Help needed. Bank refuse to pay for

Patzive

I purchased a Macbook Pro 4 years ago from Comet. Unfortunately, my laptop is not working properly and needs to be repaired. As Comet went bust in 2012, I can't go to them and ask for help. I understand that under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act if what you purchased cost £100 or more, and you paid it by credit card, then your credit card company is as equally liable (as the retailer).
Unfortunately, the bank doesn't want to take responsibility and offer instead as "good will gesture" £156, which doesn't even cover the costs to repair the laptop (Apple give us a quote for £528).
Please advise what should I do next?
Thank you.

usefulmale

Once again, SOGA or Section 75 is NOT a 6 year warranty or guarantee. If you needed such a thing, you should have purchased one when you got your macbook. Its NOT the bank or credit card issuers responsibility. Its YOURS.

What exactly is wrong with your macbook? If you cannot find numerous examples of the same fault with the same spec macbook on online forums, it is NOT an inherent fault. You need to shop around and get it repaired as cheaply as possible or buy a new one.

Nodding_Donkey

As Comet closed about two and a half years ago I would take the £156 and think myself lucky lol

bris

Have you proved the bank is liable?

InsideInsurance

You need to prove their liability, ie that it is an inherent fault with the laptop and not acceptable wear and tear or miss use.

This would normally be done by commissioning an independent engineers report however, as above, if there arent a notable number of people with the same complaint then you may be throwing good money after bad.

wealdroam

usefulmale wrote: »

If you cannot find numerous examples of the same fault with the same spec macbook on online forums, it is NOT an inherent fault.

That's an interesting definition of an inherent fault.

InsideInsurance

wealdroam wrote: »

That's an interesting definition of an inherent fault.

Its not a definition however given civil law is on the basis of the balance of probability if you have hundreds of others having the same problem with the same age machine it does help swing the balance towards you. If you are the only person ever that have a candy stripe screen when you press the Apple key then it probably makes things harder to prove its inherent

shaun_from_Africa

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Its not a definition however given civil law is on the basis of the balance of probability if you have hundreds of others having the same problem with the same age machine it does help swing the balance towards you. If you are the only person ever that have a candy stripe screen when you press the Apple key then it probably makes things harder to prove its inherent

Whilst that it correct, it doesn't make the following comment from usefulmale any the less incorrect.

"If you cannot find numerous examples of the same fault with the same spec macbook on online forums, it is NOT an inherent fault." which is basically, rubbish, especially as they categorically stated that is "NOT" an inherent fault.

Just because numerous other people haven't had the same problem doesn't mean that an inherent fault can't occur. It might be just the one machine was put together slightly wrong or maybe it was a faulty component in a batch of many that caused the failure.

zaax

In law you would only get 1/3 of the price back as you have had 4 years use out of 6, to claim the rest (if any) you will need to gamble on a independent report saying its an inherent fault.

usefulmale

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Just because numerous other people haven't had the same problem doesn't mean that an inherent fault can't occur. It might be just the one machine was put together slightly wrong or maybe it was a faulty component in a batch of many that caused the failure.

Good luck proving either scenario on the balance of probabilities.

wealdroam

usefulmale wrote: »

Good luck proving either scenario on the balance of probabilities.

But nevertheless a possibility... which cannot be dismissed by saying "if others haven't reported the same problem then it is NOT an inherent fault".