Posted by alan smith 6 on 15/12/2012 17:37:08:
Ketan,
Your response is from the point of view of a supplier and if I may say so, there is a lot of fog there. I do not accept that suppliers should send out willy nilly parts that are not fit for purpose.
If you are serious, why don`t you answer the question that I posed several postings ago. What would you do if a customer sent back an item that was minus 20 thou on an important dimension?
Alan
Edited By alan smith 6 on 15/12/2012 17:39:24
Fog? really? I agree that suppliers should not send out not fit for purpose parts willy nilly. Most suppliers do not do this deliberately. This is where I say that suppliers are human too. So I fail to see what is foggy about this. ARC operates a three strike rule. If ARC receives the same complaint three times in a row in a short period of time, we remove the lot from sale and check what exactly is the problem.
Your specific question in relation to RDG is not strictly for me to answer. It is clearly a problem between you and RDG. I do not know the said part specifically, and I do not know how critical the said dimension was. Earlier, I just clarified that it is essential to be clear about origin, along with my reasons why.
With reference to ARC, if the said item was 20 thou out on an important and critical dimension, ARC would refund the cost of the item plus all related U.K. carriage. This would only be done after checking with our qualified engineer. If a corrected part was available for replacement, ARC would offer this too. Both options would be presented to the customer, for the customer to decide what they want to do.
If ARC failed to agree with the customers observation with reference to 'not fit for purpose', ARC would offer the customer a refund for the part, excluding cost of related carriage. If the customer fails to agree, they have the option of raising the issue further though what ever channel legal or otherwise, as they feel appropriate, including talking about it on forums such as this.
Each problem is dealt with on a case by case basis. There is no 'one answer' to every problem, and the customer is not always right. ARC does not prescribe to this rule.
I am sure that most suppliers will go down a similar route.
I have a similar problem at present with a customer, relating to blank back plates we sell. Like Chris at RDG told you (and you did not believe), I told the customer that this was the first time I have come across this complaint, so I am a little puzzled. He gave me the impression that he could not believe me, so before he could say any more, I invited him to come and see my stock record for himself, which would show any sign of return with reasons, which we log in our system, which he declined. As it happens, we did not have any returns. Our backplates are from steel rod/stock and not cast iron. The customer suggested that there were hard spots in the backplates. ARC said that this was difficult to believe as we have not had any returns. He said that he had spoken to RDG and they told him that they had stopped selling steel backplates because there were hard spots in them, and they sold cast iron backplates instead which were better. Now, what should I believe?. It is my opinion that the customer may have work hardened the material during turning, resulting in his inability to drill the plate there after. However, what gave him the idea that there were hard spots in our backplate? Was it his conversation with RDG? So, do I have RDG to thank for planting this in his brain?
Is the backplate not fit for purpose or is the customer not doing the right thing – fit for purpose?. It is dangerous to jump to any conclusions. We are awaiting return of the backplates to check for ourselves, and then we will make our own decisions.
Ketan at ARC.
Edited By Ketan Swali on 15/12/2012 19:15:06