A warranty claim stalls when the fault is routed wrong. A firmware bug shipped back as broken hardware returns stamped “no fault found”; a hardware fault chased as software burns weeks of emails. Route by evidence instead: whether the symptom repeats across units or sits on one, what the records show, and what the maker’s documented diagnosis route for the model says.
Key Takeaways
- Firmware bugs are shared, code-level behaviour; hardware faults follow one physical unit. The remedies never cross.
- Route by evidence: pattern across units, the records, and the maker’s documented route for the exact model.
- Open the claim record at intake — identity, symptom twice, sibling comparison, records, steps run, outcome code.
- No EVDANCE listing states a firmware policy or update mechanism; the route for a claim is a written confirmation under the 3-year warranty.
Two Faults, Two Remedies
A firmware bug lives in code: units on the same build share it, it appears under a specific sequence of actions, and its remedy is a corrected release supplied under the maker’s terms — whenever those terms provide one. A hardware fault lives in one physical unit: a failed component, a worn connector, water where it should not be; its remedy is repair or replacement. Neither remedy touches the other fault, which is why the routing decision is the claim. The claim follows the warranty document and the maker’s documented route for the exact model.
The Triage Table
| Evidence | Points to firmware | Points to hardware | The claim record it produces |
|---|---|---|---|
| The same symptom on several units of the same model | Yes — shared behaviour is code behaviour | The affected serials and the build as stated on the units’ documents | |
| One unit faults; identical siblings on the same site run clean | Yes — the fault follows the unit | A single-unit claim with that unit’s record | |
| The symptom began right after a settings, configuration or platform change | Yes — behaviour changed when instructions changed | The change and its date, entered in the claim | |
| Heat marks, impact damage, water ingress, a worn or bent connector | Yes — physical findings are physical faults | Photographs and the inspection note | |
| The fault appears with one car, or on one site supply, and nowhere else | Neither: an environment finding, closed as no product fault | ||
| The symptom survives every step of the maker’s documented route for the model | Weakens | Strengthens | The route’s steps and results, logged step by step |
The Claim Record That Keeps Them Apart
For every claim, the reseller’s file should hold:
- Identity: serial number, exact model and variant, and the firmware build as shown on the unit or its documents — never assumed from the order.
- The symptom twice: in the driver’s words, then in the technician’s, recorded separately. The gap between them is often the diagnosis.
- The comparison: which sibling units were checked, and what each one did.
- The records: session and fault history for the unit, where the model reports them, attached rather than summarised.
- Steps already run: each step of the maker’s documented route, with its result — what stops the maker asking you to run them again.
- The outcome code: firmware-routed, hardware-routed, or no fault found — one fixed list on every claim. The spare parts and RMA process runs on records in this shape, and our overview of common charger faults and supplier handling shows how suppliers sort what arrives.
What Is Stated for EVDANCE Units
Judge each model by its listing. The EV-AC03201T dual-connector AC station (two Type 2 connectors sharing up to 43 kW, OCPP 1.6J, RFID, IP54) and the EV-RHDC30K-L compact DC charger (22 kW DC, OCPP 1.6J, IP54) state the protocol their records travel on. The EV-ACS3210E states app control with energy monitoring and is described as OCPP-ready — the phrase as written, no more. No EVDANCE listing states a firmware version policy, an update mechanism or a fix route: for an EVDANCE claim, the diagnosis route and any firmware remedy are written confirmations to request under the 3-year standard warranty, via the reseller and distributor programme or contact us.
Frequently Asked Questions
The maker calls it a firmware issue, but no fix has arrived. What do we do?
Keep the claim open on the record: file the maker’s written diagnosis and the route their terms promise. The warranty document governs the claim — not the phone call.
Should we ship the unit back while the diagnosis is still open?
Only if the claim route says so. A firmware case gains nothing from two freight legs; a hardware case should travel once, with its evidence pack complete. Routing first decides whether the unit moves at all.
Who decides which side a claim belongs to — us or the maker?
Your evidence proposes the routing; the maker’s warranty process decides the claim. A file built on the table above lets them decide quickly.
Related Reading
- EV Charger Spare Parts and RMA Process for Distributors
- Common EV Charger Faults and How Suppliers Should Handle Them
- Which EV Charger Has the Best Warranty?
- EV Charger Warranty and After-Sales Terms: A Distributor’s Checklist
