Aixam charger repair not completed. No refund for service not performed.
Aixam e-GTO S9 48V IES SYNERGY 2000 Charger P/N: CHEEL017553
I honestly do not recommend this company. I wasted three months (the car sat unused), paid for the repair, and sent the charger back three times, incurring the costs of installation/removal in the car and the courier. The service was not completed despite two complaints and the delivery of a second working device for comparison and identification of the defect. The Sender.de refuses to refund the money for the uncompleted service. The matter has currently been reported to PayPal.
The charger, returned after two complaints, is partially functional.
It has two charging modes:
230V -> 48V (traction battery)
48V -> 12V alternator replacement (standard 12V battery)
After the third repair, the Sender only started charging at 230V-48V. 48V->12V charging does not work.
As proof, I have videos on my YouTube channel – please visit my channel. You can find it by searching my name (Trustpilot doesn't allow links).
Reply from Sender.de
This was an extremely demanding customer who provided us with extensive information about the damaged charger. However, he only mentioned that a short circuit had occurred. It was our own investigation that revealed that the 12V and 48V electrical systems had been incorrectly connected.
When the charger first arrived at our workshop, it was completely non-functional. The incorrect electrical connection had caused extensive internal damage, including destruction of the main processor. This was not a minor defect but severe damage resulting from an improper intervention. We investigated this damage and carried out extensive, technically demanding repairs to restore the functionality of the device.
What the customer failed to disclose was that the original problem apparently existed before the short circuit: the charger was not charging the 12V battery sufficiently. It appears that the short circuit occurred during an attempt to resolve this original fault.
After repairing the extensive damage, the charger was operational again, but the original issue of insufficient 12V charging apparently remained.
As we did not have access to the vehicle for testing, we could establish that charging current was flowing into the 12V circuit, but we could not reproduce the insufficient charging performance under actual vehicle operating conditions.
We were making progress towards identifying this remaining fault when the customer repeatedly pressured us to complete and return the device. Consequently, we were unable to finish the investigation and eliminate the remaining problem.
The customer subsequently attempted to recover the full payment for our repair work through a PayPal dispute. However, after reviewing the technical documentation, measurement results and evidence we submitted, PayPal decided the case in our favour. His attempt to obtain a refund was therefore unsuccessful. Following this unsuccessful dispute, the customer made a second attempt to reverse the payment through his credit card provider. This chargeback attempt was also unsuccessful. The customer has not contacted us since.
It is therefore misleading to describe our extensive repair work as a service that was never performed. We restored a completely non-functional charger with a destroyed main processor to operational condition. The original charging issue, which had not been disclosed to us, remained unresolved.