Mack Camera & Video Services Not Covered under warranty due to "Physical Damage" Springfield New Jersey

My canon digital rebel stopped focusing on my after years of dependable service. One minute it worked and the next it refused to focus. So I looked it up online and it is a common problem for that camera and has to do with the sub mirror pin wearing out causing the mirror used for focusing to not position itself correctly. The camera still worked fine except for focusing. I had a warranty through Mack Camera and decided to send it in.

About 3 weeks later I checked their website and called to see what the status of the repair was and they said they had to send it out to canon for them to do the diagnosis and repairs and that canon stated that the problem was due to "physical damage" and I would have to pay 189 dollars to have it repaired. I was a concerned by this since the camera hadn't been dropped and everything else works fine.

So I decided to call canon so I could get the full report from the people who looked at it. I called canon's repair services and gave them the serial number of my camera and asked about the diagnosis. That's where it got interesting. The lady at canon was kind enough to tell me that she wasn't suppose to tell me about the status of repairs since I was not the one who sent the camera to them, Mack Services did but she did tell me they sent it to the wrong repair facility and that canon hadn't even looked at the camera yet. Mack had already sent me a letter stating that the manufacture repair facility stated that it was not focusing physical damage to the sub mirror and what the cost of the repair would be and the manufacture had not even looked at the camera by this point.

I called Mack back up and spoke to the manager who "looked into the matter" and called me back never admitting that they were wrong but that it would be fixed and I wouldn't have to pay anything. I got the camera back and it works great again and didn't have to pay anything but I would have been out 189 dollars had it not been for the lady at canon who was honest enough to tell me that they hadn't even looked at the camera yet.
So if Mack tells you that the manufacture believes the camera was physically damaged I wouldn't believe them.

David
Blairstown, New Jersey
U.S.A.