CyberPower Systems (USA), Inc.

I am rejecting this response because:
All equipment that was damaged was plugged into the Cyberpower unit as 'prescribed' by Cyberpower in their last responseThe television received signal from the router 'wirelessly' so there is no direct connection from the router. (I have no cable modem) However there is a direct connection to the surge suppressor and television and therefore the only means for the television to become damagedThe signal to the router came from an antenna which was plugged into a separate surge suppressor. There was no alarm from that suppressor, nor was the circuit breaker damaged powering that deviceHowever, the circuit breaker controlling the Cyberpower device WAS damaged. And the alarm on the Cyberpower device DID go off indicating there was a problemThe path of damage clearly goes through the Cyberpower device. It is not physically possible to have damage before and after the Cyberpower device and claim that it was magically not involvedElectricity travels at 186,miles per second. This is the speed of light. Physics will not allow the construction of diodes that are as fast or faster than the speed of light. It appears that Cyberpower only uses one method for surge suppression instead of a cascading method to include thyristors and thermal fuses as in other industrial systems. Even these methods can not outrun a bolt of lightening Please update my file on this case as I am still within my timeframe to respond Sincerely, *** ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/28) */
We did have Mr***'s unit tested again, and it did not show signs of a surge passing throughThere are other ways of entry and it is possible it came in through a cable line or suchMr*** had other items plugged in that were
not damagedMr *** was sent an upgraded unit because we did not carry his model in our warehouse, it had the exact same features and was again an upgradeAs for being sent to the incorrect address we did have a *** *** in our data base and it was sent to that address on fileFor that reason we can offer Mr*** the blue book value of his receiver, out of good faith for the extra time he waitedThe Blue book value is a range between $73.94- $and we can give him the $Per the warranty blue book value is the amount given
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/09/28) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I'm tired of dealing with thisIf this is their best offer, fineAt least I get part of the cost of replacing my device back

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/07) */
I spoke with customer a day after this and he explained he had TV plugged into Cyber unit and the cable box Connected to TV and another brand surge protectorCable box was also friedTwo brands were plugged into same televisionMr *** did
explain he was going to file a claim with that company as well, as ours showed no sign of a surge passing throughMr*** was emailed back each time an email was sent, he explained this was going to his spam folderMr*** called the technical department and they would not be able to have the knowledge of the claims process

The primary purpose of any UPS system is to provide battery backup for connected equipmentWhen UPS systems are designed, they're designed with a specific load in mind, typically between 60-80%From what we've read, it appears the unit is being tested at zero load and, according to the customer,
an unspecified 'operating load'We have not had a chance to test the customer's units to see the bugs for ourselves so as of this writing, we can neither confirm nor deny that the issue the customer is experiencing is in fact, a bug with these two model UPSsHowever, assuming that the customer's claims are accurate, I would disagree with the customer that this would constitute a case of advertisingBy the customer’s own admission, the UPS models lasted longer than expected, but did not report an accurate estimated runtimeIt’s not an issue of battery runtime; it appears to be an issue of estimated battery runtimeWith these points in mind, it’s important to note that these UPS models were designed to be used with average loads that a customer might have (for example, a computer, a monitor, a TV, etc.)Assuming the customer’s assertions are true, I would guess that the unit is ‘maxing out’ its estimated runtimeProviding a very accurate estimated runtime with micro-loads is extremely difficult and, quite frankly, not part of the unit’s designPlease see the runtime charts for both model UPSs here: https://www.cyberpowersystems.com/products/ups/ecologic/ec850lcd https://www.cyberpowersystems.com/products/ups/ecologic/ec650lcd You’ll find the runtime information when you click on the ‘Runtime’ tabAs you’ll note, the smallest reported runtime is 50W for both unitsRuntimes for loads less than 50W aren’t typically advertised because, quite frankly, the vast majority of customers who would purchase UPS of these sizes would not normally have such small loadsYou’ll also notice that the maximum runtimes for both units is well under minutesThe units were designed to measure standard loads, not extremely small loads as this would be an atypical use of these productsSince the maximum advertised runtime for these units is under minutes, I would imagine that having such tiny loads is ‘maxing out’ the estimated runtime calculatorFrom a product economics standpoint, it wouldn’t make sense for a UPS company to make the runtime estimate calculator extremely precise with very small loads; this would add a lot of additional costs for the vast majority of customers who are using ‘regular’ loads (50W+)The reason it’s hard to measure at such small loads is because difference between two very small loads can be almost exponentialFor example, the difference between a 5W load and a 10W load can be tens, if not hundreds of minutesTo summarize and conclude: 1) This is an issue of estimated runtime, not of actual runtime; 2) If anything, the UPSs in question appear to be underestimating their loads; 3) The customer’s use of the UPSs is unorthodox and while we understand the customer’s frustration, extremely accurate runtimes with extremely small loads is not something we advertiseWhen used with typical loads, these models are very accurate, most likely not at the loads the customer is using

