10

I agree that all companies have policies which outline a certain amount of time where claims will be honored. Most importantly though, it sounds like he made the original claim within the acceptable time period for DOA claims?? OP would have to confirm.

If indeed he did make his claim within the DOA acceptable limit and now BG is trying to state that because the issue wasn’t resolved prior to that time period expiring then that is extremely bad business practices.

If he did make his claim 7 days after the DOA claimable period then yes I hate to say it but there is a responsibility on the purchaser to inspect their products within a 30 day window. We here on BLF all understand that we’re not normal users, we’re going to have many flash lights and most are toys that could arrive new, get tested and become shelf queens. In those situations it’s highly likely something like the USB port doesn’t get tested in the initial inspection and is finally discovered well after purchase. That however is not the distributor or manufacturers fault. We also must remember we live in a world where people take advantage of the system just as frequently (or almost) as people with legitimate claims. Since micro USB ports were ever introduced the mfg always advised that they were never meant for charging and repeated use. I’ve had $5-700 phones where repeated plugging and unplugging under normal conditions pushed the micro usb port into the device and separated it from the circuit board. It’s definitely understandable that with this particular type of claim on an otherwise fully working device that BG would impose any deniability they have at their disposal.

Nevertheless, aside from the rant. File this with PP with documentation of BGs crappy responses and get your money back