Hudl 2 charging problem. Tesco will not replace only repair

tired999

I bought a Hudl 2 in October and everything was fine with it until the last week when it stopped charging unless I rebooted it first. I did an internet search and have found that this is a known problem. I have just called up Tesco who have said that because it's over 28 days old they will only repair it. Is this right? From what I can tell they've been replacing others so why the policy change?

paddyrg

It's up to Tesco to choose whether to repair or replace (or refund) at their option, as long as the repair time isn't unreasonable (I'd say a couple of weeks is probably reasonable in this case, it's what most device repairers say to allow).

Mr_Toad

I would imagine there have been a couple of known issues and they will be well aware of which can be repaired and which can't and need a replacement.

Brummagem_Bertie

I don't think that it is clear that you have to accept a repair. I would argue that you have the right to reject the Hudl and claim a refund or to insist on a replacement.

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 you have a reasonable time to inspect the goods before you are deemed to have accepted them. What is reasonable depends on the goods and the nature of the defect. There is no specific time limit.

As for repair or replacement that's your choice in the first instance. The retailer can only insist on the alternative remedy if the one you choose would be disproportionate, i.e. imposes costs that are unreasonable. A key factor in deciding whether one remedy is unreasonable is that the other option could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

If Tesco are saying that replacing the Hudl is disproportionate they have to demonstrate that. If a repair would leave you without your Hudl for several weeks, I would argue that that is significant inconvenience, which would mean that replacement would not be unreasonable.

A couple of other things:
(i) check your manufacturer guarantee. If that gives you the right to a replacement you are entitled to rely on that, rather than your rights against the seller;
(ii) did you pay by credit card and, if so, was the price over £100? If so, don't forget your s75 rights.

mathsmaster

There is supposed to be a software update on Monday that will fix this fault - fingers crossed.

Mr_Toad

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

I don't think that it is clear that you have to accept a repair. I would argue that you have the right to reject the Hudl and claim a refund or to insist on a replacement.

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 you have a reasonable time to inspect the goods before you are deemed to have accepted them. What is reasonable depends on the goods and the nature of the defect. There is no specific time limit.

As for repair or replacement that's your choice in the first instance. The retailer can only insist on the alternative remedy if the one you choose would be disproportionate, i.e. imposes costs that are unreasonable. A key factor in deciding whether one remedy is unreasonable is that the other option could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

If Tesco are saying that replacing the Hudl is disproportionate they have to demonstrate that. If a repair would leave you without your Hudl for several weeks, I would argue that that is significant inconvenience, which would mean that replacement would not be unreasonable.

A couple of other things:
(i) check your manufacturer guarantee. If that gives you the right to a replacement you are entitled to rely on that, rather than your rights against the seller;
(ii) did you pay by credit card and, if so, was the price over £100? If so, don't forget your s75 rights.

Have you actually read the SOGA?

You have the right to refund, repair or replacement but it is up to the seller to decide which not the buyer.

As for section 75 you won't get far with that as a repair has been offered

AJXX

Amazes me why people always act entitled to get electronics replaced in full when they have very minor repairable problems.

OP just accept the repair and stop moaning; no doubt by kicking up a fuss about wanting it replaced you've already significantly delayed getting it fixed.

Brummagem_Bertie

AJXX wrote: »

Amazes me why people always act entitled to get electronics replaced in full when they have very minor repairable problems.

OP just accept the repair and stop moaning; no doubt by kicking up a fuss about wanting it replaced you've already significantly delayed getting it fixed.

Not sure I would consider something that needs to be charged in order to work, not charging, to be a very minor problem. As for repairable, that's not really the issue, is it? Is it so unreasonable to expect something costing over £100 to last more than a couple of months?

bod1467

What you're forgetting is the term "acceptance" ... once this is deemed to have occurred then the retailer gets to choose the remedy. If the OP has had the Hudl more than a few days then acceptance has occurred.

Brummagem_Bertie

Mr_Toad wrote: »

Have you actually read the SOGA?

You have the right to refund, repair or replacement but it is up to the seller to decide which not the buyer.

As for section 75 you won't get far with that as a repair has been offered

Yes I have read the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and I understood what it said.

"48AIntroductory 
(1)This section applies if—
(a)the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
(b)the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.
(2)If this section applies, the buyer has the right—
(a)under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
(b)under and in accordance with section 48C below—
(i)to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii)to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.
(3)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."


Note the words in italics - it's the buyer's right to insist on either repair or replacement or to rescind the contract (i.e. seek a refund), not the seller's.


Of course, if you can find anywhere where it says the seller has the right to decide the remedy, I will be happy to be corrected.



As for S75 and being offered a repair, S75 makes the creditor jointly and severally liable for any misrepresentation or breach of contract by the seller. If the seller has breached a fundamental term of the contract and the buyer repudiates the contract, whether a repair has been offered is irrelevant. Mitigation of loss only becomes relevant in assessing damages, i.e. quantum; it doesn't fetter the buyer's right to choose a remedy, whether that be to repudiate or to affirm.


Given that the seller has offered a repair, that seems to be acceptance of the fact that there has been a breach of contract. All that remains is whether the breach is fundamental or not and/or whether the buyer has rejected the goods within a reasonable time.


Finally, a few other observations:
i. Given problems which surfaced with the original Hudl, I wouldn't myself go near the Hudl2 with a bargepole;
ii. Given Tesco's reputation for poor customer service, I'm not sure why anyone would expect them to act responsibly when anything goes wrong (that doesn't mean you shouldn't make them act responsibly);
iii. Hasn't anyone at Tesco's heard the phrase, "When in a hole, stop digging"! Given all their problems at the moment, I would have thought they would be working really hard to restore some customer confidence and avoid being slagged off on consumer websites. Taking a hit on replacing a few Hudls isn't going to make much of a dent in the bottom line, compared to all the other holes that have appeared recently. Seems they are really struggling to put down that spade.



Remember - "Be nice to all MoneySavers, especially Newbies.

Strider590

I wonder if anyone has tested to see if it really is/not charging, or whether an app is using so much power that it negates the charging current.

For example (simplified) tablet using 600mA, but the charger only supplies 500mA, thus it actually discharges instead of charging until the tablet is rebooted and the suspect app stops running.