Faulty Notebook -Comet refusing to repair

DCodd

Sorry weirdlittleman but the op has been given the brush off and needs to demand a full explanation.

To the OP, post this on the Techie thread and see what they say you should do.

DCodd

pendulum wrote: »

I think he is because the other side have fielded an expert's opinion to say its customer induced damage. Its back on to the customer to show it isn't now.
?

They can't just say "customer induced damage" they have to quantify their findings.

Very proactive rest of post pendulum:T

Weirdlittleman

DCodd wrote: »

Sorry weirdlittleman but the op has been given the brush off and needs to demand a full explanation.

To the OP, post this on the Techie thread and see what they say you should do.

Dont get me wrong they probably have but what exactly benefit is there pursuing the retailer with no evidence to the contrary.

The OP should get the laptop back and get their own expert to look at it and state contrary then go back to them.

As you say its a brush off and no doubt letters etc from the retailer blaming the customer would be forthcoming and waste lots of time.

DCodd

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Dont get me wrong they probably have but what exactly benefit is there pursuing the retailer with no evidence to the contrary.

The OP should get the laptop back and get their own expert to look at it and state contrary then go back to them.

As you say its a brush off and no doubt letters etc from the retailer blaming the customer would be forthcoming and waste lots of time.

But having another engineer take the laptop apart and look at it would more than likely invalidate the warranty anyway at this stage, which is why the OP needs to get a better response than just "customer induced damage" but needs to know what is damaged and how they think the op was able to damage it.

smcaul

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

What part of a computer expert stating that the damage is customer induced isn't proof ?

All of it basically, just saying it does not make it correct, they must back up their findings with documented evidence, remember they have to PROVE the fault was NOT there at the time of purchase, the burden of proof is down to them - as has already been said!!!

The OP says the laptop has not been dropped or mis treated, as such one would assume that there is no external physical damage, so how did the "expert" deduce that the fault is down to misuse?

From my own experiences of repairing laptops I can tell you that there is next to no room inside them for things to rattle about, so unless there is visible external damage it is neigh on impossible to say that fault was caused by mis use.

Annisele

From a practical (not a legal) standpoint, I'd contact the credit card issuer and tell them that I'd bought a product using their credit card, the product was faulty, and I wanted it replaced/my money refunded (depending on what I actually did want). I'd still try and pursue a claim against the retailer, and then I'd drop the claim once one of them paid up.

The Financial Ombudsman Service publishes some information about section 75 claims. Essentially, if section 75 applies the credit card provider and the retailer are equally liable - and the consumer can choose which one to pursue.

The bank is likely to give you the brush off - but it sounds as though that's what you're getting now from Comet. Sometimes s75 claims to banks persuades the bank to put pressure on the retailer to sort the matter out; sometimes the bank just pays up. If you think the bank isn't acting properly, you can complain to the bank and then to FOS. But you can only complain to FOS about the bank, not the retailer.

(It would probably be best not to threaten Comet with making a report to a random splattering of bodies - I can't see the relevance of, say, Environmental Health officers. I think that if somebody does have a valid argument, mentioning referral to a random splattering of bodies weakens the argument - it suggests that the writer doesn't actually know their legal rights and can be ignored without consequences).

Comet_company_representative

peanut1964 wrote: »

I purchased a Compaq Notebook on 15th Feb 2010. Everything was OK until about six weeks later when load of lines appeared on the screen. I couldn't do anything. I took it back to Comet in Llanelli, and they sent it off to repair. About 2 weeks later I was told it was ready to be collected. The repairs had not been done, when asked the assistant didn't know why so he phoned Comet repair department and Compaq. He was told it was because "Customer induced damage" I told him that I had not dropped it, damaged or abused it in any way. He said that as it was assessed by compaq/HP and their assessment was relayed to Comets repair department as customer induced damage it is not covered by the guarantee. I took the computer home and phone Comet helpline department. They said that if I take it back to the shop and ask them to send it off to Comets esculation department they should be able to do something, as they have "more clout with the manufacturers". Again, the store sent it off and 3 weeks later it came back again not repaired with the same excuse. I have not damaged it myself, also there is no visible signs of damage to the computer, I said to the assistant that there may have been a fault with the computer before I bought it, and it has only now become apparent. He smiled and said that is not possible. I then asked if he was an engineer and how can he make that assumption, he then got stroppy and quoted the customer induced damage again.
I am now in the process of writing to the manager of Comet, Llanelli store regarding their decision not to repair, as they are assuming that the fault does lie with me, the customer. I am also quoting sections from Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Regulations Act.

My main question is if Comet continue to say that the damage is customer induced, as assessed by the manufacturers, and not do the repair under the guarantee, am I still covered under sections of the act?????? and/or covered elsewhere.

In the letter I am also stating that if there is an unsatisfactory response, I will be contacting the Trading Standards, Enviromental Health Officers, arbitration, FOS or any other consumer governing bodies. If they are still persistent I can either take it to a small claims court or approach the credit company, as I purchased it on a Comet Card, which is Santander., but I have read that the credit card companies try to redirect you back to the retailer.

I am really unhappy with their response, I honestly feel that they are fobbing me off. I genuinely did not do any accidental damage to the computer. :(:(:(

Hi peanut1964,

My name’s Andy and I’m from Comet.

Unfortunately, from the information you have provided I am unable to comment on your particular case. I would advise, however, in instances such as this we would always require a qualified technician to inspect the notebook. If they are stating that the problem has been caused by some form of damage other than a mechanical failure then we should be explaining how they came to this conclusion and how we would ascertain whether or not this would have been present at point of sale.

I am sorry if you were led to believe that if you contacted the escalation dept that you would have been given a different response.

Therefore, so that I can look into your particular case further could you please send me an e-mail using the link below. You will need to register a few details with us in order to be able to send your e-mail in.

https://comet.custhelp.com

Thanks,

Andy

prettypennies

I have had the same issue with a HP notebook purchased from ISME 4 months ago.

The details of my issue are on the techi thread here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3169566=

I have been left feeling very disappointed with both ISME and HP. Whilst I accept that cracked screen issues can be caused by consumer misuse, it is deeply unfair to hide behind this excuse to renege on their the obligations under the SOGA. As with the OP I can categorically confirm that my notebook has been treated with kid gloves.

I should not have been put in the postion where I have to prove that the damage was caused by an inherent fault as the onus is on the retailer to prove that it was not. Pushing customers onto the supplier in order to wash their hands of responsibility is simply not on. I intend to persue my case with ISME until it is satisfactorily resolved.