Feedback - FROWNS

[abhivg]

@ Bharat and Vijay,

Thanks for your suggestion. I am not sure banning a user would be action "stern enough" in this case. But I guess that's how the system works.

@Mods

Kindly take appropriate action at the earliest so that other people are not cheated further.

Mod Note:
The Moderators are currently evaluating this unfortunate situation.

[Vijay Rajan]

+ 1 with Bharat Ji.

From the images of the fungal growth as well as the date code, it isn't hard to deduce that the seller has "cheated" a fellow member on this forum.

If the seller fails to produce Canon service centre's bill mentioning the exact service history, the deal clearly reeks of fraudulent practices. Request our dear Mods to expedite stern action on this seller please.

[Bharat Varma]

Also he said that he had had gotten it cleaned from Canon authorised service centre 3 months back.

Ask him for the Service Report from Canon. That should state clearly what was done in the servicing.
Canon would have done a complete checkup of the lens and would have sought approval for the servicing to be done as well as the cost thereof.
You can then also check with Canon as to whether there were any other problems with the lens that were not addressed due to lack of approval from the owner. That would give you a complete history of the lens.

If there is no service report available and Canon does not have a record of the lens serial number, then the probability is that the lens has not been serviced by Canon.

[abhivg]

Hi All,

Really long post but please bear with me.

I would like to bring to notice to the moderators and forum members an ordeal that I am going through right now due to a purchase I did through the sale forum:
I recently purchased a lens put up for sale in the following thread:   http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.php/topic,26647.0.html
The seller is a certain Mr. Saurabh Pandit (user ID: saurabhart215) from Borivali, Mumbai

As per the details in the post the lens is a Canon EF 24-105mm F4 lens which Mr. Saurabh Pandit bought 2 years back and he mentions that he is the original owner of the lens. What I understood from this is that he bought it new and has been using it for 2 years. Secondly he clearly states that the lens condition is "Good, No scratches or Fungus on lens".

I initially talked with Mr. Pandit over the phone and he mentioned that he bought the lens new 2 years back and he is using it since. He also said the lens condition is very good and he has always stored it in a dehumidifying cabinet. We did initial negotiations over the price of the lens over the phone and settled on a price of 39K. He arranged for having the lens delivered with his niece who stays in Pune where I live. Since I was apprehensive buying an unseen item, I asked my cousin who lives in Mumbai to personally go to Mr. Saurabh Pandits place and check the
item and pay for it in person. My cousin is not a photography expert and he checked the item and thought it seemed fine. My cousin made the payment on Friday, 3rd May 2013. On making the payment, Mr. Saurabh Pandit sent the lens along with his niece to Pune and I received it on 4th May 2013.

When I went home and checked the lens, the lens zoom ring seemed a bit stiff and the switches too were stiff. Since I have EFS lenses 3 years old which operate a lot smoother, I sensed something wrong. I looked up the lens code on the net and to my horror the lens was manufactured in 2006 (lens code UU0505)! Not sure why but checking the lens code did not strike me before buying it and that was major stupidity on my part. Also when I checked the lens against sunlight, I could clearly see some fungal growth in one of the inner elements of the lens.

I called up Mr. Pandit on 5th May 2013 and told him the above observations. He then tells me that he doesnt understand lens date codes. He bought the lens as a white box item from a dealer in Fort. He has purchased 100s of cameras from him and trusts the dealer completely. Regarding the fungus he said that he had tested the lens by testing a shot against a white wall which did not show up anything. Also he said that he had had gotten it cleaned from Canon authorised service centre 3 months back. On asking why he got it cleaned, he said there might have been fungus on the lens. He further told me that I should not be worried using it on my camera since it wont affect the camera. I told him I was not willing to take the risk and that I would send the images of both the date code and the fungal growth to him via email.

My email to Mr. Pandit dated 5th May 2013:
----------------------------
Hi Saurabh,

As per our discussion on the phone today:
1) The lens date code is 'UU0505' which indicates that the lens was manufactured in 2006. The second alphabet represents the year of manufacture. Please refer to "http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/date-codes.htm" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_L_lens#Canon_lens_codes" . From your post on JJMEHTA, you had mentioned that the lens was 2 years old and you were the original owner, hence I expected it to be manufactured in around 2010-11 and not in 2006. I am attaching the date code image.
2) The lens shows fungus on the internal elements. This can be clearly seen by naked eye against any bright light. I am attaching images which show the fungal growth. Your post mentioned that there was no fungus on the lens.

I wanted to use the lens today but did not due to the fungus. Even though it may not show up in the images, I do not want to take the risk of using this lens on my camera.
Let me know how we should proceed on this.

regards,
Abhishek
----------------------------

I called him up on 6th May 2013, He did not pick up. Called him up again after an our, he said his internet was down and would check the mail soon and reply to my mail. The reply that I got was as follows:

Salient points from Mr. Pandits reply to me dated 6th May 2013
----------------------------
1) The date of manufacturing may be 2006 or even earlier, and the product may have been kept sealed and packed. It was purchased by myself 2 years back and used for 2 years only. As a consumer I would only be concerned with whether the product is sealed and packed or it has been tampered with at the time of purchase. I wouldn't be concerned with the date of manufacturing as it is not a "perishable" item. The lens were used by myself for 2 years and the same was put across to you in all faith and honesty.

