I need to share my experience with BlueDo.com in the hopes that others do not get drawn in by their "extended warranty" that they have no intention of supporting. The email train is included below, names and other identifying information removed. It starts at the bottom and works its way up. Also notice how long it takes to get this situation "resolved".

In short, I emailed BlueDo.com to RMA an MX-500 remote for sporadic button operation. They had me return the remote to URC before they would accept the return. The technician at URC indicated the problem was with the PCB and it was a $75 repair, and sent me a note stating this. When I shared this information with BlueDo, they suggested I had abused the remote or spilled something on it.

Hopefully others will learn from my experience and stay away from BlueDo.com. It's not worth it for me to sue for breach of contract, so I will do what I can to get the word out.

I received a reply from the BlueDo representative that basically stated the technician @ URC told him the only way this would happen is abuse. So either BlueDo is lying to me via email (after essentially accusing me of filing a fraudulent warranty claim), or the URC technician lied to me when I spoke with him on the phone (after changing my keypad for free). Guess where my money is?

It still works; it's not worth any more of my time to try to get it replaced. If it ever becomes unusable I'll get another one from somewhere else.

---
Email follows
---

This is not the same information I received from xxx. He found no sign of abuse when troubleshooting the remote, and actually informed me that your suggestion to have the remote "cleaned" was pointless, as cleaning the remote would accomplish nothing.

I can assure you it was not abused, misused, or subjected to any spill. I paid a little extra for the remote when I bought it because of BlueDo's extended warranty. I see now that this was a mistake. I will be sure to warn others of my experience with bluedo.com. It's a shame the company would risk losing several customers to save a $75 repair.

I regret you could not be of assistance by fulfilling your warranty contract.

xxx

-----Original Message-----
From: "BlueDo.com" <[email protected]>
Sent: Aug 25, 2004 11:56 AM
To: xxx
Subject: Re: BlueDo.com Support - Defective on Order Number xxx

xxx,

I've just gotten a detailed report from xxx at URC. Unfortunately, the
bottom line is that the issue with your MX-500 is definitely not a defect in
the remote, but was caused either by spilling something on / in the remote,
or excessive use or abuse.

Thank you,

xxx
www.BlueDo.com


----- Original Message -----
From: xxx
To: "'BlueDo.com'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: BlueDo.com Support - Defective on Order Number xxx


> Thanks for your help. (reference numbers removed). I hope one of those is the one you're looking for!
>
> The note also mentions that the keypad was replaced (for free) and that
did
> not solve the problem. The information on the PCB is on a handwritten
note
> attached by xxx @ URC, who called and spoke with me during his
> troubleshooting.
>
> Thanks,
> xxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlueDo.com [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 17:56
> To: xxx
> Subject: Re: BlueDo.com Support - Defective on Order Number xxx
>
> xxx,
>
> What reference numbers are included on the note? We'll contact the
> manufacturer and get back to you on this issue.
>
> Thank you,
>
> xxx
> www.BlueDo.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: xxx
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:28 PM
> Subject: RE: BlueDo.com Support - Defective on Order Number xxx
>
>
> > I just received my remote back from URC today. The note returned with
the
> > remote states that it has a problem with the PCB board and that would be
a
> > $75 repair charge. The remote is still covered under BlueDo's extended
> > warranty. Please tell me what I need to do to receive a
> repair/replacement
> > according to the terms of that warranty.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> > xxx
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BlueDo.com [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:58
> > Subject: Re: BlueDo.com Support
> >
> > xxx,
> >
> > It sounds as if the remote may have need to be cleaned, which wouldn't
be
> > covered under a warranty. Please call 1-(800)-901-0800, and be sure to
> > mention that you purchased from BlueDo.com!
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > xxx
> > www.BlueDo.com
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: xxx
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:19 AM
> > Subject: BlueDo.com Support - Defective on Order Number xxx
> >
> >
> > > NAME: xxx
> > >
> > > EMAIL: xxx
> > >
> > > ORDER NUMBER: xxx
> > >
> > > MODEL: MX-500
> > >
> > > DETAILS:
> > >
> > > My MX-500 has become slow to respond, requiring multiple button
presses
> > and/or harder than normal button presses. It seems to occur most often
on
> > frequently used buttons, e.g. channel up/down. I just changed batteries
> > today to be sure that wasn't the problem. I believe the remote came
with
> a
> > 2 year warranty. What is the process to have the remote repaired or
> > replaced? Thanks for your help.

