The Riddler

Happy customers do not hang around in forums like this.

131 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, CR Yaker said:

I find its funny that you think so highly of your one case being tied to Hobie's announcement of explicit warranty changes going forward on 2019 models.  When they are most likely being proactive to expected competition.

I doubt my complaint was the only factor, but if you don't think it added to their decision, you are being foolish.  

Edited by kross57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TimS said:

You do realize that since the very first time I asked that question I wrote - VERY CLEARLY - that if a Hobie representative WROTE that there is a five year prorated warranty that I’d consider that official? 

Well then, consider it official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CR Yaker said:

 

 

I find its funny that you think so highly of your one case being tied to Hobie's announcement of explicit warranty changes going forward on 2019 models.  When they are most likely being proactive to expected competition.

Mmiller already said this.

 

Quote

Not true... You more likely will be causing us to shut down on our good faith extended coverages that we have done in the past. I'm sure everyone will be pleased with you for that right?

 

 

So it is possible Kross email to the AG did have an effect on this. I don't think it's right for one single email to be blamed for taking away the hand shake and a wink out of warranty protection but like Tim S said, that type of practice ends up failing over the long run anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think another way of seeing TimS perspective is what kross received is a settlement. In this settlement Hobie got out front before the real involvement happened, and admitted no wrongdoing and threw a lone consumer a bone.

 

As I said in the other thread this is the sort of thing that would have to be classified under the deceptive marketing realm and clarified in court or mediated by Consumer Affairs.

 

Better yet, I believe there would have to be some sort of class action suit to produce the results you want. A victory in smalls claims court wouldn't even have the same impact as a class action suit would.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, mmiller said:

We are not reducing the coverage let alone denying claims. 

 

Kross57 is a prime example of a consumer who we did take care of regardless of the negativity he spreads. 

 

I simply can not understand the level of effort he takes to discredit our company. A company that truly stands behind our products. Who stood behind him when he was well out of the official warranty period. We could have said no and that would be completely legal, but that is not us. We do care about our consumers. I personally am a consumer advocate at Hobie. I have always pushed us to stand behind the products we build and to fix problems when we find them.

 

Making extended coverage official is the only thing he seems to have a problem with.  

 

We will be adding some additional warranty coverage soon. This has been in the works for well over 6 months... for 2019 model year products and beyond.

 

We constantly improve our products and have been doing so for over 20 years on kayaks and 60 years as a brand.

We stand behind them with warranty and support.

We are not reducing the coverage or denying reasonable claims. 

We are always willing to consider claims even when far out of the coverage period (ie. Kross57)

We have one of if not the best reputation in the industry for taking a care of our consumers. This is reiterated again and again by our dealers and customers.

 

3 hours ago, The Riddler said:

Mmiller already said this.

 

 

 

So it is possible Kross email to the AG did have an effect on this. I don't think it's right for one single email to be blamed for taking away the hand shake and a wink out of warranty protection but like Tim S said, that type of practice ends up failing over the long run anyways. 

As you can see, Matt walked back this poke at Kross that there would be any changes to existing warranty or good will by Hobie.  I think your giving Kross far too much weight that his flag waving has had any effect on Hobie policy.  Which by the way he desires to be the case.  This I find the basis of his continued forum rampage of attack on Hobie.  It's all about his need to fulfil this ego, period.  Again, if he really wanted to go at Hobie, in the name of all, he would do so with his pocket book and encourage others to do so with example.  But as we can see that is not the case, since he is continuing his ownership of a Hobie Kayak.  

If anything, this is the tell all, to others, that Hobie is the kayak to own, existing warranty/goodwill policy as stands.

Edited by CR Yaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 mins ago, CR Yaker said:

 

As you can see, Matt walked back this poke at Kross that there would be any changes to existing warranty or good will by Hobie.  I think your giving Kross far too much weight that his flag waving has had any effect on Hobie policy. 

Kross is one single person talking about his consumer experience with a product and now that company rep. is coming into this forum to address the situation. Even the Attorney General out of California saw enough in Kross argument to take it on to the next level.  Another Hobie Rep who handles BBB situations, has negotiated with Kross and it could be ongoing.and now you are here telling me I am giving Kross to much "weight" for his "flag waving? :laugh:   This is all too powerful for just one person behind a keyboard sending emails and posts.  My comments have no bearing and Hobie is already doing the Flag Waving. I also find it unusual that one person can get this type of reaction...which makes me want to put on my Michael Corleone hat and look at this deeper....Kross is probably not the only one to attempt an email to the AG out of California of the BBB.....or the forums are more powerful than we think.  Kross is not spreading lies, he is sharing his experience.

 

 

 

 

 

flagwaving2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone gets the "Good Faith" warranty treatment. Don't know the details but here is one member who did not get it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 mins ago, Sheisty said:

I think another way of seeing TimS perspective is what kross received is a settlement. In this settlement Hobie got out front before the real involvement happened, and admitted no wrongdoing and threw a lone consumer a bone.

