(03-25-2022, 01:16 AM)Moriarty Wrote: ...although Slater and Gordon have been reported as telling a prospective client that they have looked into the case and decided that, under Australian Law, the prospect of winning is not good enough for them to run the case as a Settlement Funded action.

(03-26-2022, 09:32 AM)mug3n Wrote: Wonder how that'll affect other class actions around the world.

(03-26-2022, 03:31 PM)Moriarty Wrote: OTOH - Australian consumer law provides a refund for items not fit for purpose.  it not 'damages' but for many folk here it has allowed them to move on with another brand.

(03-24-2022, 12:51 AM)Aero Man Wrote: My brand new DS1 unit was in-service for less than 1 year when the recall was announced.  I registered the DS1 on 6/16/21 and today - 3/23/22 - a replacement DS1 blower unit  with  a User Manual and instructions, 1 extra-fine pollen filter, return label and packaging tape strip were delivered to my porch.   Not included: a modem, humidifier, power supply, power cord, and tubing.  The shipment was double-boxed with instructions to return the original blower.

I get that these components were not affected by the recall so was not surprised that only the blower was provided.  On the bottom of the refurbished unit is a  prominent label: "Recertified Device".

Originally, a brand new device with an expected life of 5 years was provided to me from my DME, yet this recall replacement is refurbished, not new. For the refurb, I have no idea what the remaining usable life of the motor actually is. The limited warranty for the refurbished unit is stated to be two years, so will it start whining in 2 years plus 1 day?  And, with their demonstrated capability in managing this recall, who knows how long it would take Philips to provide a serviced or replacement unit under their "warranty"...weeks, months, years?

One of the included docs titled "Basic Setup & Return Instructions" had the following statement "...Failure to return your original device to Philips could result in your being billed for payment of that device, as you now have two devices, but only paid for one." - yeah right.  The FDA has determined that the first device manufactured by Philips was defective and unsafe to use so I possess one, not two usable devices.

After receiving the refurbished blower, I was intending to return the original so another victim could get a refurbished unit, but now I have even less trust in Philips who cheapened this process further with their invoicing threat. The "fine print" on this doc advises that "...your affected device may be destroyed  or refurbished" - Philip's own words in the footnotes. Sounds like "destroy the evidence" to me.

I expect that a real lawyer could put a monetary figure on the extended apprehension I felt by not knowing when I was to receive a replacement unit to resume my CPAP treatment.  Eventually, out of desperation and for lack of meaningful status reporting from Philips (until recently forced to do so by the FDA), I eventually purchased an out-of-pocket replacement machine so my health would not be at further risk. I suspect that the figure would be much more than the salvage cost or invoiced amount for the unreturned original machine.

So that summarizes my experience with the Philips recall.

-Aero Man

(03-26-2022, 03:31 PM)Moriarty Wrote: Every country has different laws.  IANAL but I have read that Australian damages and compensation law generally seems to need evidence of actual and specific damages or loss. Trying to sue for potential or possible loss or damage in advance is almost impossible.   

OTOH - Australian consumer law provides a refund for items not fit for purpose.  it not 'damages' but for many folk here it has allowed them to move on with another brand.

(03-30-2022, 09:08 PM)DaveCar Wrote: ...DS2...
...The water tank setup kinda sucks though.