Refund on Faulty Nine Month Old Laptop

scullster

Fire Fox - you've got to be one of the most polite forum posters I've ever come across, you've thanked practically everyone for posting in response to your query even though you've not got the answer you wanted.

I don't think there is written rule of thumb for partial refunds, you'd need to evaluate a useful lifetime for the product, e.g. 5 years and then evaluate loss per year. This wouldn't be linear, depreciation rarely is, you could try crude projections at 20% loss of value per year, 30%, 40% etc... but which % is correct?

20% per year on a £1000 laptop, value at the end of Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5 respectively:
£ 800.00, £ 640.00, £ 512.00, £ 409.60, £ 327.68

40% per year:
£ 600.00, £ 360.00, £ 216.00, £ 129.60, £ 77.76

asbokid

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

"The couple have since been given a replacement set worth £280, although Peter is still not entirely happy. "Tesco has also agreed to pay £111 to have our aerial upgraded "

But even after getting a new telly, and having Tesco foot the bill for an aerial he's still not happy!

But Peter paid Tesco £400 for the faulty television. He should not have to accept an inferior product as a replacement. Nor should he be forced to accept re-imbursement in a different form (i.e. the aerial upgrade) What if Tesco had said he could only have a refund in the form of vouchers for the Tesco cafe?

And why was Peter ordered to leave the store when he originally exercised his consumer rights and demanded either a full refund or a replacement TV of the same value?

And why wasn't the exchange of goods authorised immediately by Tesco? Why did Peter have a protracted argument with the retailer, over many months?

Since it took all this effort and the involvement of a national newspaper before Peter was re-imbursed, what chance for the rest of us with less time, and no consumer champion to bolster our side?

Peter's case was appalling. It doesn't instill any confidence in Tesco. Furthermore, it underlines the fact that Tesco (in common with other retailers) is still not observing the law.

Under EU consumer law, the minimum period of warranty for electrical goods is two years, and not one year, as Tesco is falsely claiming.

markybaby

asbokid wrote: »

Hunch...

And Staples may indeed have a global "turnover of nearly $30bn" but an arbitrary figure for turnover counts for nothing if is reporting huge losses, (particularly in its British stores)

Then your hunch is wrong, Staples isn't reporting huge losses, in fact it's UK arm is in profit and is doing very well. I am not being pedantic here but incorrect 'hunches' can have a negative effect on retailers as people percieve they are in trouble when they are not. In my view we have probably seen the last of the surprise closure announcements and any other retailer going to the wall will be ones that have already been mentioned as having problems. AFAIK Staples has never been mentioned as being in trouble at all...... unless you know facts none of us are aware of. BTW hope OP sorted out his laptop.

Fire_Fox

scullster wrote: »

Fire Fox - you've got to be one of the most polite forum posters I've ever come across, you've thanked practically everyone for posting in response to your query even though you've not got the answer you wanted.

I don't think there is written rule of thumb for partial refunds, you'd need to evaluate a useful lifetime for the product, e.g. 5 years and then evaluate loss per year. This wouldn't be linear, depreciation rarely is, you could try crude projections at 20% loss of value per year, 30%, 40% etc... but which % is correct?

20% per year on a £1000 laptop, value at the end of Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5 respectively:
£ 800.00, £ 640.00, £ 512.00, £ 409.60, £ 327.68

40% per year:
£ 600.00, £ 360.00, £ 216.00, £ 129.60, £ 77.76

The sales manager at Staples offered to take my contact details and is discussing the situation with one of his colleagues/ superiors. I have also been provided with the address and e-mail of customer care, should what the store is able to come up with be unsatisfactory ...

I've thanked everyone as they took the trouble to respond to my thread and it is helping compose a letter. Nobody completely ripped me to bits, and several made good 'devils advocate'. Double thanks to Scullster for attempting my initial question. :T

I will post back in a week or two if/ when I get a little further!

asbokid

markybaby wrote: »

Then your hunch is wrong, Staples isn't reporting huge losses, in fact it's UK arm is in profit and is doing very well.

I didn't say it was reporting huge losses! I said that a billion dollar turnover counts for nothing if there are huge losses.

And as it happens, it was a timely "hunch".. Staples is not doing well.. Only today, the company reported a huge slump in profits in the first quarter of this year. Last July, the retailer acquired a Dutch rival, Corporate Express. There are now questions over Staples' ability to service its debts from that heavily leveraged deal.

I am not being pedantic here but incorrect 'hunches' can have a negative effect on retailers as people percieve they are in trouble when they are not.

From your defensive tone, you sound like you have an unstated personal interest in Staples, perhaps as an employee, or as a shareholder, or both? However, this is a forum for consumers, and not for Staples staff or shareholders to anonymously talk up their stock.

No one here wants to see any business go to the wall but neither does anyone want to lose cash to a retailer in crisis, nor do we want to be lumbered with goods that effectively have no warranty.

My initial point, which seems to have been lost (but which I still stand by) is that it is generally inadvisable to buy warranted high-value goods from a company that is performing badly.

In the event that those goods become faulty, it is more likely that the customer will encounter difficulties when seeking a refund or a replacement from a distressed company than he would do from a company that is performing well.

In my view we have probably seen the last of the surprise closure announcements and any other retailer going to the wall will be ones that have already been mentioned as having problems.

Wolseley (Plumb Center/Build Center)
Travis Perkins (Wickes)
Jessops..

Those are just three retailers at imminent risk of failure.. And besides I've got to say Pot-kettle-black at this point.. "In my view" is a hunch in itself! But it's your hunch!

If you want to be bullish while others are bearish then so be it... That's how the market works.. But there's no need for the self-righteousness!

Fire_Fox

To report back I have had no response at all to my letter, not even "sod off" or an offer of repair!! And despite the store manager offering to take my phone number he never rang either. Will report again when I have chased up with another letter.