Pulsar / Yukon warranty support issues - A warning to the community

[dima922]

Hi everyone,

I want to share my recent experience with Pulsar Vision / Yukon Advanced Optics customer support regarding their warranty obligations. I believe this information will be useful for anyone who relies on their official service and corporate commitments.

My thermal imaging unit suffered repeated manufacturing defects while still under official warranty. Following discussions with their headquarters, Pulsar's Chief After-Sales Officer, Tomas Pukas, voluntarily proposed in writing to focus on financial compensation. On May 6, he officially confirmed that they were coordinating a €3,000 reimbursement for my specific defective Talion unit (SN 801503983). I formally accepted this solution.

However, Pulsar's support team has now unilaterally backed out of this executive agreement. They claim that because the device was originally destined for a different market before arriving in Europe, their regional distributor (Delta Optical) cannot process the cash refund.

Instead of honoring the written agreement made by their own Chief Officer, they unilaterally shipped an unwanted replacement device from discontinued legacy warehouse stock. Furthermore, they explicitly stated in writing that because it is a replacement unit, they refuse to issue a standard warranty, leaving this obsolete model with just a remaining 3-month cover.

I have strictly refused to accept this delivery from the dealer, and the package is being sent straight back to their warehouse.

Due to mobile browser technical limitations, I cannot attach the screenshots directly to this initial post, but I am ready to provide the full email logs and correspondence headers to the forum moderators upon request to verify every single word.

I wanted to ask the community — has anyone else faced situations where Pulsar completely shifted the goalposts or canceled officially agreed compensation terms? Be very careful when counting on their executive written promises.

 

[Flash G 74]

Hello, Surely it was up to the dealer to issue a refund ?

 

[dima922]

Hello, Surely it was up to the dealer to issue a refund ?

Hi Flash G 74,

Normally, yes, you are absolutely correct. However, in this specific case, Pulsar's headquarters took over the communication directly.

Their Chief After-Sales Officer, Tomas Pukas, bypassed the standard dealer route and voluntarily committed in writing to coordinate a €3,000 reimbursement directly from the manufacturer.

The issue now is that the manufacturer is backing out of their executive written promise, claiming their regional distributor (Delta Optical) cannot process it because the device originally came from a different market zone. Instead of resolving this on a corporate level as promised, they tried to bypass the refund by forcing a discontinued replacement unit on me.

 

[andyk]

Been fine with me, I’d bought a second hand Krypton which stopped working. It was replaced with a brand new Krypton 2. Took a while, but I can’t complain about that outcome.

But, in the U.K. we would only usually deal with the importer, Thomas Jacks, rather than Pulsar directly. So most experience is going to be more a reflection on TJs than Pulsar.

 

[Flash G 74]

Hi Flash G 74,

Normally, yes, you are absolutely correct. However, in this specific case, Pulsar's headquarters took over the communication directly.

Their Chief After-Sales Officer, Tomas Pukas, bypassed the standard dealer route and voluntarily committed in writing to coordinate a €3,000 reimbursement directly from the manufacturer.

The issue now is that the manufacturer is backing out of their executive written promise, claiming their regional distributor (Delta Optical) cannot process it because the device originally came from a different market zone. Instead of resolving this on a corporate level as promised, they tried to bypass the refund by forcing a discontinued replacement unit on me.

Hello, That is pretty poor show for a multinational company

 

[dima922]

Hello, That is pretty poor show for a multinational company

@Flash G 74 Exactly, you hit the nail on the head. It is incredibly disappointing to see a multinational brand that commands premium prices handle its official executive commitments like a backyard shop.

When a global company completely shifts the goalposts on a written agreement, they lose the trust of the very community that keeps them in business.

 

[dima922]

Been fine with me, I’d bought a second hand Krypton which stopped working. It was replaced with a brand new Krypton 2. Took a while, but I can’t complain about that outcome.

But, in the U.K. we would only usually deal with the importer, Thomas Jacks, rather than Pulsar directly. So most experience is going to be more a reflection on TJs than Pulsar.

That is a great outcome in your case, and it shows how a proper warranty process should work. However, my situation is fundamentally different from a standard device replacement.

In my case, Pulsar’s headquarters formally and voluntarily proposed a financial settlement in writing. Their Chief After-Sales Officer confirmed a EUR 3,000 cash refund, which I officially accepted, creating a binding agreement.

The issue is that Pulsar unilaterally stepped back from this financial commitment. Instead of the agreed funds, they made a one-sided decision to ship a discontinued, refurbished unit from legacy stock, with only a 3-month remaining warranty.

While a new replacement device works well for standard claims, forcing a legacy refurbished unit to substitute an officially agreed €3,000 financial compensation is a breach of an executive commitment. This is why the situation goes beyond regular customer service.

 

[dima922]

Hi everyone,

I want to share my recent experience with Pulsar Vision / Yukon Advanced Optics customer support regarding their warranty obligations. I believe this information will be useful for anyone who relies on their official service and corporate commitments.

