Review: CPS was paid $299.00 for extended warranty on a Mitsubishi Laser- View TV. Now they will not honor the agreement to fix or replace the TV , in the event that it cannot be repaired. I am told that it cannot be repaired .
This warranty is still in effect until mid October,2015. I request that they honor the contract and replace my defective TV or refund the equivalent of the purchase price $3000.00Desired Settlement: replacement of TV or refund equivalent to purchase price.
Business
Response:
Thank you for writing to us and bringing this matter to our attention. Our records indicate that the manufacturer for this unit has issued a recall and is settling customers directly using the following link:[redacted] Welcome to the Mitsubishi LaserVue Settlement WebsiteIf you purchased a Mitsubishi LaserVue TV that is currently malfunctioning, and/or if you previously spent your own money to repair certain problems with your LaserVue TV, you may be entitled to a repair, payment or reimbursement from a class action settlement.A proposed Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court in a class action lawsuit against Mitsubishi alleging that the sale of Mitsubishi LaserVue TVs (“TVs”) violated warranty and consumer protection laws. Mitsubishi denies all wrongdoing. Both sides agreed to settle to avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation.You are a Settlement Class Member if you purchased a Mitsubishi LaserVue TV, models L65-A90, L75-A91, L75-A94, or L75-A96 from January *, 2008, to July **, 2015. But, you are not in the class if you: (i) released your claims, (ii) got your TV for commercial use or resale; (iii) are a current or former Mitsubishi employee; or (iv) are a judicial officer to whom the Action is assigned (or immediate family of such an officer).Mitsubishi agreed to distribute to Class Members (a) reimbursement of repair expenses and (b) extended warranty benefits, in the form of either free repairs or a payment of at least $500. You can receive reimbursement for any money that you spent out-of-pocket prior toJuly **, 2015 to repair Malfunctions on your TV. “Malfunction” includes any video anomaly or other issue that interferes with your TV’s normal or intended functioning as described in its original warranty, but does not include damage to cosmetic parts of the Television, including the screen and cabinet assembly.The full Notice may be found here, or in the Case Documents tab above. Click here to file a claim.Although the information in this website is intended to assist potential Class Members, it does not replace the information contained in the Class Notice and the Settlement Agreement, both of which can be found and downloaded from this website. We recommend that you read the Notice and other relevant case documents carefully.A list of the important dates for the Settlement can be found here. We have updated the customer with the reimbursement information through the manufacturer directly and have offered a full refund of the service plan purchased.
Consumer
Response:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: Mitsubishi has no responsibility to me after 1 year of warranty that comes with the TV they sold me. I have no reason to sue Mitsubishi or join a class action suit against them. My feud is with CPR who refuse to honor an extended service contract that was paid for. Their maneuver to relegate responsibility to Mitsubishi is hereby rejected. This is what fraud looks like ; a drift to a dishonest path. NO! Thank you Revdex.com for your effort.
[Your Answer Here]
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
Business
Response:
Thank you for following up on this matter. We have reviewed the case and if the customer does not want to proceed with the manufacturer support and a full refund of the CPS plan, we can offer alternative solutions to satisfy the request. We have reached out to the customer via telephone and email to resolve the claim. The Customer Experience Manger assigned to this inquiry can be reached at ###-###-####, [redacted].
Review: Purchased washing machine on 5-**-2012. Washing machine Broke on 7-*-14 which was repaired, broke again 2-*-16, cost estimate to repair was $540.00, CPS offered me $340.00 for the washer. The warranty plan was purchased for 11 years, later changed to 10 years. I purchased warranty [redacted], member [redacted]. The coverage length was to be 10 years, of which I have used the washer for only 45 months. That being said I only received 45/120 use of the washer. 45 months of the intended 120 month life as guaranteed by the warranty. As such the washer cost me $1274.95. I believe I am due a refund of the remaining life value of the washer or 75 months of 120 months times the original value. or 75/120 times $1274.95 which equals $796.84.Desired Settlement: I want to be fairly compensated for the product. If they will not repair it I want to be able to replace it. as stated above I calculated the value. I feel they should stand by their product that I was sold.
Business
Response:
Thank you for writing to us and bringing this matter to our attention. Our records indicate that the CPS Customer Experience Manager, [redacted], is in contact with the customer and in the process of repairing this claim. This would resolve the claim the customer inquired about. Should the customer need anything additional simply have them contact [redacted] at ###-###-#### for an expedited resolution.
Review: Purchased a DSLR camera online from a new york store on August 2015. The camera came with this warranty - did not know its this company. The camera one day stopped working - seems to be a problem with the shutter. Did a research online hoping to find a fix or just fix it myself. Found out that this is a common problem with this camera. I decided to just send the camera to this company to avail of the warranty. Now I received an email saying its not covered because it a physical damage. I did not in anyway dropped the camera. The external body is still pristine and its less than a year old. They did not provide information as to why its classified as a physical damage and they want to charge me $1,075.00! Almost the same amount of a brand new camera!.Desired Settlement: I want them to provide me with a detailed information and for the company to honor my warranty. The camera is less that a year old.
