Leica’s 2 October reply: reconcile each product and payment

The archive records a company letter dated 2 October 2026 from J. Winter. It describes specified work on the M (Typ 240), Noctilux-M and Summilux-M as complimentary and regards the matter as closed. The consumer acknowledges the reply and disputes resolution of the case.

Reported original wording from the company letter

In your case, we have therefore conducted complimentary work on your Leica M (Type 240), Noctilux-M and Summilux-M lens.

That response represents Leica Camera AG’s final response on this matter.

We respectfully consider this matter closed.

The letter does not mention the M9. The €1,303 + VAT figure in the CCD dispute is an estimate or cost contribution, not proof of payment. Records for orders 1058152 and 1105973 must be matched to each product, invoice, actual payment, work and refund before any contradiction can be established.

The consumer reports that the M (Typ 240) repair was also paid for and that both the M9 and M (Typ 240) failed again within half a year. This is the consumer’s account, not an admission by Leica or an independently established diagnosis. The consumer requests a documented explanation and a practical remedy.

The historical 2014 CCD goodwill statement concerns the listed CCD models. It does not establish an unconditional lifetime warranty or apply that CCD policy to the M (Typ 240) CMOS sensor.