Nexus 7 bricked, Tesco don't want to know

targaid

Whilst awaiting the Marshmallow OTA to appear my Nexus 7 2013 succumbed to the Lollipop bug. (Went into a boot loop, supposedly fixable by flashing a new ROM but in some cases - mine- kills the motherboard). I tried to follow the repair procedures on the internet then passed it to an IT specialist who confirmed that it is unfixable. I took it back to Tesco but they refused to accept any responsibility in the store. They also told me that they had never heard of the Prescriptions and Goods Act and insisted that I was only entitled to one year's cover under their warranty and that I should call their tech support people.

I want a repair/replacement or partial refund as the unit is under 2 years old. However, the complication here is that it was Google and the troublesome Lollipop update which caused the damage. As my contract is with Tesco are they still liable for this kind of issue or do I have to pursue another channel? If it is still Tesco what is the best way to proceed when I call their tech centre regarding it?

burlington6

Someone will be along to clarify things but I don't think software updates and failures are the fault of Tesco.

Once again, someone will be along soon to put you straight

tomtontom

I've never heard of the Prescriptions and Goods Act either, I think you're confusing two different pieces of legislation there.

Have you contacted Google support directly?

foxtrotoscar_2

targaid can you clarify what you mean by the Prescriptions of Goods Act?

naedanger

burlington6 wrote: »

Someone will be along to clarify things but I don't think software updates and failures are the fault of Tesco.

Once again, someone will be along soon to put you straight

My understanding is the same as that given in post 2.

Tesco would only be liable if your Nexus 7 had an inherent fault. An inherent fault is one that existed (although may not have been apparent until much later) at the point it was purchased/delivered.

The onus will be on you to prove the fault existed when it was purchased. (And this will be extremely difficult with a software fault.)

powerful_Rogue

Rooting/Flashing always voids your warranty as well.

LilElvis

Unless Tesco or the manufacturer explicitly told you to "flash a new ROM" they can hardly be held responsible for turning a software issue into a hardware failure.

targaid

Yep, I meant the Prescriptions and Limitations Act and the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. Writing quickly after several hours of accounting conflated them in my mind.

As I understand it, when the updates are automatic (all be it refusable) there is an issue of responsibility still lying with the vendor as they are selling it in the knowledge that this will happen. Sorry, I'm rather vague on the specifics of this as I read it some time ago in regards to this very issue when it first appeared but can no longer find the article. Opinions on Android fora seem to feel that there was an inherent fault in the machine and - oddly enough- they quickly became very hard to get hold of. No remainder market, no refurbished market and a very short shelf life for a flagship model.

LilElvis, we were unable to flash a new ROM (which is what the update does, anyway) because of the motherboard failure. Apparently, the software creates an issue which causes damage to the motherboard if you are unlucky. It can happen almost immediately the new OS is installed or it can take time, as in my case.

I suppose what I really need to find out first is who would be legally held responsible for the damage in this kind of scenario. I have heard of some folk getting their units repaired by ASUS (who make them) but it is very patchy and very difficult to get them to do so.

JJ_Egan

On lollipop you had an issue .
You then took it upon yourself to flash roms from instructions on the internet .

If that is true then i see no reason why anyone but yourself is liable .
Some of these internet instructions are wrong and many flash the wrong firmware and thereby bricking the motherboard .
That in my view and almost certainly the same from Asus would be damage .

Under SOGA you can try via an independent engineers report claiming from the vendor .
But again i suspect the will point the finger to user damage .

bod1467

As above, if it is more than 6 months from purchase then it is your liability to prove the fault was inherent (present at the time of sale but not apparent). This would usually be by commissioning an engineer's report on the fault, and that report confirming an inherent fault.

The seller would then be liable for the cost of the report and for providing a remedy (repair, replace, refund - which could be partial to account for the duration of ownership), or liable to disprove the report if they wished to decline giving a remedy.

Internet speculation and forum threads do not constitute proof of an inherent fault.

powerful_Rogue

targaid wrote: »

Yep, I meant the Prescriptions and Limitations Act and the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. Writing quickly after several hours of accounting conflated them in my mind.

As I understand it, when the updates are automatic (all be it refusable) there is an issue of responsibility still lying with the vendor as they are selling it in the knowledge that this will happen. Sorry, I'm rather vague on the specifics of this as I read it some time ago in regards to this very issue when it first appeared but can no longer find the article. Opinions on Android fora seem to feel that there was an inherent fault in the machine and - oddly enough- they quickly became very hard to get hold of. No remainder market, no refurbished market and a very short shelf life for a flagship model.

LilElvis, we were unable to flash a new ROM (which is what the update does, anyway) because of the motherboard failure. Apparently, the software creates an issue which causes damage to the motherboard if you are unlucky. It can happen almost immediately the new OS is installed or it can take time, as in my case.

I suppose what I really need to find out first is who would be legally held responsible for the damage in this kind of scenario. I have heard of some folk getting their units repaired by ASUS (who make them) but it is very patchy and very difficult to get them to do so.

Just had a look and theres still plenty of the Nexus 7 (2013) around to buy either new or used.

If the fauly had followed after directly updating to Lollipop, I personally would have taken this up with Asus.

However since you have rooted and flashed a custom rom, I think you're up a particular creek without a paddle.