My thermal imaging unit suffered repeated manufacturing defects while still under official warranty. Following discussions with their headquarters, Pulsar's Chief After-Sales Officer, Tomas Pukas, voluntarily proposed in writing to focus on financial compensation. On May 6, he officially confirmed that they were coordinating a €3,000 reimbursement for my specific defective Talion unit (SN 801503983). I formally accepted this solution.

However, Pulsar's support team has now unilaterally backed out of this executive agreement. They claim that because the device was originally destined for a different market before arriving in Europe, their regional distributor (Delta Optical) cannot process the cash refund.

Instead of honoring the written agreement made by their own Chief Officer, they unilaterally shipped an unwanted replacement device from discontinued legacy warehouse stock. Furthermore, they explicitly stated in writing that because it is a replacement unit, they refuse to issue a standard warranty, leaving this obsolete model with just a remaining 3-month cover.

I have strictly refused to accept this delivery from the dealer, and the package is being sent straight back to their warehouse.

Due to mobile browser technical limitations, I cannot attach the screenshots directly to this initial post, but I am ready to provide the full email logs and correspondence headers to the forum moderators upon request to verify every single word.

I wanted to ask the community — has anyone else faced situations where Pulsar completely shifted the goalposts or canceled officially agreed compensation terms? Be very careful when counting on their executive written promises.

Update on the situation: Since I now have the ability to attach files directly, I am posting the official written confirmation from Pulsar’s Chief After-Sales Officer, Tomas Pukas. As you can clearly see, the €3,000 financial settlement was formally committed to and accepted.

Interestingly, instead of honoring this executive agreement or addressing the issue professionally, Pulsar Optics has chosen to restrict and lock down comments on their corporate social media posts after I brought this documented evidence to light there.

It seems a global premium brand prefers censorship and forcing discontinued refurbished stock on consumers over basic corporate accountability. The package with the unwanted refurbished unit is already on its way back to them.

 

[B&W FOX]

In the UK all of Pulsar products that are destined for our market come via Thomas Jacks as a wholesaler.
They also handle all warranty claims and repairs.
As I've been using their products for year's and have had the need to send back a couple of items for replacement and or repair I've never had a problem with them.

You can't buy a vehicle that is manufactured for the Asian market, that has been shipped to Europe, then expect the European Head Office to to give you warranty, replacement or repairs on it.
Your buying an import, and pays your money and takes a chance.

 

[dima922]

In the UK all of Pulsar products that are destined for our market come via Thomas Jacks as a wholesaler.
They also handle all warranty claims and repairs.
As I've been using their products for year's and have had the need to send back a couple of items for replacement and or repair I've never had a problem with them.

You can't buy a vehicle that is manufactured for the Asian market, that has been shipped to Europe, then expect the European Head Office to to give you warranty, replacement or repairs on it.
Your buying an import, and pays your money and takes a chance.

@B&W FOX I completely understand your point about grey imports, but that is not the case here at all.

The device was fully official and was actually sent back directly to the Pulsar factory in Lithuania three separate times for repairs. The factory accepted it under official warranty every single time, fully recognizing the persistent technical issues.

The core of the problem here isn't the origin of the device, but corporate governance. Their Chief After-Sales Officer voluntarily proposed and officially signed off on a EUR 3,000 financial settlement, which I formally accepted. Backing out of a signed executive agreement after the fact and trying to substitute it with a refurbished legacy unit is a direct breach of a binding corporate commitment.

 

[Blackwood Outdoors]

As it stands after 6 month from purchase you are then using the supplied 3 year warranty to cover repair , if the product is faulty after this period of time, it needs to be resolved from the country specific distributor were you purchased this item, not via Pulsar direct.

Personally these type of forum posts just end up with people having a say who do not know the full facts. Better to close this topic and deal with the issue with distributor who controls the region you purchased from.

 

[dima922]

As it stands after 6 month from purchase you are then using the supplied 3 year warranty to cover repair , if the product is faulty after this period of time, it needs to be resolved from the country specific distributor were you purchased this item, not via Pulsar direct.

Personally these type of forum posts just end up with people having a say who do not know the full facts. Better to close this topic and deal with the issue with distributor who controls the region you purchased from.

@Blackwood Outdoors I understand your perspective as a trade member regarding standard warranty procedures. However, suggesting to close a topic where a global brand's executive management directly breaches a signed financial agreement is not the solution.

The local distributor route was already bypassed because Pulsar’s European headquarters voluntarily took over the case. Their Chief After-Sales Officer, Tomas Pukas, completed an internal review, legally offered a EUR 3,000 settlement, and confirmed they were coordinating the payout.

This is no longer a standard "repair or replace" warranty claim handled by a regional dealer. This is a matter of corporate accountability. When a manufacturer’s top executive gives an official written financial commitment and then unilaterally backs out, consumers and the community have every right to discuss it openly. Transparency is what keeps premium brands accountable.

 

[Flash G 74]

Hello, Hope you get sorted

 

[Community Team]

@dima922 I feel you have made your point, but continuing this thread isn't going to help resolve the issue