Laptop broken in less than a week, do I have any rights?

Sugarmouse0707

Okay, thank you.

My friend quoted me £65, I am in need of the laptop so so tempted to just go and do it. But I will wait and see what the CC company decide.
Thanks again all!

Sugarmouse0707

Fosterdog wrote: »

Can you get a photo of the screen? Again I see it a lot when there is no crack to the outer layer buy the internal layers break and the colour leaks out causing the distortion, a lot of people unless they know what they are looking for don't realise it is a cracked screen, it almost looks like ink bleeding out.

I am not at home atm but as soon as I can I will get a picture of it

unholyangel

Sugarmouse0707 wrote: »

Okay, thank you.

My friend quoted me £65, I am in need of the laptop so so tempted to just go and do it. But I will wait and see what the CC company decide.
Thanks again all!

There is a precedent of sorts, however I use the word loosely as county court judgements dont technically set a precedent - however you can use judgements to back up your claim/case.

In Grant v Electro Centre, they refused to repair unless the consumer sent it back themselves. Consumer then had it repaired elsewhere and sued for the cost of repair and travelling expenses (to have it repaired).

I'd wait and see what the credit card company say - they may be willing to pay the cost of repair for themselves. However I wouldn't try and use the "i need it for work" line with them - if it is deemed a b2b contract, section 75 of the consumer credit act wont apply and nor will you have the same rights under the sale of goods act.

halibut2209

As this laptop is for work, then this is a business transaction, not a consumer one. You may find that S75 does not apply.

Sugarmouse0707

Okay. I wanted it for both work and other things (college work, word processing, internet browsing etc). I work from home often.

Thanks again for the advice-have just looked up the Grant/electro centre case!

SuperHan

unholyangel wrote: »

There is a precedent of sorts, however I use the word loosely as county court judgements dont technically set a precedent - however you can use judgements to back up your claim/case.

In Grant v Electro Centre, they refused to repair unless the consumer sent it back themselves. Consumer then had it repaired elsewhere and sued for the cost of repair and travelling expenses (to have it repaired).

I'd wait and see what the credit card company say - they may be willing to pay the cost of repair for themselves. However I wouldn't try and use the "i need it for work" line with them - if it is deemed a b2b contract, section 75 of the consumer credit act wont apply and nor will you have the same rights under the sale of goods act.

Don't, however, just go and get it fixed and then rely on this case to back you up.

In this case, Electro fell foul of SoGA by insisting the consumer pay to ship the product back. In your case, Scan have stuck to the SoGA in that they have deemed the fault not inherent as is required by them in the first 6 months.

The normal process would be to get a written report (from your friend if he is adequately qualified?) to say the fault is inherent. Then you can go back to Scan and demand they offer you a remedy under SoGA. If they then refuse, you would have a small claims case.

Alternatively, try the S75 with your credit card and see if they refund without the need for the report - they may not, however, as you haven't pursued all avenues with the retailer, or they may want this report themselves or to have a look at it to reach this conclusion (relatively unlikely, but possible).

unholyangel

SuperHan wrote: »

Don't, however, just go and get it fixed and then rely on this case to back you up.

In this case, Electro fell foul of SoGA by insisting the consumer pay to ship the product back. In your case, Scan have stuck to the SoGA in that they have deemed the fault not inherent as is required by them in the first 6 months.

The normal process would be to get a written report (from your friend if he is adequately qualified?) to say the fault is inherent. Then you can go back to Scan and demand they offer you a remedy under SoGA. If they then refuse, you would have a small claims case.

Alternatively, try the S75 with your credit card and see if they refund without the need for the report - they may not, however, as you haven't pursued all avenues with the retailer, or they may want this report themselves or to have a look at it to reach this conclusion (relatively unlikely, but possible).

A few points. Generally we advise getting an independent report - especially if they already have a report of their own as an independent report is unbiased.

Second, its not clear from OP's post whether they have actually investigated the fault or just taken one look at it and refused to do anything further without payment being made.