I am rejecting this response because:
The response is almost comical, and it IS completely nonsensical. All the power being drawn by the PC and monitor had to pass through the UPS. All the components are of exceptional quality (unlike the "Cyberpower Brand) and were relatively new at the time of the incident.I firmly believe the UPS DID fail to perform its stated purpose, which was to provide consistent and 'clean' power to the connected equipment, in addition to protecting for surge! Because their 'internal testing' shows no sign of a surge passing through the unit, this does not (if they can be believed anyway) address the observed failure on the unit > 0 volts and an error code!Cyberpower might as well be suggesting some magical gremlin got into my PC and re-wired it to fail in just such a way... that the power supply (directly connected to UPS) and the motherboard failed, but the graphics card (and MB components connected specifically to those components) survived while passing a damaging current onto the monitor via the DisplayPort. The monitor of course also being DIRECTLY connected to the UPS. The Law of parsimony applies (i.e. Occam's razor) in that the simplest solution is the most likely > In this case the UPS unit either passed a damaging charge to the connected equipment or that the sudden loss/switch off of power of the UPS resulted in the damage of the monitor and PC components listed. As stated, the UPS has circuitry designed to protect equipment from sudden power failure but switching to the battery pack, however I'm guessing that mechanism somehow failed in this case resulting in the damage.Furthermore, if the behaviour I described is consistent with an "Overload of the UPS" as stated by Cyberpower in their response, how is cutting power to the electronics consistent with their own "Connected Equipment Guarantee"? Clearly, if this is the function as designed, than in this case it was likely responsible for the damage caused to valuable components.If this is there reasoning, it would appear they will resist paying a claim under any circumstances. Any electronics plugged into the unit can be blamed for its own failure, therefore they will never pay on the "Fake Guarantee". Buyer beware!

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/04) */
Customer has not contacted our office to ask for an engineer report, which we can mail out today. If this is something he would like to see, we will get this right out to him. Our units are designed to show if a surge has passed through and in...

this case it did not.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/02/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I did email asking for such a report if need I can send proof that I did send the email. But yes, I would like to see the engineer report. The UPS wouldn't even turn on. It attempts to but doesn't. Lets say there was no surge but it doesn't work as expected... in this situation can't the monitor/TV get damaged. It was plugged into the battery side and should have stayed on. But it didn't. My best guess is the surge went off and on quickly when it wasn't suppose to resulting in the damage. Again, I say all this because 1)the TV was working 2)the UPS wouldn't even turn on (please tell me you tested this)!.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 16, 2016/03/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Please send it. Is it the same one that I sent you? Lets see.
Hard to trust CyberPower now. Makes me wonder if APC is the same. Just ridiculous and dishonest.
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 19, 2016/03/09) */
We are pleased to hear that you received the video. As demonstrated, the serial number shown is the same one you wrote on your claim forms and verifies this is the same unit. The battery that was first tested, and showed a 5.9V reading, is the one that was returned in the unit. This reading level indicates a battery with little power in it. In order to complete comprehensive testing on how the unit would perform with a charged battery, we used another battery that had a reading of 12.4V. The unit was again tested and showed the unit to be in working order. Unfortunately, there is nothing more we can do for this matter. The demise of your TV was not caused by our unit.

Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 6, 2015/06/29) */
CyberPower Systems sent me the correct product replacement. Please withdraw the complaint.

We spoke with Mr. [redacted] on 12/4 and 12/8.  He told us he had a unit with a lifetime warranty that had been exchanged by us and the new exchanged unit was malfunctioning.  The first Agent he spoke to requested some documentation from Mr [redacted] to establish that he indeed had purchased the...

model with the lifetime warranty that was sold in 1998.  Mr [redacted] told us he did not have any proof of purchase.  We also did not have a product registration for the lifetime warrantied model.When he called again he explained that a note had been put in his records stating that he had a lifetime warranty.  With this information we were able to locate a registration under his name for an entirely different model that did contain a short note that a lifetime warranty had been offered.  We diagnosed the problem with the current product to be a worn out battery and sent him a replacement battery.Our warranties have always been for repair or replacement at our option.  Providing Mr [redacted] a new battery to restore his unit to proper working condition satisfies our obligations to repair his unit

