SOME companies resolve consumer complaints in ways that are both efficient and empathetic, demonstrating not just a grasp of what defines good service but also the ways that brand loyalty is nurtured. Then there is Whirlpool.

Q. We bought a Whirlpool microwave oven online last summer. It worked for four of the six months we’ve owned it, and it has been visited five times by repairmen from Whirlpool-authorized service companies. Four parts have been replaced. During the most recent visit, the repairman informed us that many of the parts that had been replaced needed to be replaced again. Those parts are currently on back order.

It will be mid-March, we were told in mid-February, before any further repairs occur. After scheduling service call No. 5, I contacted Whirlpool directly by phone to discuss our continuing problem. I was hoping that we could trade in this lemon for another microwave. No chance. I was told that not only did I need to wait for the one-year warranty to expire, but that even then, Whirlpool can choose to take an additional six months to consider an exchange — and only after yet another repairman has verified the issue.

I’ve had enough. Can you help?

JOANNA VINTILLA

Seattle

A. Before we hear from Whirlpool, the Haggler would like to cite a few numbers to provide a bit of context. The first is $216.25. That is the price of the microwave bought by Ms. Vintilla and her husband, Joe Sirott. The second is $869 million, which is the amount of operating profit that Whirlpool earned last year, on sales of $18 billion.

Got it? Good.

After being contacted by the Haggler, a member of Whirlpool’s executive staff e-mailed to Ms. Vintilla a document called a “Product Scrap Agreement.” In it, the company offered to send a check to refund the cost of the microwave — but with two stipulations. First, Ms. Vintilla would have to cover the expense of disposing of the microwave. It turns out that you don’t just toss a contraption like this in the garbage. You need someone to haul it away, for a fee of about $75.

Second, Ms. Vintilla would have to agree to a confidentiality clause. The Haggler knows that this sounds like an absurd joke, so let us quote directly from the document: “The undersigned further agrees that they will not communicate to any third party (other than their lawyers) or otherwise publicize, by any method whatsoever, any terms of this agreement.”

Naturally, Ms. Vintilla refused to sign this document and immediately forwarded it to the Haggler. But let us pause a moment and consider what Whirlpool did here. Not only did it try to stick its customer with a fee to dispose of the carcass of an appliance that produced more agita than hot food. It also decided that the customer would be privileged with these stinting terms only if she agreed not to discuss them with anyone, the media included.

It’s tempting to call this ham-handed, but that seems unfair to ham. The agreement closes with one last burst of lunacy: “It is also agreed that the payment is being made for customer loyalty, and is not to be construed as an admission of any kind on the part of Whirlpool.”

That’s right: To get this not-very-sweet deal, Ms. Vintilla has to agree to the fiction that she accepted these terms in the name of customer loyalty. After Ms. Vintilla declined this offer, a rep from Whirlpool sweetened the deal. Just a bit. The company could pick up the microwave, but would then need to subtract $75 from the refund.

“A check in the amount of $141.25 ($216.25 minus $75) would be sent to a local service agent,” wrote Alicia Harris, of the company’s executive staff.  “The service agent would then contact you to schedule a time to pick up the microwave and deliver the check. This process can take up to 21 business days.”

Seventy-five dollars? Twenty-one days? Keep in mind, dear readers, that this is the response of Whirlpool’s platinum-level customer service crew. This is Whirlpool in charm mode. The Haggler, at least at first, was unable to learn much about this mini-debacle. The company sent an e-mail from an outside P.R. firm, quoting a Whirlpool executive with words so bland and beside the point that they shall not be excerpted here.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/your-money/a-whirlpool-microwave-and-a-customer-service-problem.html?partner=rss&emc=rss