Me and my Broken laptop V Evil Tesco

ciderboy2009

point3 wrote: »

£389 HP laptop is unlikely to have the Nvidia graphics card in question.
I should know. I've had mine repaired 5 times now!

Just about any laptop bought around the relevant time with an Nvidia chipset can suffer from the Nvidia defect - it's not just the couple of chipsets that they're admitting to.

Price means nothing - my £399 laptop has got a fault due to the defect.

When you Google Nvidia Fault or Nvidia Defect it's scary how many different laptops/chipsets it's being reported on. What's even more scary is when you wonder how many people are just putting it down to bad luck & throwing their laptop away.

Esqui

lapcure wrote: »

No customer should end up having to accept a refund for less than what they paid for it.

It's not an automatic right though. If Tesco offer £190 for a 18-month old laptop, as they feel that's acceptable remedy, it'd be difficult for a court to rule for a full refund. Of course, that's not to say Tesco won't offer a refund/replacement if you push them.

Mark_Hewitt

I would say 4 years is a good amount of time for a laptop, or any computer to last. Especially one as cheap as £400.

Willsnarf1983

lapcure wrote: »

No customer should end up having to accept a refund for less than what they paid for it.

If a laptop purchased in 2007 failed in 2009 with the Nvidia Defect then because it breached the SOGA in just about every way the customer has every right to demand his/her money refunded in full.

Now, sometimes courts will deduct a little for usage, but not every time.

Members from my forum have been up against all the major retailers, Comet, Currys, PC World etc and in virtually every case we have helped secure a full refund or at the very least a replacement laptop.

On not one occasion has a retailer gone as far as court preferring to settle at the 11th hour.

Take a look at this if you want a bit of inspiration:-

ww w.nvidiadefect.com/post623.html#p623

Remember, it is not your fault the laptop you purchased in good faith turned out to be inherently defective.

Somebody has to pay for that - why should it be you?

Best wishes

Paul
w ww.nvidiadefect.com

You make it out if its some crusading that got you the payout when we all know that its not worth the retailer paying thousends and thousends of pounds on a court case when they can just pay an extra couple hundred quid to make a consumer go away.

Well done on getting the extra money from the companies but in the SOGA its the fair and just way to have a depreciation value. If it isn't done this way then expect prices to rise quickly so companies can account for full replacements of the faulty laptops.

Will

KeithP

Willsnarf1983 wrote: »

You make it out if its some crusading that got you the payout when we all know that its not worth the retailer paying thousends and thousends of pounds on a court case when they can just pay an extra couple hundred quid to make a consumer go away.

Well done on getting the extra money from the companies but in the SOGA its the fair and just way to have a depreciation value. If it isn't done this way then expect prices to rise quickly so companies can account for full replacements of the faulty laptops.

Will

I do understand what you are saying Will.
But perhaps part of your last sentence could be replaced with something like...

...then expect prices to rise so that companies can afford to make laptops without inherent faults.

A subtle difference. :beer:

geordieracer

Just wondering how it makes them Evil? pretty strong stuff that like

lapcure_2

Willsnarf1983 wrote: »

You make it out if its some crusading that got you the payout when we all know that its not worth the retailer paying thousends and thousends of pounds on a court case when they can just pay an extra couple hundred quid to make a consumer go away.

In fairness it is the crusading that secured a full refund.

The customers had to jump through hoops to get what they were legally entitled to with the retailers being defensive and in some cases obstructive all the way.

It would not cost the retailers thousands to attend the court case as that would be done by a junior solicitor.

What the retailer doesn't want is for this to go to court because that then heightens the chances of publicity - which they really don't want. Can you imagine the stampede of customers wanting a refund/replacement laptop when they realise that their laptop was inherently faulty from day one?

This, in my opinion, is why they don't want to go to court - it all boils down to publicity.

Best wishes

Paul
w ww.nvidiadefect.com

Esqui

But the customer isn't "legally entitled to" a full refund in most of these cases.

Willsnarf1983

lapcure wrote: »

In fairness it is the crusading that secured a full refund.

The customers had to jump through hoops to get what they were legally entitled to with the retailers being defensive and in some cases obstructive all the way.

It would not cost the retailers thousands to attend the court case as that would be done by a junior solicitor.

What the retailer doesn't want is for this to go to court because that then heightens the chances of publicity - which they really don't want. Can you imagine the stampede of customers wanting a refund/replacement laptop when they realise that their laptop was inherently faulty from day one?

This, in my opinion, is why they don't want to go to court - it all boils down to publicity.

Best wishes

Paul
w ww.nvidiadefect.com

Don't get me wrong its good you have got the customers their money but I and many others would say they are not legally entitled to all their money back after using it for 18 months.

I would still disagree as to why they pay out, it would still cost the companies more money to defend their case even via a junior solicitor (in wages in preparing the case etc) than the £200 they could just pay the consumer, if however they got a sudden rush of people trying it on the of course they would defend their position (think of the bank charges, at first they paid people of but ultimatly hundreds of claims because tens of thousends and they believe it is better to defend their stance at the moment (until they lose))

Also would you then say the same applies to someone that buys a car, if after 2 years of using a car would they be entitled to a brand new car even though before their car became irreparable (sp) they did 30000 miles or should they be allowed a car to the same value as that car would be now?

Will

Willsnarf1983

KeithP wrote: »

I do understand what you are saying Will.
But perhaps part of your last sentence could be replaced with something like...

...then expect prices to rise so that companies can afford to make laptops without inherent faults.

A subtle difference. :beer:

Whilst that would be nice I cannot believe that there are any electronics, cars etc etc etc that have a 100% success rate

Will