🚀 go-pugleaf

This is the fifth in a series of articles that I am posting about my
experience with OCS (legal name: "1150033 Ontario Inc., carrying on business
as Ottawa Computer Services") and with it's president, Ms Lori McConkey.  Like
the preceding articles, this one too will be of interest primarily (and
perhaps only) to residents of Ottawa and/or Ontario.

As in the case of the two previous articles, I am posting this installment as
a public service to the people of my city and province.

In the previous articles, I reported that I was mislead into purchasing a
refurbished AST computer, believing it was new.  I took OCS to small claims
court and the judge awarded me damages.  I have described how OCS turned a
legal procedure that was supposed to be fast, inexpensive and relatively
informal, into a legal procedure that involved delays, lawyers and such
manoeuvres as a failed "motion" to have my claim dismissed on technicalities
even before the "matters of issue" reached a judge.  The bottom line is that
to date, OCS has not paid me even a cent (to the best of my knowledge) and the
legal battle continues.  I have also stated that OCS failed to register its
business name, "Ottawa Computer Services", with the Ontario government, as
required;  the department in charge, MCCR, has taken no legal action to
enforce the law.

In the present article I would like to record the role of AST, the
manufacturer of the laptop in question.

OCS advertised themselves as "an authorized systems reseller" of AST, which
was one reason for choosing OCS in the first place; my assumption was that the
manufacturer would assume some responsibility for the actions of its
"authorized reseller".  Was I ever wrong.

On the receipt of the laptop I purchased, OCS wrote expressly "AST
manufacturer's warranty".  But two letters I received from AST confirmed that
for Canadian customers, the laptop was NOT covered by any warranty whatsoever,
as the text of the warranty document states explicitly.  Had anyone made false
promises on my behalf, I would have been livid with rage and admonished the
person doing so in no uncertain terms; I assumed that AST would be equally
upset at OCS making false promisses on their behalf.  I therefore asked AST
what THEY intended to do in order to protect consumers against OCS giving such
false promises in the future.  AST has not answered this question to date, in
spite of the fact that I have  raised this question repeatedly in writing and
in phone conversations (I even wrote to AST's president in California).  In
fact, I doubt that AST has even contacted Ms McConkey about this point.  

On the positive side, I acknowledge that AST did provide me with certain
pieces of information that were vital to my case.  After many long-distance
phone calls and extensive correspondence, AST also sent me the missing
documentation free of charge, and they were willing to sell me a 3-year
warrantee for $2,000.  

On balance, I've decided never to deal with AST again.  I find that even
though they helped me somewhat on a personal level, the question persists: 
What have they done to protect the public?

If anyone from AST is reading this letter, can you please answer?