In response to your complaint, we have reviewed your claim with our engineers who performed an inspection on the unit sent to us with serial code [redacted]. After reviewing the function verification test performed by our engineers, the unit passed by all metrics except for its battery...

runtime capacity. The on-battery runtime being ‘normal’ for what we would expect from a nearly 3-year-old unit (the serial number indicates it was manufactured in July of 2014).    With every other metric, including those that indicate whether a unit was surged or not, the unit passed. If a surge had passed through the unit and the unit had failed to protect connected equipment, the inspection of these metrics would have ‘failed’.   Unfortunately, we cannot pay out a claim for a unit that has passed inspection, indicating the unit was not surged. If indeed a surge was the cause of the damage to the computer, it is possible that the surge entered the iMac via some other port, such as an Ethernet cable or some other peripheral device with its own power source. In this case, having determined that the UPS did not malfunction or fail to function as advertised we have completed our obligations under the terms of our connected equipment guarantee.When Mr. [redacted] was denied he wanted to speak with a customer service department, which would be our Tech support department. He was told at that time, they cannot help him with his claim, only claims can. He became verbally abusive, and difficult to deal with. He was speaking to the claims manager and was told they may the final decision, which is company policy. We need to follow all company policies and procedures and keep him in the correct department. We feel we handled the situation professionally and fair.

I am rejecting this response because:
They have not addressed my concerns that is is Cyberpower's own employees who determined this.  How do I know they are telling the truth?  They cannot prove that this unit is not responsible except by their own words.  Even should they send out the faulty battery I sent them how do I know it is really the one I sent?  This is their "clever" way of refusing to honor their warranty.I cannot go through Asus computer warranty as it is not valid at this time.  It absolutely was the Cyberpower battery failure that damaged the motherboard.  They do not want to accept this because they do not want to pay me money for my damaged computer - it is that simple. They should be investigated for false advertising of their "3 year $200,000 warranty" so prominently displayed on their product.

We had a message from customer on October 22nd at 1:41pm on Saturday, which we are closed. His call was returned the following Monday by one of our tech, to help him with his issue. Customer was unavailable. We will attempt to call him again today, to start his claim.

I am rejecting this response because: That is not what occurred at all and the claims person, Shelby, was extremely rude and defensive when all I was doing was trying to get a claim going. They can send me whatever is needed to fill out and start the process. My equipment was damaged by their product and does not fall under manufacturers warranties, by the way. I also have the email suggesting I file a claim with homeowners. I will only be filing a claim with the culprit's company, Cyberpower. Until the process of the claim is completed and satisfactory, I will leave my complaint. They have all of my information to continue the claim.

I am rejecting this response because:
You are missing the whole point.  The issue here is not the reading but the actual run time.  For example loading it with 10 watt should give a run time more than 99 min as imply by the est. chart you supplied.  In reality, the UPS will shut down at 99min by itself even if it's battery has plenty of capacity left.  There is writing that you speak of that the maximum run time for this UPS is 99 min.I also disagree with you how customer uses UPS.  There are many users out there purchase UPS for the sole purpose of keeping their modem and/or router up and running during long black out.When I have time, I will surely post a video of the review and result of my finding on youtube and Amazon and Newegg as such. Since you don't seems to understand the current customer's need.   There are a few reviewers likely have the same problem and reported that your unit simply would not hold charge.I still insist you place a warning label on your unit that specify your UPS will stop running after 99 min regardless of battery capacity when load is under 50 watt or something similar.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/28) */
It is stated in the warranty which is in every box and very transparent that a receipt is required in order to make a claim. It is stated as followed:
Provide reasonable proof of purchase (for example a sales receipt)that establishes you as...

the initial customer of the surge suppressor.
We do need to follow our warranty to be fair for everyone.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/30) */
As is typical with any technical support case, we attempted to troubleshoot the problem and investigate the source of it, as it was unclear what exactly might have happened to the customer's connected equipment or if it was damaged by our...

