A few months ago we decided to open a coffee cart and purchased a LUCCA A53 from Clive Coffee.
After receiving the machine, we calibrated our grinder and began setting up our business. Shortly afterward, the machine developed a serious electronic control issue and became inoperable.
Clive authorized a warranty repair and sent replacement parts (we paid for expedited shipping). A local authorized service center replaced both the CPU board and the control panel board. After the repair, we brought the machine home, pulled only two shots, and the machine failed again with the same intermittent electronic symptoms. We immediately notified Clive and provided video documentation.
At that point, we had lost confidence in the machine's reliability and requested to return it.
Clive ultimately accepted the return but deducted approximately $370 as a 12% restocking fee. They claimed when they received the machine, it worked perfectly.
My concern is not that Clive attempted a warranty repair. My concern is that a restocking fee was charged after a new machine experienced a documented electronic failure, required replacement of major electronic components, and then failed again almost immediately after the repair.
The machine's history included:
* Documented CPU/control board failure.
* Replacement of the CPU board and control panel under warranty.
* Immediate recurrence of the malfunction after repair.
* Prompt reporting of the recurring issue with video evidence.
In my opinion, a restocking fee is appropriate when a customer simply changes their mind. It is difficult to understand why one would apply when the return resulted from a recurring defect that the warranty repair did not resolve.
I've included videos showing the machine operating and then exhibiting the recurring failure so others can evaluate the situation for themselves.
Read full review
A few months ago we decided to open a coffee cart and purchased a LUCCA A53 from Clive Coffee.
After receiving the machine, we calibrated our grinder and began setting up our business. Shortly afterward, the machine developed a serious electronic control issue and became inoperable.
Clive authorized a warranty repair and sent replacement parts (we paid for expedited shipping). A local authorized service center replaced both the CPU board and the control panel board. After the repair, we brought the machine home, pulled only two shots, and the machine failed again with the same intermittent electronic symptoms. We immediately notified Clive and provided video documentation.
At that point, we had lost confidence in the machine's reliability and requested to return it.
Clive ultimately accepted the return but deducted approximately $370 as a 12% restocking fee. They claimed when they received the machine, it worked perfectly.
My concern is not that Clive attempted a warranty repair. My concern is that a restocking fee was charged after a new machine experienced a documented electronic failure, required replacement of major electronic components, and then failed again almost immediately after the repair.
The machine's history included:
* Documented CPU/control board failure.
* Replacement of the CPU board and control panel under warranty.
* Immediate recurrence of the malfunction after repair.
* Prompt reporting of the recurring issue with video evidence.
In my opinion, a restocking fee is appropriate when a customer simply changes their mind. It is difficult to understand why one would apply when the return resulted from a recurring defect that the warranty repair did not resolve.
I've included videos showing the machine operating and then exhibiting the recurring failure so others can evaluate the situation for themselves.