You know, we get people in this thread from time to time, bragging up other companies products and telling us how great they are. Well I'd like to see just one tell us how great the "other company's" warranty service is.... Let me tell you about Kind LED lights that they refused warranty on. This guy has many years of growing, he's not an idiot. They put him through hell just to get the product an RMA. How long would HLG be in business if they pulled this crap. Read this and tell me if YOU would do business with them
I can't reveal the site this came from as this is an ongoing issue and Kind is an advertiser. I did post that pics of the internals should be posted.
And what if you were a commercial op running these? Shouldn't a $2300 light be DESIGNED to withstand growroom conditions?
The post:
Recently both of my XL1000s failed. Within a 2 week time period both started showing some LEDs out. Since both were still under warranty I contacted
Kind to discuss and arrange RMAs. The
Kind RMA procedure is rather cumbersome. They require pictures of the unit from all sides, top and bottom as well as the plate on the back that contains the lot number. I had to take that picture about 6 times to get one that was readable, given the small type size. When I sent the pictures to Kind they rejected them, saying they weren't clear enough. So I had to retake them and they still didn't meet their satisfaction. Finally after a 3rd attempt they said okay, send them anyway. I had kept the original packaging but Kind requires they be double boxed, with peanuts or bubble wrap between the boxes. Finding a box that big was difficult. UPS wanted $35 for a box. Yes, $35 for a box that probably cost less than $3 to produce. I told them to shove it, and kept looking until I finally found one at the dollar store. UPS also wanted $140 to ship it. I ended up taking it to FedEx and got ground shipping for $105, still very high. This whole process, pictures, finding packing, shipping took over a week and was very frustrating.
Once they were shipped and I heard back from Kind the news wasn't good. They claimed that everything inside the lights was corroded from
high humidity. That is BS. My environment is closed and controlled with both humidification and dehumidifacation used as needed. Humidity in the grow room never exceeded 68% the whole time I owned those lights. Regardless, they did fix it under waarranty but stated it was likely to fail again. Once the first light was returned I shipped the second one. Same deal, insides corroded. By the time the second light came back the first one had already failed again. When I plugged the second one in it failed immediately. The failures aren't complete, mostly two rows out down the middle with other assorted ones also out.
As you might imagine, I was livid when they both failed the second time. So now my options are sending them back again, paying the shipping, and now paying for the repairs. Knowing there is no guarantee they won't fail again I can't justify what could possibly turn into a $400 - $500 repair, plus shipping both ways. It's that, or buy new lights.
I spent $3,200 for these lights and am looking at that much again to replace them. To have them both fail so quickly is maddening and disheartening. I know the problem isn't humidity as Kind claims but without a data logger tracking my temps and humidity there is no way to prove it. So it's my word against theirs, and in this case, I lose. Needless to say, I won't be replacing them with more Kind lights. I was very high on these lights as they do an excellent job and having control over the light spectrums is very handy. But I will not give more of my money to a company that apparently knows there are problems with their lights and are blaming it on an issue that, for most of us, is impossible to prove. I did check their web site, emailed them and called requesting their environmental specs as they are no where to be found. I never got a call back or a response to my emails. This indicates to me they are aware of this issue and took the specs down from their web site so they can't be used in relation to this issue.