Me and my Broken laptop V Evil Tesco

esuhl

Just a suggestion, but it might be worth trying to find an identical model of laptop on eBay to see how much they go for. If they're significantly more than £190 (and actually sell at that price), you could argue that the £190 is under market value.

Otherwise, Tesco have probably fulfilled their legal obligation.

Hope this helps...

dmg24

Esqui wrote: »

It wasn't so much a depreciation calculation, more:

A £389 laptop should last for x years. Therefore, the value on usage is 389/x per year.

OK, that's incredibly simplified, and probably wrong. But I wasn't trying to calculate the depreciation in value. I bought a £489 laptop about 18 months ago, and it'd be worth maybe £200 at most now if I were to sell it.

I understand, but I am pretty sure that Tesco work on a reducing balance basis when making this calculation, and therefore your suggestion that they are saying it should only last three years is not accurate.

Esqui

I think you're right

*stays quiet*

neilmcl

dmg24 wrote: »

I understand, but I am pretty sure that Tesco work on a reducing balance basis when making this calculation, and therefore your suggestion that they are saying it should only last three years is not accurate.

That may be so but that's not how the courts look at it. They simply take how long an item is reasonably going to last and divide the purchase price subtracting any amounts for fair usage, depreciation doesn't come into it. If you'd expect a laptop to last for say 4 years then it would be £389 - (389/48)*18, which would come to around £243.

Having said that £190 is fair enough considering all the hassle and possibly cost to the OP it would be to take this further.

tightarsey

Do you have to return the laptop?, if not do not open it and leave it intact - these HP's sell quite well on ebay as faulty, so say you got £100 on ebay + the money from Tesco, I don't think your that out of pocket. Might be another option, list on ebay as 'spares and repairs' money from Tesco + the scrap value.

ciderboy2009

OP - You don't say what the fault is.

Is it something to do with the graphics? If so then does the laptop have an Nvidia chipset?

If answers to both questions are yes then there is a good chance that you're suffering from the Nvidia defect and will be able to prove that the laptop was inherently defective at the time of purchase - there are an increasing number of people who have received full refunds from large suppliers because of this defect.

dmg24

neilmcl wrote: »

That may be so but that's not how the courts look at it. They simply take how long an item is reasonably going to last and divide the purchase price subtracting any amounts for fair usage, depreciation doesn't come into it. If you'd expect a laptop to last for say 4 years then it would be £389 - (389/48)*18, which would come to around £243.

Having said that £190 is fair enough considering all the hassle and possibly cost to the OP it would be to take this further.

Having been involved in a case applying this principle, I would disagree. The District Judge was happy to make an award based on the reducing balance basis as described above.

cajef

humphriess wrote: »

Hi,
I took my laptop to a local repair shop, they told me it would cost more than the value of the laptop to fix so it wasn't worth it.

What did they say was wrong with it, did they give you an estimate for the repair, what did they value it at and did you get a second opinion.

If they do not think it is worth much then the £190 Tesco have given you may be a fair amount.

smcaul

dmg24 wrote: »

Having been involved in a case applying this principle, I would disagree. The District Judge was happy to make an award based on the reducing balance basis as described above.

What was the product though? Unlikely that a laptop will be on a reducing balance, much more likely to have straight line depreciation. Where a a car would fit your example better.

All my office equipment is straight lined on my balance sheets, think you might have got a Judge who did not understand things!!!!

4743hudsonj

dmg24 wrote: »

Having been involved in a case applying this principle, I would disagree. The District Judge was happy to make an award based on the reducing balance basis as described above.

i agree

reducing balance depreciation is far more accurate than straight line and in my experience too its what tesco seem to use.

OP youve got a good deal, live with it