As i said, grant v electro doesnt set precedent, however if you notice in that case......it was after 11 months the dvd player became faulty. Trying to find the actual judgement itself so can find out if a report was provided to them prior to their refusal (theres no mention of it one way or another on any websites which list the case). And if the item is inherently faulty, they are still liable - perhaps they might argue how much for if the repair costs are unreasonable/disproportionate, but soga states they are liable for necessary costs if goods do not conform to contract.

And lastly, section 75 makes the creditor jointly and severally liable. Financial ombudsman have already stated in a few cases referred to them that the consumer is free to chase one, the other or both. There is no need to exhaust all possible avenues with the retailer.

Sugarmouse0707

SuperHan wrote: »

Don't, however, just go and get it fixed and then rely on this case to back you up.

In this case, Electro fell foul of SoGA by insisting the consumer pay to ship the product back. In your case, Scan have stuck to the SoGA in that they have deemed the fault not inherent as is required by them in the first 6 months.

The normal process would be to get a written report (from your friend if he is adequately qualified?) to say the fault is inherent. Then you can go back to Scan and demand they offer you a remedy under SoGA. If they then refuse, you would have a small claims case.

Alternatively, try the S75 with your credit card and see if they refund without the need for the report - they may not, however, as you haven't pursued all avenues with the retailer, or they may want this report themselves or to have a look at it to reach this conclusion (relatively unlikely, but possible).

Okay well the credit card company form says I need a written report, on headed paper from a computer professional. My friend is head of department at a computer development company, but says he cannot do that-as it could affect his job, his telephone number isn't on the headed paper It's the general company number.

He said it looks as if I was fitted badly OR it is a very weak, unprotected screen, not fit for normal wear and tear of carrying and using a laptop-what they are designed for.

The only other computer professional I know doesn't work anywhere that *has* headed paper!

My Mother has suggested I go to PC World or Maplins or something an explain and see if they'll do it for me, I think this is somewhat a daft suggestion, they'll likely charge me not far off the £65 it will cost me for my friend to fix it.

unholyangel wrote: »

A few points. Generally we advise getting an independent report - especially if they already have a report of their own as an independent report is unbiased.

Second, its not clear from OP's post whether they have actually investigated the fault or just taken one look at it and refused to do anything further without payment being made.

As i said, grant v electro doesnt set precedent, however if you notice in that case......it was after 11 months the dvd player became faulty. Trying to find the actual judgement itself so can find out if a report was provided to them prior to their refusal (theres no mention of it one way or another on any websites which list the case). And if the item is inherently faulty, they are still liable - perhaps they might argue how much for if the repair costs are unreasonable/disproportionate, but soga states they are liable for necessary costs if goods do not conform to contract.

And lastly, section 75 makes the creditor jointly and severally liable. Financial ombudsman have already stated in a few cases referred to them that the consumer is free to chase one, the other or both. There is no need to exhaust all possible avenues with the retailer.

It's the latter!One look at it, !!!!!! off basically we're not fixing that.
I have more time than I originally thought as a friend can lend me his laptop for now. I was wanting to cut my losses to save me the hassle of not having a laptop but if I can borrow one for now then I have a pic more time.

I have tried to attach a pic I hope it works.

Fosterdog

I have to say looking at the photo it is an obvious cracked screen and it's not radiation from a point at the edge to suggest a badly fitted screen, you can see the point of impact where the crack radiates out from..

If I was doing an independent report on that I would say user damage, I wouldn't even need to strip down the laptop to see anything else.

chickendipperbabe

Its surprising how tough these screens actually are, from my own experiences abusing my laptop with all sorts of knocks and drops.

To me, it looks like someone has closed the lid on something still inside. I think you'll be onto a loser here and I would personally just cut my losses and pay the £65 for a new screen to be fitted. Damage like this will always be classed as user inflicted unless there was a known issue with multiple reports of this happening.