and do a full transmit test, which gives it another 6 years of operational use. The fault, which is potentially there would probably never be found by anyone who does not do the self test, and doesn't have the unit serviced. Until it was needed for real of course.

 

[bbg]

I'm not sure you should feel miffed. You currently have a unit that is three years overdue for a service. Presumably that would cost something. They are going to replace it with a unit that is fully serviced with a new battery.

So you will get something new and "in date" in exchange for something something that is old and no longer "in date".

If they were just replacing a part of your unit, I can imagine that they would replace the defective part and refuse to return it with an out-of-date battery, so would charge you for the new battery as well.

In either case, they are not charging you for the part that is defective, but for the new battery.

When you chose not to replace the battery, you made a choice. You have a similar choice now. Send it in and get a brand new unit (which will cost you £150) or keep what you have got now. It might still be perfectly adequate. Or the defective part might fail. Or the battery might fail while the defective part has no impact on the operation whatsoever.

Your choice, but I do not think they are being unfair.

Beaten to it by Full Circle.

 

[prv]

Our old unit had a battery expiry date of January 2014 and, as we had missed that date they also wanted £150 but we opted to pay an extra £63 for a new GPS type which showed a considerable saving on the cost of a new one from normal suppliers.

That's interesting - where do you get an EPIRB for £200ish? In my mental pricelist they're £400 - £800 depending on whether you want auto activation.

Pete

 

[greeny]

I fail to see it as anything to do with whether it was serviced or not. The unit was faulty from new. They are recalling them and obviously consider it important enough to replace them. Why should the price to replace it vary, dependant on the service schedule being fulfilled. The price to service it is exactly that and not some sort of insurance premium you pay for future failure to enable replacement at reduced cost. Neither is it an insurance to replace a unit that has been faulty from original supply. I can maybe understand that they may want some contribution to the cost of a new one as the old one has been used for some time but I do not agree that the price should vary dependant on service.
I would still be miffed.

 

[prv]

I can maybe understand that they may want some contribution to the cost of a new one as the old one has been used for some time

If the damn things wouldn't have worked when needed, I'm not sure they have been "used". More "carried around pointlessly while exposing their owners to increased risk".

Mind you, if a self-test would have identified the problem, as seems to be implied by the recall document, then that's a whole different ball game again. Owners failing to test them are contributing to the problem.

Pete

 

[bbg]

I fail to see it as anything to do with whether it was serviced or not. The unit was faulty from new. They are recalling them and obviously consider it important enough to replace them. Why should the price to replace it vary, dependant on the service schedule being fulfilled. The price to service it is exactly that and not some sort of insurance premium you pay for future failure to enable replacement at reduced cost. Neither is it an insurance to replace a unit that has been faulty from original supply. I can maybe understand that they may want some contribution to the cost of a new one as the old one has been used for some time but I do not agree that the price should vary dependant on service.
I would still be miffed.

When the OP bought it, it had a "service life", which expired three years ago. He will now be getting one at the beginning of its service life. Perhaps he would be happier to get a new unit but have his current battery (three years out of date) put into the replacement unit?

 

[TQA]

I am with the manufacturer who may well be feeling miffed that their generous offer on something out of service has been treated with disdain.

 

[GrahamM376]

I am with the manufacturer who may well be feeling miffed that their generous offer on something out of service has been treated with disdain.

The manufacturer produced an item which in some cases has been proven not to work when activated and my understanding is that they are offering a FOC recall and replacement. Battery life is actually around double the certified time/recommended replacement date and if still charged has no bearing on whether the unit will work or not. When there's a recall of a faulty product, a dealer should not be looking to recover his costs and I would suggest contacting the manufacturer direct.

If on the other hand the manufacturer is saying "send it back and we'll check it", then they would be entitled to charge for outdated battery replacement (maybe at cost for goodwill) but not for replacing faulty parts.

 

[Birdseye]

I fail to see it as anything to do with whether it was serviced or not. The unit was faulty from new. They are recalling them and obviously consider it important enough to replace them. Why should the price to replace it vary, dependant on the service schedule being fulfilled. The price to service it is exactly that and not some sort of insurance premium you pay for future failure to enable replacement at reduced cost. Neither is it an insurance to replace a unit that has been faulty from original supply. I can maybe understand that they may want some contribution to the cost of a new one as the old one has been used for some time but I do not agree that the price should vary dependant on service.
I would still be miffed.

I entirely agree. The unit is faulty and they are liable particularly since its safety equipment anyway. Whether you stick to their service schedule is up to you - you are entitled to use the unit whilst ever its self test says its OK. Only when self testing says NO do you need to have a service since service is no more than battery replacement.

Given the small sum on money involved I think I would be inclined to try the small claims court if only for the experience of how it works. Even if your claim failks you wont be out of pocket. If it succeeds then apart from a replace unit you will also have learned something

 

[Scillypete]

Sartech gave excellent service in my mind where this is concerned. I got the recall notice a week before setting off they sent out the replacement immediately without having had my old unit (which had been used in anger and subsequently serviced) hopefully they have received it by now, the replacement arrived within two days, and what a bonus, the old one was up for another service next year, now I have a brand new unit with a good number of years before it's first service, result.

 

[Gargleblaster]

I do a lot of Ocean sailing and one of my comfort items along with my liferaft was my GME EPIRB. I religiously did the self test although only every 3 months rather than the recommended monthly and the unit always responded as the literature said it should. I was in the Southern Ocean when the service period ran out and am also being dunned for £158.
As far as I'm concerned SARTECH can keep their reputation for poor products. If I am more concerned about the psychological comfort offered by the EPIRB I am certainly not buying their products or paying what I think is significant money for a failed product.

I'm looking at a PLB from Cactus at a similar price to SARTECHs service charge. I put SARTECH up there for customer service now with ASEANA Airlines.

 

[Gargleblaster]

As the GME EPIRBs are useless according to their recall notice as the pcb board is not working, I've just pulled mine apart to see how hard it is to replace the batteries. They do say for their £158 service they also check the PCB board which is faulty supposedly and the reason for the recall. There are 2 lithium D cells in the unit which are about £14.50 each on Ebay including delivery. So say £30 for parts maybe £5 for postage and packaging to return the unit and maybe 5 minutes of a technicians time which would include re soldering the battery terminals and they are charging £158. What a rip off.

I wonder at the prices they are charging if the whole thing is not an exercise in generating income of the sailor who they believe has unlimited funds.

 

[GrahamM376]

As the GME EPIRBs are useless according to their recall notice as the pcb board is not working, I've just pulled mine apart to see how hard it is to replace the batteries. They do say for their £158 service they also check the PCB board which is faulty supposedly and the reason for the recall. There are 2 lithium D cells in the unit which are about £14.50 each on Ebay including delivery. So say £30 for parts maybe £5 for postage and packaging to return the unit and maybe 5 minutes of a technicians time which would include re soldering the battery terminals and they are charging £158. What a rip off.

I wonder at the prices they are charging if the whole thing is not an exercise in generating income of the sailor who they believe has unlimited funds.

Their service charge does include a transmit test (not self-test) which you or I can't do. Still excessive though.

 

[Irish Rover]

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread. I have one of these GME units on the boat I bought. The battery replacement due date was 2012 so it’s well overdue. I did a self test yesterday and amazingly it worked. The PO wasn’t aware of the recall and has only being cruising in the Ionian and Aegean so was happy to keep going as long as the self test worked. The unit was purchased in Athens by the PO IN 2007. I’m going to take it to the GME agent in Lefkas tomorrow. I wondering what kind of reaction I should expect.