This message was edited by Dirac on 08/27/04 13:47 ET.

thanks for the info.

I would CERTAINLY wait to hear from BlueDo before taking this story as fact. I have dealt with URC in the past and they have been very professional. I haven't dealt with BlueDo though. I can tell you from years of experience there is always 2 sides to the story.

I don't read down to up.

BlueDo:

Any comments on this?

I'm happy to respond, and sorry that this had to be taken "public". Basically, the remote went to URC, and Jason, their tech, told me:

Jason thoroughly examined the remote, and even tried replacing some parts for free, to no avail. The remote was damaged beyond any repair and requires a new PDB, which is essentially replacing the entire remote. I want to make perfectly clear - our warranty has not only repaired many remotes, we've replaced quite a few as well. I don't think it's fair to complain that we've done something to breach our warranty considering the report we got from the URC technician. I welcome the public's opinion on this, as obviously we are 100% committed to Remote Central and it's members, and always strive to treat customers fairly and equitably.

David
www.BlueDo.com

It's good to see you're available in the forums; that's one of the reasons I went with BlueDo in the first place. My main intention was to warn people of the runaround when trying to obtain warranty service. I am obviously getting the wrong message from someone. I wanted to present the facts so people could see the whole story and make their judgment. Either URC or BlueDo is being less than honest. But I AM disappointed with BlueDo not trying harder to keep a customer, and delaying its response. I have tried to be professional and courteous but $100 is not pocket change so I am a little upset.

David-- when you say "the remote is damaged beyond any repair" that makes it sound like it's in a million pieces! It's just that sometimes some of the buttons don't always work, and they happen to be the ones that are most frequently used. To me, that's a sign of premature wear, not abuse. Premature wear should be covered under warranty. Excessive use--should I stop changing channels so often?

I don't normally post on this forum, but since warrantees are kinda a "pet peeve" of mine and you invited comment, here it goes.

Your terms and conditions for the extended warrantee state that it provides the same coverage as the manufactures warrantee. Looking at the manufactures warrantee, the applicable portion states the warrantee does not cover "damage from misuse, neglect, or acts of nature."

Now certainly if something was spilled on the remote, that's not covered. But "excessive use", what's that?? How many times do you have to press a particular button to constitute excessive use in a 1 year period?

My feeling is that if this remote was submitted to HTM during the initial 1 year warrantee period, they would have repaired it UNLESS they could tell with certainty that something was spilled on the remote. "Excessive use" is so vague as to be meaningless, not to mention the fact that this terminology isn't even contained in original warrantee.

This is not to condemn Blue Do, I've purchased from them and been very satisfied. The above is just an OPINION, based on what's been said. There may very well be more to the story.

I've sent you an email I feel will resolve this problem. Please reply off-forum and let me know your thoughts.

David
www.BlueDo.com

What I don't understand is if the warranty was through BlueDo, why was the remote sent to Home Theater Master? If it was past their one year warranty, of course they're going to charge you for it, regardless of the reason for the problem.

That is why I buy a remote. To give it use.

Excessive use sounds rediculous. What is the limit so I do not go over?

I will keep the continuing discussion details off-forum. Just wanted to note that all of the conversations between URC and me, and BlueDo (David) and me have been professional and courteous, and David's efforts to resolve the problem off-forum are likewise professional. If anything, this thread highlights the potential difficulty in seeking warranty replacement when 3 parties are involved, and buyers should note that. They should also note that David is an active, responsive member here and does indeed value customer service and satisfaction.

No, I wasn't compelled to say any of that against my will. :) I'll respect David's request to keep the resolution details off-forum.

While David could probably answer this better than I, BlueDo extends the manufacturer's one-year warranty (after it expires) for one additional year. This repair would have been within BlueDo's timeframe as the remote is about 1.5 years old. Nonetheless, they require a URC tech to troubleshoot the remote before they provide warranty service/replacement for it.

I thought about giving Jason at URC a call again, but it would start the runaround over and would probably not help the situation any.

"Excessive Use"? Give me a break! So... I guess the warranty should read:

URC warrants this remote to be free from defects for one year from the date of purchase provided the end user does not subject the remote to "Excessive Use". Excessive use is considered to be pushing any given button in excess of 2000 times? Or should it be 1000 times? Or should it be stated that excessive use is any number of button presses which cause the remote to eventually stop working?

Or maybe it should read:

URC warrants this remote to be free from defects for one year or 2000 presses of any given button (whichever comes first).

Utterly rediculous!

That's my 2 cents worth!