Consumer Issue

Maxamillionx4

Hello,

I am hoping for some guidance or advice regarding a consumer issue.

I recently purchased a computer motherboard from an online retailer costing me £87.89. Upon receiving and installing, it didn't work, I arranged for an RMA and posted it back to the company described as faulty which cost me £11.50.

A couple of days later I received an email and the motherboard back detailing that it was damaged by myself and the warranty is now void.

Having not been in this situation before, I am unsure how to proceed? I have not damaged the item, and wasn't prepared for such a reply from the company.

Having read through other MSE members and their experiences I wondered if there is any way to recoup my losses or gain a replacement?

I have read that under the 2003 Sale and Supply of goods to consumers regulations it is up to the company to prove that the goods were sent to me in good, working and fit for purpose condition? But only required for me to prove it was faulty when received should they prove the previous?

Any advice or assistance would be greatly appreciated and received.

Many thanks in advance

InsideInsurance

What are they alleging you did to it? What evidence do they claim to have of the damage you caused?

As you say, it is up to them to prove it rather than you to disprove it

Maxamillionx4

Firstly, thank you for your reply.

They are alleging that I damaged the pins on the CPU part of the motherboard, as they were bent.

The reply that I received from them via email was as follows :-
Here is the technicians Test Report:
"Warranty void. Customer has bent the pins in the CPU socket."

Kind Regards

Slowhand

The pins are very easily bent if you are not careful. Are you aware of this? Did you check for bent pins before returning?

wealdroam

Maxamillionx4 wrote: »

Here is the technicians Test Report:
"Warranty void. Customer has bent the pins in the CPU socket."

Well that sounds like an opinion to me... not proof.

How can they possibly prove that the customer did the damage?

Clearly they can show that the thing is damaged, but they need to prove that it was the customer that did that damage.

Maxamillionx4

Hello

I'm afraid I did not check the pins upon receipt of the board nor prior to returning

After switching on the computer once I installed the motherboard it did not get past POST, I spoke to one of my colleagues they also tried and got the same result, they then suggested that the board was faulty and to contact the supplier which I did.

Slowhand

wealdroam wrote: »

Well that sounds like an opinion to me... not proof.

How can they possibly prove that the customer did the damage?

Clearly they can show that the thing is damaged, but they need to prove that it was the customer that did that damage.

Balance of probabilities says it's most likely to be customer damage. It's so easily done, I've damaged a CPU/bent pins myself.

George_Michael

Slowhand wrote: »

Balance of probabilities says it's most likely to be customer damage.

But the SOGA doesn't rely on balance of probabilities.
It clearly states that any fault found in the first 6 months must be assumed to have been present at the time of purchase.
If the retailer does not think that this is the case then they must prove otherwise. Simply believing this to be the case is not good enough.

For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date

tinkerbell28

Indeed they have to prove it. I'd too be inclined to think it was op, bit they'd have to prove it.

Maxamillionx4

I would like to thank you all for your comments and feedback.

Based upon your comments do you think it feasible to challenge the company's email to not refund me or replace the part, quoting the 2003 Sale and Supply of goods to consumers regulations ?

bod1467

Was this Ebuyer? (They've become a lot more hardball lately when it comes to RMAs, according to other similar threads we've seen here).