 

That’s not just my perspective, that’s what Hobie said in this forum. Nobody in business wants to go up against the AG over something so unlikely to cost them A DIME as offering a one year warranty on a product extremely unlikely to fail during that time frame. So squeak loud enough, get the grease :) 

 

I see Kross’ point - like I pointed out previously - I’m buying a brand new hull, albeit at a prorated price - why should I not get the bare bones protection against manufacturer defects that comes with every new product sold? I paid for it - it’s brand new - if it is defective, I should be covered. 

 

And I see Hobie’s point - we are offering this hull at a reduced price as a good faith gesture to keep someone in a Hobie after theirs experienced a failure well outside of the warranty period. Part of that compromise is that the prorated hull does not come with the same two year warranty as a hull purchased at full retail price. It’s their company, their products and their choice to handle out of warranty failures any way they choose. 

 

I see both sides, I get both positions, I understand the logic behind both. It doesn’t have anything to do with legal precedent, it’s not illegal, the AG didn’t force Hobie to provide a one year warranty, the AG didn’t force Hobie to change their warranty policy (otherwise is wouldn’t just affect 2019 products and newer AND the AG would have forced an immediate and retroactive change...which they did not ) - the squeaky wheel got the grease. 

 

Here’s the one thing I don’t get - why wouldn’t Hobie offer a one year warranty specifically covering manufacturer defects to these prorated hulls? It doesn’t cost them anything because, presumably, if one of these prorated new hull was found to be defective I have NO DOUBT that Hobie would replace it for free. That’s the kind of customer service Matt describes here - they stand behind their products - they have their customer’s backs - I can’t imagine them ever denying an claim on a new hull that was an actual manufacturing defect. So why not put together a simple, one year warranty for ANY new hull - regardless of how much it cost - EVEN IF IT WAS FREE - that specifically covers just manufacturing defects? This wouldn’t interfere with their ‘unofficial’ prorated warranty in any way, it would become just another section of the existing warranty but specifically for NEW REPLACEMENT HULLS...and for one year. Seems like a no brained when it doesn’t sound like Hobie would replace a new yet defective hull any way? :idea:

 

Just thinking out loud :)

 

TimS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 mins ago, TimS said:

I see both sides, I get both positions, I understand the logic behind both. It doesn’t have anything to do with legal precedent, it’s not illegal, the AG didn’t force Hobie to provide a one year warranty, the AG didn’t force Hobie to change their warranty policy (otherwise is wouldn’t just affect 2019 products and newer AND the AG would have forced an immediate and retroactive change...which they did not ) - the squeaky wheel got the grease. 

 

I agree with some of what you say. But I believe this is still way off. If Hobie is already doing the right thing, then they are under no obligation to change the way they treated me. Yet, as soon as someone with more authority - the AG - was looking at this, they got nervous and started crumbling. This is absolutely an admission of guilt. Whether you choose to see it that way or not. 

 

Whether this applies to other Hobie customers, past and present, remains to be seen. I can't see how it wouldn't be.  I have asked the AG that specific question. I'll let you know what they say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, kross57 said:

I agree with some of what you say. But I believe this is still way off. If Hobie is already doing the right thing, then they are under no obligation to change the way they treated me. Yet, as soon as someone with more authority - the AG - was looking at this, they got nervous and started crumbling. This is absolutely an admission of guilt. Whether you choose to see it that way or not. 

Take a poll, I think you might be surprised. That’s now how business works. By your logic everyone who takes action to avoid battling the AG is admitting guilt and that is absurd. By your logic only guilty people get nervous when facing a law suit or the AG - again, that’s not how business works. You seem real hung up on this right/wrong thing - what specific law do you believe Hobie had violated? And if they were/had been violating that law with others, why would the AG not be pursuing them in court? I’ll stop there so you can answer:

1. What law do you feel Hobie violated?

2. If they were violating that law with others why isn’t the AG pursuing them in court? 

3. If the AG is forcing them to change their warranty why are the changes only covering products they haven’t even been produced yet?

4. If the AG is forcing them to change their warranty policy because they are violating the law, why wouldn’t the AG force those changes immediately..and retroactively? 

 

I’ve owned a few businesses and managed a few others - making an unhappy customer happy doesn’t have anything to do with legal requirements to do so. Squeaky wheels get greased because they are squeaky, not because there is a legal obligation to grease them  :wave:

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, TimS said:

Take a poll, I think you might be surprised. That’s now how business works. By your logic everyone who takes action to avoid battling the AG is admitting guilt and that is absurd. By your logic only guilty people get nervous when facing a law suit or the AG - again, that’s not how business works. You seem real hung up on this right/wrong thing - what specific law do you believe Hobie had violated? And if they were/had been violating that law with others, why would the AG not be pursuing them in court? I’ll stop there so you can answer:

1. What law do you feel Hobie violated?

2. If they were violating that law with others why isn’t the AG pursuing them in court? 

3. If the AG is forcing them to change their warranty why are the changes only covering products they haven’t even been produced yet?

4. If the AG is forcing them to change their warranty policy because they are violating the law, why wouldn’t the AG force those changes immediately..and retroactively? 

