Faulty Laptop..repair - refund issue

JamoLew

I ordered a laptop online 30th Nov and paid by credit card.

It was dispatched on 5th Dec and was delivered 8th Dec.

On the 2nd Jan, it developed a fault.

We contacted tech support who asked us to try a few remedies, none of which were successful.

A RMa was authorised on 8th Jan and the laptop was collected on 9th Jan and received by the supplier on 12th Jan.

On Jan 28th, we emailed them to ask for an update, to which the reply was that it may be fixed and returned this week or next week.

In reply we enquired as to whether we could be sent a replacement and were told " the laptop has a few issues where we cannot replace outright because it’s not resalable"

We responded to inform them, that we had not accepted the laptop and if we had not received it back in full working order by the 12th Feb, we would be looking for a like for like replacement or full refund.

They replied : "Normally with you having the laptop for such a short time we would look into offering a complete replacement with a new unit, however as xxx has explained, when the laptop was returned to us we noticed that the laptop had sustained physical damage in the form of scratches on the casing.

So this left us with the only option of sending the laptop away for repair."

xxx had not explained about any damage being the reason for no replacement being offered, infact, this was the first mention of any alleged scratches on the case.

Does anyone have any suggestions on to how this may affect our position in requesting a full refund on Feb 12th (if necessary) ?

Many thanks in advance

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

In the first six months, the supplier s liable for any defect in your laptop. They can chose whether to refund, replace or repair.

I understand they are repairing.

You have no claim for loss of use, unless this s in your original contract.

JamoLew

Thanks Blackbeard,

yes I agree they are repairing and all communication has so far been very amicable however our issue is with the length of time taken to achieve it and the feeling that this is going to drag and drag into months.

As of today, they have had the laptop for repair for longer than we had it working

I understand that the Soga says "within a reasonable time" but I am struggling to find any expansion on this rather vague term.

Personally, I would consider up to 4 weeks as reasonable, hence our deadline of 12th Feb.

I guess, I am after some clarification on how if at all any damage (real or alleged) may affect any rights to a refund that we may have.

thanks

wealdroam

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

In the first six months, the supplier s liable for any defect in your laptop. They can chose whether to refund, replace or repair.

I understand they are repairing.

You have no claim for loss of use, unless this s in your original contract.

As the OP is claiming to not have accepted the goods, then he can reject it for a full refund.

However, the question is... have the goods been accepted of not?

The Sale of Goods Act says that acceptance takes place when:
a) the buyer tells the seller he has accepted them, or
b) a reasonable time has passed without rejecting them, or
c) the buyer "does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller".

Has a reasonable time passed for acceptance to have taken place?
Maybe, maybe not... only a court can decide.

Maybe the 'damage' could be seen as "not looking after the goods as if they still belonged to the seller".
Who knows.

If the goods are deemed to have been accepted then BoP is quite right...
but just to add to that... the remedy must be provided in a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience.

JamoLew

Thanks wealdroam,

I guess I would argue that having only had it for 3 weeks, I could not have tested its functionality enough to have been deemed to have accepted it.

However, I fear you are correct on the issue of any damage and that yes, until I have been deemed to have accepted it, then I should treat it as not belonging to myself.

It may be difficult to prove whether I caused the scratches or not, they may have happened in the course of removing the case back as instructed by their tech support.

Fingers crossed that all will be resolved in the next week or so.

Would a S75 be possible and viable with my cc provider ?

wealdroam

JamoLew wrote: »

Would a S75 be possible and viable with my cc provider ?

Section 75 of the Consumer credit Act makes the credit card company equally responsible with the seller for performance of the contract.

I cannot see that the cc co would interfere as the seller appears to be doing the right thing.

JamoLew

Ok, thanks for the advice and info

Just have to be patient and hope for the best now.

Thankyou

JamoLew

Having thought further on the issue, if the supplier is claiming that the laptop is so badly damaged after us only using it for 3 weeks that they feel it would not be resalable, would that not be indicative of the item being "not fit for purpose" ?

It wasn't purposely mistreated and thrown around, just used as one would expect a laptop to be used and carried in a bag a few times.

frugal_mike

wealdroam wrote: »

...the remedy must be provided in a reasonable time and without significant convenience.

This explains a lot of the posts we get on this forum

JamoLew

wealdroam wrote: »

the remedy must be provided in a reasonable time and without significant convenience.

frugal_mike wrote: »

This explains a lot of the posts we get on this forum

Agreed, however figuring what this actually means in real terms; is the true challenge it seems.:wall:

I guess my simplistic view is with an item that can be ordered, built and delivered in less than 10 days, a repair time of 4-5 weeks is pretty hard to comprehend and accept.

frugal_mike

I was making a joke about the fact wealdroam mistakenly said they had to supply the remedy without convenience.

The Sale of Goods Act is intentionally vague about what constitutes significant inconvenience so that it can apply to a wide range of situations. Only a judge could tell you whether your wait is too long (and even then it wouldn't set a precedent). For what its worth I do agree 5 weeks is a long time, but it may be that a laptop is not deemed important enough to cause significant inconvenience.