UREGENT Macbook Pro out of warrenty problem

d2cracker

Hi Guys

Need your help, I have a MAcbook Pro replaced by my insurence company 15 month ago. The unit has gone faulty and Consumer Direct have advised me to take it up with the company who supplied the MBP. I have sent them the belkow letter and they have collected the unit and today said that the unit is beond economical repair and is wrote off. They then went on to affer me £600 fo it. Needless to say i declined they said they are in there right to affer this on use of the unit. 33% for year 1 and 25% for year 2.

I have asked for a replacement unit or a repair under the sales of good act.

Can you advise were I stand as needless to say I aint happy. I have told them that the depriciation is rubbish and now way a MBP can depriciate by that much.



Dear Sir/Madam


Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)


On 22/05/2008, I was supplied a Apple MacBook Pro from you for a
insurance claim, which is not of satisfactory quality.


The problems are:

1 Mouse is very noisy
2 Casing is warping and bent
3 Some of the Keys do not always work
4 Will not always charge
5 DVD drive is very noisy
6 Gets extremely hot when on charge


I wish to claim a repair or a replacement of my goods at no cost to
myself, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)


Please respond to my complaint within 14 days from receipt of this letter.

Yours faithfully

somethingcorporate

I am sorry to hear about your troubles with your MBP.

Under the SOGA it is up to the retailer as to what they offer you, whether it be a replacement, refund or repair. You can request but they do not have to accomodate your request.

So, they have offered you a refund, adjusted for use. This is allowed under SOGA however there is nothing to stop you disputing the value.

Personally I would recommend focussing on the valuation that they are putting on your laptop and justifying why this is an unfair value, rather than requesting a different type of resolution (which they can reject outright as they are fulfilling their requirements by offering you a refund). What would a 2 year MBP go for? Check ebay sold listings and use this as a basis for negotiating - you may find what they are offering is a fair valuation. If you do find they are undervaluing then write a letter (sending recorded) with your evidence, negotiating a more realistic value.

If they refuse to agree, in the face of the evidence that you present them with, then I would write a letter before action giving them 14 days to resolve and take them to small claims using MCOL. You would, however, need to justify to the court why their valuation is innaccurate.

Hope that helps.

pulliptears

What do you mean by Mouse is noisy? MacBook Pro's are laptops and don't have a mouse?!

In all honesty, in this case you would have been better taking it into Apple, one of the few manufacturers who it's better to go straight to rather than the retailer.

d2cracker

Its the click part/button

Butlers1982

how much did you pay for it

d2cracker

Hi Guys

Result, they backed down today and offered me a brand new macbookpro :j

But I asked if I could change it for something else as this would be my 3rd macbook. So they are providing me with the new iMac 27" as its the same price as they macbook so RESULT:beer:

smcaul

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Under the SOGA it is up to the retailer as to what they offer you, whether it be a replacement, refund or repair. You can request but they do not have to accomodate your request.

Oh no it's not! would you like to quote the exact part of the SOGA where it states that? This is a misconception that is taking hold on this board at the moment and I wish people would stop giving out false information out about this.

Anihilator

smcaul wrote: »

Oh no it's not! would you like to quote the exact part of the SOGA where it states that? This is a misconception that is taking hold on this board at the moment and I wish people would stop giving out false information out about this.

No it isnt a misconception. The retailer can offer a repair, refund(partial) or replacement.

The only slight qualification to this is that its based on reasonableness hence a refund on a 1 week old item would be reasonable. A full refund on a 2 year old laptop wouldnt be reasonable and a partial refund would.

somethingcorporate

smcaul wrote: »

Oh no it's not! would you like to quote the exact part of the SOGA where it states that? This is a misconception that is taking hold on this board at the moment and I wish people would stop giving out false information out about this.

I'll do it once you can quote the exact part of the SOGA where it says the purchaser can force the retailer into doing a certain something, assuming this is not an out-right rejection within a "reasonable" period.

All you are entitled to is damages to the value of cost of a repair, replacement or partial refund. However, the retailer may offer either of these themselves.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

If you read that you will see all the consumer can do is "request".

neilmcl

smcaul wrote: »

Oh no it's not! would you like to quote the exact part of the SOGA where it states that? This is a misconception that is taking hold on this board at the moment and I wish people would stop giving out false information out about this.

OK, I'll bite.

48B Repair or replacement of the goods
...
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

Again, the misconception is yours. As the legislation clearly states, as well as every other consumer advice website out there, the buyer cannot insist on the remedy.

smcaul

Right, so let me get this straight then, the part you have quoted does not say that the retailer can choose then does it. It basically says that the buyer can not require the seller to repair or replace if the repair or replacement would be disproportionate, which would require the seller to prove this would it not.

Then there would only be one option left open to the seller which would be, all together now on the count of 3, one, two, three - yes thats right a refund!!!!

But, absolutely, 100%, nowhere in the legislation does it give the seller the choice outright, they have to prove that the remedy the purchaser requires would be disproportionate. That is what the legislation states.