 

I’ve owned a few businesses and managed a few others - making an unhappy customer happy doesn’t have anything to do with legal requirements to do so. Squeaky wheels get greased because they are squeaky, not because there is a legal obligation to grease them  :wave:

 

TimS

It’s no use, a few of us have brought up many of the same points and questions. No matter how polite and civil you try to be, anything other than complete agreement is considered an attack by Kross. He even asked me if I actually fish out of a kayak. Kinda hilarious, like the kayaking equivalent of “do you even lift bro?!”  :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Riddler said:

Kross is probably not the only one to attempt an email to the AG out of California of the BBB.....or the forums are more powerful than we think.  Kross is not spreading lies, he is sharing his experience.

It seems like Kross wanted in writing what Hobie was already likely going to do anyway - cover a new hull against actual manufacturer defects. How many new hulls fail in the first year? From what I’ve read here it seems like the old ones were failing after 3...4...5 years. So any hull failing in the first year would be an honest manufacturing defect - has Hobie ever denied a claim for a manufacturing defect in the first year? I don’t know but my guess would be no...never. So what did Kross get? He got in writing something Hobie has likely been doing all along. Right? Hobie has already provided a prorated replacement hull for an out of warranty failure.  I’m not sure what all the flag waving was designed to do? He points out all sorts of things he considers unfair - which of them were in his complaint to the AG? He says he’s still not happy....was there a complaint to the AG that was not satisfied by the one year warranty against defects? 

 

Im trying to nail down the specifics of the present unhappiness :) The only way a complaint can be satisfied is by addressing the specific points. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the AG complaint satisfied by offering the 1 year warranty? If the AG was satisfied, isn’t the flag waving over? It easy to make a bunch of general noise but without specific points to address its impossible for anything to be accomplished - pitchforks and torches were never intended to do anything but burn down villages :) Conversation gets things done :read:

 

I would love to see the original three page complaint to the AG - and the letter the AG sent to Hobie. Then we could then go through the complaints line by line and see which of them the AG mentioned in their letter to Hobie....and see which ones have yet to be satisfied :)

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimS said:

It seems like Kross wanted in writing what Hobie was already likely going to do anyway - cover a new hull against actual manufacturer defects. How many new hulls fail in the first year? From what I’ve read here it seems like the old ones were failing after 3...4...5 years. So any hull failing in the first year would be an honest manufacturing defect - has Hobie ever denied a claim for a manufacturing defect in the first year? I don’t know but my guess would be no...never. So what did Kross get? He got in writing something Hobie has likely been doing all along. Right? Hobie has already provided a prorated replacement hull for an out of warranty failure.  I’m not sure what all the flag waving was designed to do? He points out all sorts of things he considers unfair - which of them were in his complaint to the AG? He says he’s still not happy....was there a complaint to the AG that was not satisfied by the one year warranty against defects? 

 

Im trying to nail down the specifics of the present unhappiness :) The only way a complaint can be satisfied is by addressing the specific points. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the AG complaint satisfied by offering the 1 year warranty? If the AG was satisfied, isn’t the flag waving over? It easy to make a bunch of general noise but without specific points to address its impossible for anything to be accomplished - pitchforks and torches were never intended to do anything but burn down villages :) Conversation gets things done :read:

 

I would love to see the original three page complaint to the AG - and the letter the AG sent to Hobie. Then we could then go through the complaints line by line and see which of them the AG mentioned in their letter to Hobie....and see which ones have yet to be satisfied :)

 

TimS

I asked Hobie what warranty I had on the new hull. They told me none.

 

Apparently you have no idea how the CA AG operates. This isn't big brother. It's a very mild thing. You file a complaint. The AG sends it to the company with no suggestions of their own, Whatever response they get back, they forward to you. There was no "letter to Hobie". There was no "battling". That's it so far. Frankly, I was surprised to get anything from this at all. That alone shows how weak Hobie's position is.

 

What I want, and have a right to, and asked for in my complaint, is the 2-year warranty Hobie offers on any new hull. Also, a full explanation of how they arrive at the cost of the hull. I explained this to you in detail already, I'm not sure why you are still confused about it. And, no, I am not satisfied with what I received so far, Why should I be?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, H*** felt that Elias was operating recreational kayak in a commercial fleet capacity :) - ie w wear and tear that it was not designed for. So they excersized their right to decline unwritten wty. 

 

Yes, may be, but still not smart, as they got $$$$$ of free product promotions out of Elias' vids. PWPF methinks. I'd bend over backwards to keep that cat happy and have the happiness show in em vids. more $ales !

 

As with many privately held Cos, they are treating these cases way too personally. On the other side, it is this personal involvement that produces gems like MD in the first place.

 

But, the field is getting more crowded, so there might HAVE to be changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I visited this thread for the benefit of people who ended up in the same predicament I did. Paying for a Hobie replacement hull and getting no warranty. There is enough info in the first couple pages to help them out. The rest is mostly hot air and nonsense.

 

I realize some folks enjoy this kind of recreational bickering. I'm not one of them. So I'll sign off here. Anyone who wants to can keep arguing amongst yourselves.

 

If I have any meaningful update, I'll start another thread.  

Edited by kross57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.