Laptop screen packed in flextronics want £200 quid to fix it.

prettypennies

I purchased a HP pavillion laptop 4 months ago.
Last week, I switched it on to find a horizontal and vertical band across the screen and the colour fading and darkening. There appeared to be a pin head dot at the very top of where the lines started from, right at the top of the screen.

The laptop has only ever been used on a desk in the house and has had very light usage. The casing is in is in immaculate condition and there is no damage to the screen itself.

I contacted HP on the advice of the retailer who told me to photograph the screen which I duly did.

After receiving the images, they asked me to send my details so that they could arrange to collect it for repair.

It was collected and taken to Flextronics, who called me today.

They advised me that they were of the opinion that the screen was 'cracked' and therefore not covered by the warranty as it would be deemed customer initiated damage by HP and would cost £200 to repair. The advisor stated that a 'cracked' screen could result from something being shut in the laptop, the laptop being opened from the corner, the laptop being carried by the screen.

I explained that laptop had most certainly not been handled in this manner and did not believe the consumer (namely myself!) to be at fault.

His repsonse was that I could escalate the issue with HP if I was not satisfied.

I then contacted HP again who stated that they could not override the finding of the repair engineer and therefore could be of no further assistance.

They suggested that if I felt there was an inherent fault with the machine, the responsibilty to deal with my complaint lay with the retailer.

Has anyone else had similar dealings with HP and/or flextronics and if so, how did you deal with the situation?

Hammyman

I have to say that I agree with their diagnosis of a crack in the screen. And I have to say that they are also spot on with the usual cause. It is remotely possible that there's a fault with a hinge which meant undue stress being put on the screen when the lid was opened but its remote as in next to impossible to be the problem. However the pinhead dot being on the outside suggests that one of their primary suspicions is likely. Unless you can guarantee you are the only person who ever touches it and that you haven't used it as they describe (only you know that for sure) then it is down to customer misuse.

£200 inc return shipping isn't massively off the mark for a genuine screen. Not knowing the model specifically, I personally would be expecting to charge £100-£120 for a good quality brand name aftermarket screen and between £30-£60 for fitting (some models need basically the whole laptop taking to bits to do) and £15 for return delivery charges.

Your only recourse is to hire your own engineer to produce a report however I suspect it'll come to the same conclusion.

prettypennies

Thanks for your reply.

The pinhead dot was inside the screen however not on the screen iteself. The surface of the screen is perfectly intact.

The hinges are indeed stiff which I put down to the light use the unit has had.

The netbook is a HP pavillion DV6-3119SA. If I genuinely felt it had been mistreated in some way, I would hold my hands up and claim on my house insurance, but I honestly cannot see how it can have been damaged in the manner it has been used.

grumpycrab

But, but, this laptop is only 4 months old and its a manufacturing fault? And the manufacture won't fix as part of the standard 1 year warranty? I'd fight this one all the way.

kwikbreaks

Looks like this is one for the consumer rights section now rather than tech.

I don't always 100% agree with what hammyman posts but on this topic he's giving a FOC professional opinion of the cause of the fault - accidental damage. IMO proving it is a design or manufacturing fault is going to be difficult unless there are shedloads of other reports of the same fault on this model as there were for busted iMacs a while back.

prettypennies

Thanks for the replies. I am going to see if I have any joy with the retailer. Otherwise my only option is to fork out the £200, which makes it a very expensive purchase on top of the £700 I paid in the first place .

I'll stick to desktop PCs in future I think

Mista_C

Closely examine the plastic areas around the hinges, including the lid section near the hinges. Slowly and gently open and close the lid while examing the areas. If you see any sign of cracking then you might be able to plead your case.

There have been known design flaws with HP laptops in the recent past when it comes to the hinge sections. HP used some nasty cheap aluminium parts which started to fracture causing the screen to take the stress of opening and closing. Most are noticable under scrutiny.

HP were very quick to dismiss problems and people had to fight hard with them to get their laptops repaired or replaced.

JasX

prettypennies wrote: »

I'll stick to desktop PCs in future I think

Very sensible there, save £££s when buying plus have something easily repairable/upgradable : )

headpin

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Looks like this is one for the consumer rights section now rather than tech.

I don't always 100% agree with what hammyman posts but on this topic he's giving a FOC professional opinion of the cause of the fault - accidental damage. IMO proving it is a design or manufacturing fault is going to be difficult unless there are shedloads of other reports of the same fault on this model as there were for busted iMacs a while back.

I think the point being missed here is where the burden of proof lies. For any goods less than 6 months old it is not the consumers job to “prove” it was a manufacturing or any other inherrent defect. The burden of proof is with the supplier to prove that the defect was not there when then the purchase was made. Just being of the opinion is not, IMO, a reasonable measure of proof, especially if this so called expert is the manufaturers approved repairer who may be seen to have a biased and potentially finacial interest in protecting the manufacturers position.

In any case, I am not sure why the manufacturer and ther repairer have become involved with the consumer. The contract is between the consumer and the supplier of the goods. In this case I assume the supplier is a shop or similar? It is for the shop to respond to this matter and for the shop to prove that the defect was not present when the sale took place. If they will not accept their legal obligation to deal with this matter then a call to Trading Standards will be in order.

The only problem I can see is that the OP has already been duped by the supplier in to dealing withe the manufacturer and the item (i.e. the laptop) has now been removed to a third party (the repairer) allowing the original supplier to suggest the damage occured at anywhere in between!!! However, as this was done at the suppliers insistence as they did not want to comply with their legal duty and obligation then it may possibly work in the OP's favour.

This is a typical situation where the original supplier tries to make the manufaturer responsible and the ignorance of the consumer is exploited. GO AFTER WHOEVER SOLD YOU THIS FAULTY LAPTOP .

prettypennies

Thankyou for the replies. The laptop was purchased from Marshall Ward (now known as ISME) When I contacted them originally, they told me to contact HP who after asking for and viewing photos of the damage told me to send it in for repair. I assumed that as it was under warranty it would be repaired FOC.

I have since contacted ISME and am waiting for the appropriate department to call me back. Meanwhile, the laptop is still with Flextronics.

Hammyman

headpin wrote: »

I think the point being missed here is where the burden of proof lies. For any goods less than 6 months old it is not the consumers job to “prove” it was a manufacturing or any other inherrent defect. The burden of proof is with the supplier to prove that the defect was not there when then the purchase was made.

The problem is that the OP has a fault that is 99.9% of the time caused by misuse which isn't covered under SOGA but I agree - go after the retailer.