Consumer
Response:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Review: CPS was paid $299.00 for extended warranty on a Mitsubishi Laser- View TV. Now they will not honor the agreement to fix or replace the TV , in the event that it cannot be repaired. I am told that it cannot be repaired .
This warranty is still in effect until mid October,2015. I request that they honor the contract and replace my defective TV or refund the equivalent of the purchase price $3000.00Desired Settlement: replacement of TV or refund equivalent to purchase price.
Business
Response:
Thank you for writing to us and bringing this matter to our attention. Our records indicate that the manufacturer for this unit has issued a recall and is settling customers directly using the following link:[redacted] Welcome to the Mitsubishi LaserVue Settlement WebsiteIf you purchased a Mitsubishi LaserVue TV that is currently malfunctioning, and/or if you previously spent your own money to repair certain problems with your LaserVue TV, you may be entitled to a repair, payment or reimbursement from a class action settlement.A proposed Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court in a class action lawsuit against Mitsubishi alleging that the sale of Mitsubishi LaserVue TVs (“TVs”) violated warranty and consumer protection laws. Mitsubishi denies all wrongdoing. Both sides agreed to settle to avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation.You are a Settlement Class Member if you purchased a Mitsubishi LaserVue TV, models L65-A90, L75-A91, L75-A94, or L75-A96 from January *, 2008, to July **, 2015. But, you are not in the class if you: (i) released your claims, (ii) got your TV for commercial use or resale; (iii) are a current or former Mitsubishi employee; or (iv) are a judicial officer to whom the Action is assigned (or immediate family of such an officer).Mitsubishi agreed to distribute to Class Members (a) reimbursement of repair expenses and (b) extended warranty benefits, in the form of either free repairs or a payment of at least $500. You can receive reimbursement for any money that you spent out-of-pocket prior toJuly **, 2015 to repair Malfunctions on your TV. “Malfunction” includes any video anomaly or other issue that interferes with your TV’s normal or intended functioning as described in its original warranty, but does not include damage to cosmetic parts of the Television, including the screen and cabinet assembly.The full Notice may be found here, or in the Case Documents tab above. Click here to file a claim.Although the information in this website is intended to assist potential Class Members, it does not replace the information contained in the Class Notice and the Settlement Agreement, both of which can be found and downloaded from this website. We recommend that you read the Notice and other relevant case documents carefully.A list of the important dates for the Settlement can be found here. We have updated the customer with the reimbursement information through the manufacturer directly and have offered a full refund of the service plan purchased.
Consumer
Response:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: Mitsubishi has no responsibility to me after 1 year of warranty that comes with the TV they sold me. I have no reason to sue Mitsubishi or join a class action suit against them. My feud is with CPR who refuse to honor an extended service contract that was paid for. Their maneuver to relegate responsibility to Mitsubishi is hereby rejected. This is what fraud looks like ; a drift to a dishonest path. NO! Thank you Revdex.com for your effort.
[Your Answer Here]
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
Business
Response:
Thank you for following up on this matter. We have reviewed the case and if the customer does not want to proceed with the manufacturer support and a full refund of the CPS plan, we can offer alternative solutions to satisfy the request. We have reached out to the customer via telephone and email to resolve the claim. The Customer Experience Manger assigned to this inquiry can be reached at ###-###-####, [redacted].
Review: Purchased washing machine on 5-**-2012. Washing machine Broke on 7-*-14 which was repaired, broke again 2-*-16, cost estimate to repair was $540.00, CPS offered me $340.00 for the washer. The warranty plan was purchased for 11 years, later changed to 10 years. I purchased warranty [redacted], member [redacted]. The coverage length was to be 10 years, of which I have used the washer for only 45 months. That being said I only received 45/120 use of the washer. 45 months of the intended 120 month life as guaranteed by the warranty. As such the washer cost me $1274.95. I believe I am due a refund of the remaining life value of the washer or 75 months of 120 months times the original value. or 75/120 times $1274.95 which equals $796.84.Desired Settlement: I want to be fairly compensated for the product. If they will not repair it I want to be able to replace it. as stated above I calculated the value. I feel they should stand by their product that I was sold.
Business
Response:
Thank you for writing to us and bringing this matter to our attention. Our records indicate that the CPS Customer Experience Manager, [redacted], is in contact with the customer and in the process of repairing this claim. This would resolve the claim the customer inquired about. Should the customer need anything additional simply have them contact [redacted] at ###-###-#### for an expedited resolution.
Review: Purchased a DSLR camera online from a new york store on August 2015. The camera came with this warranty - did not know its this company. The camera one day stopped working - seems to be a problem with the shutter. Did a research online hoping to find a fix or just fix it myself. Found out that this is a common problem with this camera. I decided to just send the camera to this company to avail of the warranty. Now I received an email saying its not covered because it a physical damage. I did not in anyway dropped the camera. The external body is still pristine and its less than a year old. They did not provide information as to why its classified as a physical damage and they want to charge me $1,075.00! Almost the same amount of a brand new camera!.Desired Settlement: I want them to provide me with a detailed information and for the company to honor my warranty. The camera is less that a year old.
Consumer
Response:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,