Fault with my 16-month old £400 HP laptop - do I have any rights?

MarkBargain

Thanks for the latest postings.

I agree it is a lot of hassle to go to for a keyboard, some of this is my annoyance at my HP laptop and my sister's HP laptop both developing faults so soon after purchases.

The point about the ribbon cable to the keyboard possibly needing re-seating is interesting, I could check that before ordering a new keyboard. £15 is very little I know, but I've never used a US keyboard so will probably pay £35 for a UK one. If I replace the keyboard and it still has the same fault that will be bad luck. :-D

Whatever happens the laptop won't become a doorstop as it works fine with an external keyboard so can be used pretty much as a desktop. It can still connect to the TV for iPlayer HD etc. so all is not lost.

asbokid

MarkBargain wrote: »

The point about the ribbon cable to the keyboard possibly needing re-seating is interesting, I could check that before ordering a new keyboard. £15 is very little I know, but I've never used a US keyboard so will probably pay £35 for a UK one. If I replace the keyboard and it still has the same fault that will be bad luck. :-D

The US keyboard will be identical in every way to your UK keyboard, except for a handful of different symbols printed on the key tops..

On a US keyboard, SHIFT 3 produces a # rather than £, etc..

But if the software keymap in the operating system is left configured for a UK keyboard, pressing SHIFT 3 will still produce a £ symbol, whatever is printed on the keytop!

You would soon familiarise to the differences, or you could perhaps pull off the relevant key tops from your old UK keyboard and pop them on the new one.

Good luck whatever you do..

CoolHotCold

If its not the keyboard thats faulty then send the new one back under the DSR.

Toxteth_OGrady

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Yes Toxteth, but outside of 6 months it is assumed that there was no fault at time of purchase and a expert has to check and say there was a fault at manufacturing. They can't state it wasn't accidental damage or wear and tear and have to state it was a fault since purchase thats only just made its appearance.
Though I've read the SoGA, SoGaSA, SaSoGA and SaSoGtCR back to front and it doesn't actually state you need a interdependent report done, but everyone recommends (though everyone quotes the SoGA as its a while lot easier than the others to remember)


Problem is, its a keyboard, you'd expect it to get wear and tear, though not exactly the type that you've described.

And yes you can claim its unreasonable to expect a laptop to break after x months and say its not satisfactory quality, but if the retailer decides you need a report done, then theres nothing more to do except get the report done.

My understanding that the onus on the buyer, after 6 months, to prove that there was an inherent defect during manufacture only applies when claiming the laptop is not of satisafactory quality under SOGA because it was 'not free from defects.'

Freedom from defects is only one of several factors that contribute overall to 'satisfactory quality.' The others are fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, safety and durability.

Satisfactory Quality. An implied term in a contract for the sale of goods within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA). Goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard which a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of:

Any description of the goods;

The price; and

All other relevant circumstances (section 14(2A), SOGA).

In addition, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following factors (among others) are to be taken into account in determining whether goods are of satisfactory quality:

Fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied;

Appearance and finish;

Freedom from minor defects;

Safety; and

Durability (section 14(2B), SOGA).

If the OP believes it unreasonable for a laptop to only last 16 months then inadequate durability is the basis of the claim. The counter-arguments the seller could have is either that the problem was caused by the user through misuse/damage or that most laptops are only designed to last 16 months.

An independent report would help counter the former and the supplier would have to test the reasonableness of the latter in court.

easyhost

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Yes they should be required to sell more robust machines. BUT that means better components which means a high price point.

You can demand they start manking more robust items but it will come with the conciquence of having a high price point.

Also, wrong forum, try the consumer advice board. But as I only visit the Consumer advice/Technie/Vent&Praise boards I'll say what you;d get from the Consumer Advice board.

You have the SoGA which protects you from inherent faults up to 6 years. This does not mean you have a 6 year guarantee, it means that within the first 6 months the retailer must prove it was you that borked it, outside of 6 months YOU must prove it was faulty since purchase date. (however most items come with 1 year guarantee by standard so outside of 1 year you must prove).

So if you wanted to take further action against the retailer you would have to pay for a engineers report to say it was faulty since purchase and the retailer will then decide to offer a repair/partial refund/exchange.


Now Currys and PcWorld are actually better in terms of the SoGA then most retailers, if you phone KnowHow and ask about claiming under the SoGA for your purchase you should be transfered to a department who deal with these types of calls. If its something well known they will offer a partial refund and you will get a BACS (you can even email them also). However if it is something that is fairly obvious wasn't faulty at DOP then they will refuse any comp at this time and advise you on how to go about getting a report done.

so high street stores keep the costs down on computers is that when you buy any computer off the shelf they will most likely have the cheapest components possible. i have seen several systems bought off the shelf from PCworld and finding cheap sound/graphics cards along with memory cards. where within weeks I have replaced these parts with more robust and reliable parts, keeping the factory parts at hand incase needed for warranty purposes

CoolHotCold

easyhost wrote: »

so high street stores keep the costs down on computers is that when you buy any computer off the shelf they will most likely have the cheapest components possible. i have seen several systems bought off the shelf from PCworld and finding cheap sound/graphics cards along with memory cards. where within weeks I have replaced these parts with more robust and reliable parts, keeping the factory parts at hand incase needed for warranty purposes

If you could point me in the direction of systems with sound cards I would love to see that, as every computer (save some HP's with TV tuners and the like) I have seen at PcWorld doesn't have one, and to be fair most people will not notice any difference between the one built onto the MoBo and a separate one. Nowadays built in is fine for 99% of the population, go back 3 or 5 years and yes theres a noticeable difference.
And these Memory Cards? Try RAM and with Ram its either working 100% or its not and windows will constantly crash, again 99% of the population the RAM within the system will do, (especially as just about every manufacturer uses Samsung chips) and you only need to pay more to get better quality if you want to overclock (But why you would be doing it on a stock system I have no idea)


But I'm not sure what relevance you're post has to this except to say PcWorld stock systems based on consumer demand with entry price point = entry components with more expensive systems available that are arguably more reliable.