product. As is also typical, we normally would offer to have the unit sent to us for testing to see whether it did or did not cause damage to the customer's equipment. Before it escalated to that point and before we completed standard troubleshooting steps, the customer requested the contact information of our legal department. As soon as potential litigation is mentioned by any customer, it's our policy to cease communication and allow the customer's attorney to contact our legal department before proceeding any further.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
CyberPower never attempted to support there product at all we exchanged a few emails and the sole resolution of there support department was to blame the meter testing there equipment at no time did they even mention sending the equipment to there company, Basically they market there item with this great warranty then when there equipment causes damage (no surge or power issue) they attempt to push the claim under the rug. A quick search on google will show Cyber Power is known for trying to defraud there customers asking them to send units in for review then stating unit functions as normal and either never returning the unit or returning a different unit making it impossible to prove the fraud there is also many known issues with there equipment. We requested legal department info as they were unwilling to assist in this issue in any way other then to blame the Electrical Companies & electric contractors testing equipment , Which makes no sense as if the PC picked up Under-voltage and the 2 power professionals ( Florida Power being one of the largest in the USA) They also refuse to give information how to contact a legal department both over the phone or in email. As you can see this is a case of completely trying to duck and dodge there responsibilities
Final Business Response /* (4000, 17, 2016/01/08) */
Response from Cyber Power Systems (USA), Inc.: Cyber Power Systems (USA), Inc. ("Cyber Power") takes Revdex.com ("Revdex.com") reports very seriously and is committed to providing quality products for consumers. Cyber Power investigates each Revdex.com report and encourages its customers to provide additional information about incidents and also return the product to its warranty department so that investigation and testing can be performed. Cyber Power has contacted the consumer who made this report consumer and requested the product in question in order to perform an examination and test the product, but has not received the product or been given the opportunity to examine it. That said, based on the limited information provided, Cyber Power does not believe that the product in question contains a defect.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 19, 2016/01/18) */

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Cyber Power Systems, Inc. (USA) (“CyberPower”) takes product safety issues very seriously and is committed to providing quality products for consumers. While Mr. [redacted] experience which led to the consumer’s complaint is regrettable, CyberPower has swiftly responded to the consumer by retrieving the...

product, testing the product, and assuring the customer the product did not fail. The consumer voluntarily sent the device back and received a replacement unit at CyberPower’s expense.  CyberPower does not send alleged defective products back to consumers to protect itself from tampering, destruction or improper disposal. CyberPower retains all allegedly defective products as part of the warranty program and to meet requirements and obligations set by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission guaranteeing safety standards are met.

We would like to show where the Homeowners communication was established in this email, here is a copy and paste of the question:Per the warranty, we do not pay replacement cost for damaged equipment. We offer blue book value, and you will need to file a claim as well. We need to make sure that our unit is at fault. Did you have other items in your home that were damaged?  Have you filed with any insurances, for instance homeowners? Do you have receipts for all damaged equipment, including the CyberPower unit?and here was the second exchange:We have a right to ask you if you have filed with your homeowners insurance, because you cannot do bothNowhere in this thread have we asked the customer to file, we needed to know if she has. When a customer has a surge many items in their home become damaged and they file under the homeowners insurance. We ask, because you cannot benefit twice. I will be emailing customer the claim forms to get her claim started.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/20) */
Our engineers did retest Mr [redacted]'s unit a second time and has still tested in good working condition. They did thoroughly test the unit and no signs of a surge passing through was shown. We are not saying he does not have damaged equipment,...

just that this was not due to our product. Mr [redacted] had many things plugged in which four items were still in working condition. Leading us to believe something more happened. He did have a cable modem plugged in so its possible there was another way of entry.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/10/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
How can they prove that this is the case? How would the scanner be damaged if it is only connected to the power supply and not the modem?
The whole process of providing insurance for connected devices hinges on Cyber Power testing at their facility and we are supposed to just trust them...
It seems like a scam. If I could figure out any other way that the power surge could have affected the equipment, I would be at their mercy here, and left to just trust them, but I just don't see how it did not go though the surge protector.
Also my breaker was tripped at the panel, which leads me to further believe the power surge came through the surge protector. And It also seems unlikely that a power surge could come through the cable line, which was undamaged, kill the modem, go into the computer and totally fry it. And then how would it get to the wireless scanner from there?
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/10/29) */
CyberPower units are designed with features that make it evident when a surge has defeated the protection. The UPS was thoroughly tested and no surge went through the unit. Whatever the source of the damage that caused the failure of the connected equipment, it did not pass through the CyberPower. While we regret that your equipment was damaged, we cannot apply the warranty when the damage did not reach the equipment by passing though the CyberPower.

I am rejecting this response because:I reviewed all Verizon call logs from that month. There are no return calls from CyberPower, nor did I get any voicemails from anyone about this claim. Attached is the receipt for the CyberPower unit as they requested.