Item paid with Credit Card failed during warranty period. Question...

mamboboy

Basically, I bought a computer monitor roughly 2 years ago for around £480 with my credit card. It came with a 3 year warranty - but back in January it suddenly stopped working.

So I sent it off to the store (Scan), who then sent it to the manufacturer. Fast forward to yesterday where I get an email saying the manufacturers can't repair or replace it - and Scan (like many other IT companies) have a policy of only refunding depending on how long the item has been owned. I received just £148.

Now, I'm wondering... would it be possible for my bank (HSBC) to pay back the remaining amount? or would they just laugh at me? I mean, a monitor that expensive should be expected to last at least the length of the warranty period, surely?! I bought it especially for professional work, but now the amount I'm refunded is barely enough to buy a budget monitor to replace it!

Thanks in advance for any help

lisyloo

would it be possible for my bank (HSBC) to pay back the remaining amount?

What remaining amount?
You had a monitor for 2 years so you aren't going to get 100% refund.
It looks like you've had a pro-rata refund for 1 year out of 3.

I mean, a monitor that expensive should be expected to last at least the length of the warranty period

It looks to me like that's what they've based they've calculations on.
You've had the monitor for 2/3rds of the warranty period, so you've had a 1/3rd as a refund.

but now the amount I'm refunded is barely enough to buy a budget monitor to replace it!

Sorry but I think you're wrong to expect a brand new replacement and have effectively 2 years use for free.

grumbler

lisyloo wrote: »

You had a monitor for 2 years so you aren't going to get 100% refund.
It looks like you've had a pro-rata refund for 1 year out of 3.

It does look like, but this doesn't mean that it has to be.
Scan have to repair or replace with the same or similar. It they want to pay, the refund is at least negotiable and has to cover the purchase of a similar second hand or refurbished monitor.

And 3 years is just a warranty period, not the expected lifespan of the monitor. So, this pro-rata calculation is simply incorrect. My Dell serves me well since 2007... touching wood...

Sorry but I think you're wrong to expect a brand new replacement and have effectively 2 years use for free.

Not brand new, but in the same condition and working. It's their problem where to source it.

grumbler

mamboboy wrote: »

Now, I'm wondering... would it be possible for my bank (HSBC) to pay back the remaining amount? or would they just laugh at me? I mean, a monitor that expensive should be expected to last at least the length of the warranty period, surely?! I bought it especially for professional work, but now the amount I'm refunded is barely enough to buy a budget monitor to replace it!

The bank is jointly liable with Scan. I wouldn't expect the bank to pay easily, but you can sue either Scan, or HSBC or both.
Scan's 'policy' is absolutely irrelevant if it contradicts the SoGA.

eddddy

Hi mamboboy

A few considerations:

The CC company would be jointly liable with the shop for 'breach of contract' or breach of any consumer rights (e.g. the sale of goods act).

(If you pursue this, it may be best not to mention professional or business use, as you have more rights as a consumer than as a business.)

So have they broken any terms of the warranty (i.e. breached a contract)? Personally, I would have expected a warranty to be 'repair or replace', but you need to read the t&cs.

If not, your best hope is the Sale of Goods Act. The monitor must be of reasonable quality, which means it should last as long as a reasonable person would expect it to, given it's description and price.

Personally, I would have expected a £480 monitor to last longer than 3 years. If you think 5 years is more realistic, maybe aim for 3/5ths of £480 as compensation.

ETA: a useful link: http://www.meteorical.co.uk/glossary/sales-of-goods-act-2/

billymadbiker

i think the 3 year warranty (if offered with the purchase) is what defines how long it should reasonable last.
I had a item a few years ago which only lasted 3 years.The warranty was for 5yrs.
They could not repair it or replace it. All they would offer is 50% discount (start at 25%) of a new one. As time had moved on and we could get better deals elsewhere then we refused and took them to court.
The final verdict was that they had to refund 2/5ths of the original purchase price.

grumbler

billymadbiker wrote: »

i think the 3 year warranty (if offered with the purchase) is what defines how long it should reasonable last.

Nonsense. Many white goods come with 3 years warranty, but obviously are supposed to last longer. The same for cars. Is iPhone supposed to last just 1 year?

JKSandy

So some posters actually believe a warranty should be the life cycle of a product? How odd.

I would expect a repair or replacement not a pro-rata pay off. Have you contact Scan to say you refuse this offer? Push them for the full amount or to replace it, maybe they are just trying there luck.

billymadbiker

I don't expect it to last only for the warranty period but in our case that was how long it was ruled to be made for and, although I would expect to get 20-30yrs out of it, to quote the judge, 'I should not have expected a company who offers a warranty to be able to service, maintain or replace such a product outside the terms of that warranty'.

Even with the fact that the product had a 5yr warranty from the date I purchased it, and the maker was unable to either fix or replace it all they were ordered to do was to pay back 2/5 of the original price paid as the court ruled that 5 years was what they had 'expected' it to last and I should have been aware that there was no reason for it to last longer as they only offered a 5yr warranty.

As this was a £45,000 piece of medical kit we were pretty unhappy. What I would have liked was to have it replaced by a newer version however they had stopped making the 'budget version' and the bottom of there range started at over £100k so there was no way they were going to give us one of those.

grumbler

billymadbiker wrote: »

I don't expect it to last only for the warranty period but in our case that was how long it was ruled to be made for and, although I would expect to get 20-30yrs out of it, to quote the judge, 'I should not have expected a company who offers a warranty to be able to service, maintain or replace such a product outside the terms of that warranty'.

This just proves that judges aren't immune from stupidity (or corruption?) - like normal people.
Yes, I shouldn't expect anything form the company, but this doesn't mean that I should buy a new item every time my old one breaks outside the warranty. Repairing is usually cheaper and there are plenty of other companies around that offer repairs.

Even with the fact that the product had a 5yr warranty from the date I purchased it, and the maker was unable to either fix or replace it all they were ordered to do was to pay back 2/5 of the original price paid as the court ruled that 5 years was what they had 'expected' it to last and I should have been aware that there was no reason for it to last longer as they only offered a 5yr warranty.

Yet another proof as the judge's logic is obviously flawed.
If possible, I would have escalated the case to a higher instance court.
Also, I guess it was a business case, not covered by the SoGA.
Small claims court is known to be more customer-focused.

eddddy

billymadbiker wrote: »

I don't expect it to last only for the warranty period but in our case that was how long it was ruled to be made for and, although I would expect to get 20-30yrs out of it, to quote the judge, 'I should not have expected a company who offers a warranty to be able to service, maintain or replace such a product outside the terms of that warranty'.

-snip-

(Apologies to the OP for going off topic...)

Hi billymadbiker

Sounds like an interesting case. Out of interest, did you submit any evidence from expert witnesses, medical professionals, etc about how long that type of equipment should be expected to last? (Or are you a medical professional yourself?)

Could it be that the judge make a poor decision because there wasn't enough credible evidence submitted about a reasonable lifespan for the equipment?

It sounds like the supplier may have shot themselves in the foot slightly (from a future sales perspective), if they were stating in court that their £45k equipment only has an expected lifespan of 5 years.