The consumer is misleading himself if he thinks a £250 laptop will last as long as a £500 one with comparable specs. But then again, most laptops are built in Taiwan by two ODM's (Orginal Design Manufacters) Compal & another company I forget.

CoolHotCold

Toxteth_OGrady wrote: »

My understanding that the onus on the buyer, after 6 months, to prove that there was an inherent defect during manufacture only applies when claiming the laptop is not of satisafactory quality under SOGA because it was 'not free from defects.'

Freedom from defects is only one of several factors that contribute overall to 'satisfactory quality.' The others are fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, safety and durability.



If the OP believes it unreasonable for a laptop to only last 16 months then inadequate durability is the basis of the claim. The counter-arguments the seller could have is either that the problem was caused by the user through misuse/damage or that most laptops are only designed to last 16 months.

An independent report would help counter the former and the supplier would have to test the reasonableness of the latter in court.

Hrmmm, I believe we both agree the onus is on the consumer to prove they were not Satisfactory Quality when outside 6 months. And although not stated in the law usually means a expert inspecting the goods and getting a report done.

Where I think we differ is, you think so long as its not Wear&Tear or Damage the buyer doesn't need to prove the fault was there since purchase (as in this case the durability is assumed to be longer than 16 months).
Where I think outside of 6 months you need a report done (if asked by the retailer) that states the fault was there since purchase so inherently fault.

It is true most laptops are designed to last years (usually) but failures do happen. Components do fail (again how do you tell if a component failed from wear and tear or from manufacturing fault).


But lets say for example your stance on the law is right. Would the retailer not argue that the price of £400 for that specification 16 months ago was the cheapest around

(2A)
For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

and that wear and tear would be the constant use of the keys causing the keyboard to fail? (or they could argue that electronics don't like getting hot and the user failed to keep the system within designed parameters (like using it on a blanket) so the parts overheated prematurely causing damage caused by the user). That would be within the law to argue and impossible for the user to argue against, or even Notebooks are due to their nature more fragile then other systems as the heat is contained within so turning on the system is wear and tear and for the price and specifications and timeframe taken into account there is no breach and the goods are durable for the use the user has gotten. (again electronics a laptop left on 24 hours for 16 months has lasted well do you not think, a laptop used for a hour a week for 16 months, not so good).

Again, the law is Grey and murky. (Which is why I suppose lawyers get paided so well)

MarkBargain

That's the trouble, they could argue that almost anything I did caused the fault so would take my £50 for the inspection and say thanks very much. Even if I kept the laptop in the box for 16 months they would probably argue the room was too warm/cold or the box was the wrong way up! :-D

Is the moral of the story that people buying laptops should purchase extra warranty? I've seen HP "care pack" warranties for around £60 for an extra two years and Acer at about £40 (not sure about other brands). Perhaps this is money well spent when laptops seem to fail so often? Or would they still try to argue the user was to blame even if a device is under warranty?

Dave101t

its an initial years warranty, not guarantee.

Toxteth_OGrady

MarkBargain wrote: »

That's the trouble, they could argue that almost anything I did caused the fault

Is the moral of the story that people buying laptops should purchase extra warranty?

No they can't and no it's not. You have statutory protection under SOGA but you need to fight the retailer's attempts to rail road you, if necessary in the Small Claims Court. You can file online for a claim < £5k.

The essence of SOGA is 'reasonableness.'

According to Trading Standards the legal test that applies to determine 'reasonable' is to ask 'the man on the street' whether he would expect a £500 laptop to last more than 16 months. If he says 'yes' there's your test.

@CHC. Freedom from defect and durabilty are different avenues to claim. For the former, outside 6 months, the burden of proof is on the buyer. That essentially requires expert opinion. For the latter a report is not required but would certainly help the claimant counter a defence of misuse.

(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes
their state and condition and the following (among others) are in
appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods-

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in
question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability."

None of the above are defined any further, nor can they be as it
may not be reasonable to expect a cheap item to last as well as a
more expensive one.

If you want to make a claim under this section it is for the buyer to
prove EITHER of two things.

Firstly that there was a non conformity with the contract at the time of sale. This means a below
specification component was used or the construction was defective.
Usually this means an expert examination must be paid for. As an
example a number of PC motherboards were produced using inferior
capacitors. After about 18 months the capacitors leaked and failed.
There was clearly a non-conformity which existed at the time of sale
and the seller is responsible for fixing the fault or giving a
refund.

Note however that the refund would not have to be for the full price
paid but can be rebated by the amount of use you have had. Assuming
a motherboard has a life of four years someone claiming at 2 years
would be entitled to half their money back.

Alternatively The second route is to claim that the goods are of inadequate durability. This again would usually require an expert opinion that they should have lasted longer than they did. A common defence
against this claim is that the user mishandled the goods and the
fault is typical of shock (being dropped) or damp. The nearer you
are to the end of the products expected life the harder these cases
are to win.

Would the retailer not argue that the price of £400 for that specification 16 months ago was the cheapest around and that wear and tear would be the constant use of the keys causing the keyboard to fail?

They'd be pretty stupid to try that line of defence as in this instance it would not pass the 'reasonableness' test.

As shown by the amount of constructive discussion on here there is much scope for confusion. The retailers prey on this to obfuscate and undermine consumers' statutory rights and sell exorbitantly priced extended warranties when there is already satisfactory redress in law.

http://www.claimsfinancial.co.uk/small-claims-court/filing-your-claim.aspx

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome