LG Agrees To Cover Defective Dryer’s Parts, Changes Its Mind After Repair Visit

Gary’s household bought a washer and dryer made by LG, and the dryer has never worked correctly. That’s what customer service and repair services are for, though, right? So he came to an agreement with LG about splitting the cost of a technician visit and any repairs, with the company paying for parts and Greg covering the cost of labor. Then the technician came, and the company promptly changed its mind, leaving Greg to cover the whole repair cost. Greg is not pleased.

Due to poor product quality and our recent experience with the LG customer service team we will never purchase another LG product.

Fact: We purchased 1 washer, 1 dryer.

Fact: Since day 1 the dryer has not worked correctly and despite numerous attempts the problem has not been fixed.

Fact: We spent the past 2.5 weeks working with LG to find resolution. We spoke with LG customer service representatives, uploaded information to the LG website and met all of the data and process requests.

Fact: Yesterday (4/23), a customer agent ([A], who by the way was wonderful) was instructed by her supervisor to propose the following: 1. Engage an LG technician to assess the dryer ($89, our cost). 2. If the LG technician’s assessment showed that the drum is either split, cracked or separated, LG would cover the cost of the parts and provide a 90 day warranty for parts and services. We would cover the cost of the labor. We mutually agreed to these fair terms and scheduled the LG technician visit.

Fact: Today (4/24), the LG technician ([M], a very professional individual) conducted his assessment. His findings indicate that the drum is separated and may “have a cut”. In his opinion, the parts should be covered by LG. This information was communicated to the customer service center by M (the technician) and by us.

Outcome: Today (4/24) LG changed its tune and refused to honor the agreement reached yesterday. [B] insisted that the LG would cover the parts only if they were cracked. Split or separated parts would not be covered and ‘cut’ did not fit the criteria. We informed B. that this definition was different than what was provided and agreed to on 4/23. We are not in the business of lying or fabricating information (besides, a person of nursing background could not have come up with specific terminology).

LG’s decision to renege its position and refuse to honor an agreement they proposed is deeply disappointing. The estimated cost that LG would have incurred was $170 (comparable to the est. $180 we would have picked up for labor). The loss of trust, confidence and the support of lifetime customers may be worth a bit more than that.

B. suggestion to write a letter of appeal to an anonymous, voiceless, faceless PO BOX is a weak resolution that does little to actually solve the problem. In fact it serves only to create barriers and additional frustration for customers to silence their concerns and dissuade them for from causing ‘more trouble’ for the organization. A remedy empowering employees to actually problem solve may be far more effective.

We are not out to take advantage of the situation.
We have simple expectations: 1) that agreements and promises made will be upheld and 2) that we get the drier we paid for (one that works).