2) The lens were thoroughly checked by your brother at the time of handing them over to him and only then the amount was received in lieu. Had there been any concern with regards to any kind of damage or fungal growth, it should have been brought to my notice immediately. And also, being a photographer in business, keeping in mind certain ethics, i would never even offer any equipment on sale if it is damaged or cannot be used. I'd rather get it repaired or discard it, if beyond repairs.

3) Having said the above, I had clearly put across a "No Refund" policy on the JJ Mehta forum at the time of the sale. And your trail mail below clearly states your acceptance towards all terms, conditions and policies.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Do let me know in case if anything else other than the above.
----------------------------

My arguments here are that age of the lens was mis represented; actual age is MORE THAN 3 TIMES THE MENTIONED AGE!!! Facts such as white box item and not bought from authorised canon dealer SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH IN THE AD ITSELF. Also he said he did not have receipt indicating that he bought it 2 years ago. Considering the fact that incorrect details about the fungus were provided by the seller, I am not sure if he bought it 2 years ago or earlier.

Further, the condition of the lens is misrepresented. Saying that there is no fungus in lens when in fact there is, IS NOT ETHICAL. Also he didnt deny that there is fungal growth, but instead blames the buyer by saying you should have checked it first. Not sure what ethics he is talking about.

I sent a reply on 6th May 2013 saying that since the other conditions in his post do not hold true, I cannot accept the "No refund policy" condition and requested for a refund. I did not hear back from him. Hence called him up on 7th May 2013 and asked him what can be done. He said he has invested the amount already and cannot refund. I informed him that I cannot use the lens and that I would go ahead with legal options. He proposed that he'll pay for the lens cleaning. I denied saying that firstly lens is 3 times old than mentioned and that the lens is fungus prone since he had recently gotten it cleaned and it has grown back. He said he'll think about it and let me know.

In my final call with him today 8th May 2013 I informed him that I would pursue legal options, which resulted in his concluding statement of the form 'Do whatever you want, no refund'!!
I am going ahead with all possible legal options.

I would like tell the forum members to learn from my mistake. At the cost of repeating the instructions already out there I would like to say:
- Never be in a hurry to buy the item, whatever the seller may tell you.
- Check lens date codes
- Ask simple and direct questions, dont leave room for assumptions. Do this via email even if you have talked over phone
- If required, request seller to give a more detailed description in writing to leave out any doubts.
- ask for detailed pictures of the item being sold (from specific angles if required)

Mods, kindly take appropriate action regarding this matter as per your discretion.

NOTE: Attaching images of the date code and fungus for reference

regards,
Abhishek

[attachment deleted by admin]

[tapobrata_tb]

I have a question:

If a member putting up an item for sale states the following:
Item Description : XXXX in good condition used for 2 yrs Old.
Are you the original owner of the item being sold ? : Yes

What should be the age of the item put up for sale according to the above mentioned details?

Not sure about your question but I see two possibilities:

(i) Seller bought the equipment new and is now selling it. In which case, the equipment is now 2 years old.
(ii) Seller bought it used and has used it for 2 years in which case the equipment is 2 years + how old it was when the seller bought it (assuming that info is available).

Original owner I think (mods, please correct me if I am wrong) means if the person selling the equipment actually owns the equipment and is not selling on behalf of a friend.

Me thinks original owner = first owner of the item, person buying directly from retailer.

[Hellwrath]

I have a question:

If a member putting up an item for sale states the following:
Item Description : XXXX in good condition used for 2 yrs Old.
Are you the original owner of the item being sold ? : Yes

What should be the age of the item put up for sale according to the above mentioned details?

Not sure about your question but I see two possibilities:

(i) Seller bought the equipment new and is now selling it. In which case, the equipment is now 2 years old.
(ii) Seller bought it used and has used it for 2 years in which case the equipment is 2 years + how old it was when the seller bought it (assuming that info is available).

Original owner I think (mods, please correct me if I am wrong) means if the person selling the equipment actually owns the equipment and is not selling on behalf of a friend.

[abhivg]

I have a question:

If a member putting up an item for sale states the following:
Item Description : XXXX in good condition used for 2 yrs Old.
Are you the original owner of the item being sold ? : Yes

What should be the age of the item put up for sale according to the above mentioned details?

[drgap]

Thanks for unfreezing MS account

[Hankosaurus]

A friend of mine, by the user name of MS, has been banned from the group....He want to know why he was banned....and he cant log in the site anymore....He wants to know whether he can rejoin by the same name..Thanks

The ban was put into force on January 12, 2013 for violation of Rule 15a:

Rule 15a. No Commercial Sales Activity
Commercial and pecuniary sales activities are not allowed within any JJMPF Forum. The JJMPF Buy and Sell forum is strictly for the benefit of its Members only. JJMPF shall NOT serve as a sales platform for external businesses, nor for promoting personal business, nor for the brokerage for the sale, rent, or trading of anything or of any service. Posts of this sort will be eliminated, and their sources will be blocked from the JJMPF.

The post in violation pertained to a photo safari business appealing for customers on JJMPF.

[drgap]

This is the screenshot of what he gets now

[attachment deleted by admin]