SHAME ON LEXMARK ( 2 ARTICLES )

[Anonymous]

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/consumer-rights/2044166/-party-ink-cartridges-lexmark-printer
SHAME ON LEXMARK ( 2 ARTICLES )
1)Why can’t I use third-party ink cartridges in my Lexmark printer?
Chris Batten downloaded an upgrade for his printer and discovered Lexmark had removed his ability to use third-party cartridges. We ask if this is playing fair,Lexmark’s upgrade locks users out of using third-party cartridges

I downloaded a software upgrade for my Lexmark printer that locks out third-party and refilled ink cartridges. The upgrade promised to ‘improve’ users’ printers but it contained a hidden file I was not aware of.

The upgrade is irreversible and my printer is now unusable unless I replace the non-official ink cartridges. I don’t know if this is legal but I believe this is an anti-competitive, restrictive practice and it should be reversed.
Chris Batten

The upgrade Mr Batten is talking about has gone down like a lead balloon with many owners of Lexmark printers. The company posted a message on Facebook explaining the reason for the upgrade.

“We have seen multiple postings in regards to Lexmark’s update and ink usage on our inkjet devices. In January of this year, Lexmark released an update for its current line of inkjet printers that addressed a number of issues, one of which was the unauthorised use of third-party ‘cloned’ versions of the #100 Ink Cartridge,” Lexmark said.

The company said by doing this it has helped ensure it meets “environmentally sound business policies” of recycling and disposal.

Lexmark said that customers are given clear information when they buy a printer that these devices should only use Lexmark cartridges. Mr Batten said he didn’t realise the upgrade he downloaded would lock out third-party cartridges.

However, Lexmark is adamant that customers are “also informed (third time) when they choose to download the firmware update, which enforces the original printer functionality.”

It also said customers can have original regular Lexmark cartridges refilled, either by themselves or a third party and they will work in the printer. But is this anti-competitive behaviour? This would be a matter for the Competition Commission. The term implies that a company’s practices reduce competition – for example price fixing. It is possible that third-party ink manufacturers may think this is the case.

A more plausible form of redress for consumers would be arguing that forcing this on people is be unfair. But again, users do not have to download the update. That said, it is too late for those who have done so and they could argue that this upgrade has fundamentally changed the way they can use the printer. We have asked the Office of Fair Trading what its take on Lexmark’s practice is and will report in the near future.

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/consumer-rights/1931059/liable-unpaid-cashback
2)Who is liable for unpaid cashback on a Lexmark printer?
After buying a Lexmark printer the promised £50 cashback failed to arrive
On 22 December 2009 I paid £200 for a Lexmark S605 printer at PC World, which came with a £50 cashback offer.

I was assured at the time that once I registered ownership online I would get the money immediately. I registered the printer the next day but I have not received one penny back.

I complained to Lexmark and was told the cashback could take up to 60 days.
David HadleyCashback schemes can be grand but often cause people a huge headache. These schemes are designed to entice and often influence a person’s buying decision.Failing to honour these would be a breach of the Consumer Protection Regulations (CPRs). This law was introduced in May 2008 to clamp down on unfair sales and marketing practices.

The CPRs apply to consumer transactions and the way the selling company behaves before, during and after the contract is made.The problem for someone who does not get a promised cashback is who can be held liable?The money is coming from Lexmark but Mr Hadley bought the printer from PC World. Failing to honour this agreement would make both companies complicit.Lexmark would certainly be considered culpable but PC World could be in the wrong for advertising the offer.

This may give rise to claims against it for breach of contract or misrepresentation if customers can prove they bought the goods because of the cashback offer. There is also the issue of whether a customer believed the cashback offer was being made by the retailer.Whether Lexmark can make Mr Hadley wait up to 60 days for his cashback is also not clear. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) told us there was no law on this. But if it was outlined in the Terms and Conditions the customer should have been made aware of the facts before the sale.

Furthermore, any terms considered unfair can be challenged under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994.When we contacted Lexmark it told us that a cheque for £50 had been posted to Mr Hadley.

Who is responsible?
If a retailer and manufacturer jointly offer a cashback deal, both are likely to be liable under law. We have asked the OFT for more clarification on who is responsible when things go wrong.However, consumers may have additional protection if they paid by credit card or through a finance deal.

In an earlier ruling the OFT said a customer may claim repayment of a cashback cheque from the finance company or bank under one of two conditions: if goods have been paid for by a finance agreement arranged through the retailer or the purchase is over £100 and has been paid for by credit card. This falls under Section 56 and/or Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

[Author]

June 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM