Laptop faulty

philatio

As above, nothing there seems like a manufacturing fault.

Sounds like a 'not very good' laptop needing a few software/driver updates.

neilmcl

Leo2020 wrote: »

So to clarify neilmcl, so the burden of proof is on the customer for the first 30 days, then from 31 days to 6 months on the retailer and then back to the consumer?

No, read what I posted. The standard onus on proof in the first 6 months does not apply to the short-term right to reject ONLY. With any other remedy then it will.

What the law basically says is if you want to reject outright for a refund then you'll have to show it's genuinely faulty otherwise accept a repair or replacement. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I suppose it's like that to prevent loads of things being returned within 30 days due to buyer's remorse.

Leo2020

I did read what you wrote and that is how it read to me. Your reply still doesn't make that much sense to me. If its not genuinely faulty then they wouldn't be entitled to a repair or replacement either. How can you repair something if there is nothing wrong with it?

Maybe I'm having an off day because I just can't get my head round what your saying.

bluenoseam

Could just be me, but unless you've got a secondary drive then you've bought a netbook/chromebook or something similar.

Honestly I'd say phone up the catalogue company & tell them the issues, they'll likely send you authorisation to return it, at which point you might be lucky enough to request a refund....

neilmcl

Leo2020 wrote: »

I did read what you wrote and that is how it read to me. Your reply still doesn't make that much sense to me. If its not genuinely faulty then they wouldn't be entitled to a repair or replacement either. How can you repair something if there is nothing wrong with it?

Maybe I'm having an off day because I just can't get my head round what your saying.

When someone returns an item for a replacement (or repair) then the chances are that it'll be genuinely faulty and for the first 6 months it will be assumed to be inherently so, however not everything returned for a refund shortly after purchase because the buyer says it's faulty really is. A lot of time it'll simply because they didn't like it.

Leo2020

neilmcl wrote: »

When someone returns an item for a replacement (or repair) then the chances are that it'll be genuinely faulty and for the first 6 months it will be assumed to be inherently so, however not everything returned for a refund shortly after purchase because the buyer says it's faulty really is. A lot of time it'll simply because they didn't like it.

But that contradicts what you wrote before. So the burden of proof is on the retailer then?

I understand that just because someone says something is faulty doesn't make it so. I used to work for PC World and people often get confused with technology and think something is faulty when it is not. However it is still up to the retailer to check the item to make sure it is not faulty before refusing a refund.

ThumbRemote

philatio wrote: »

As above, nothing there seems like a manufacturing fault.

Sounds like a 'not very good' laptop needing a few software/driver updates.

Personally I'd say that if it required driver updates to work correctly, that it's not of satisfactory quality out of the box and the OP should be able to return it.

After all, if the OP subsequently does driver updates that cause a problem then they don't have any comeback against the retailer. The advice given would be to do a factory reset. But in this case a factory reset doesn't work properly either...

Or, to put it another way, unless the retailer is going to explicitly provide warranty cover for software updates, then they can't expect the customer to do them as a condition of getting a working product.

neilmcl

Leo2020 wrote: »

But that contradicts what you wrote before. So the burden of proof is on the retailer then?

:wall: NO

Is it really that hard for you to understand!

Leo2020 wrote: »

I understand that just because someone says something is faulty doesn't make it so. I used to work for PC World and people often get confused with technology and think something is faulty when it is not. However it is still up to the retailer to check the item to make sure it is not faulty before refusing a refund.

Forcing the onus onto the buyer saves the retailer having to spend time and effort doing exactly this.

A lot of time, especially if you're a busy shop you would have just taken the word of the customer that the item was faulty and paid the refund, and then dealt with the admin for the faulty item later. Now, as a retailer, you can insist that the buyer proves the item is truly faulty before issuing that refund saving a lot of time and effort on their part.

At the end of the day, it is what is.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Probably one of these?
http://www.littlewoods.com/hp-stream-13-c101na-intelreg-celeronreg-processor-2gb-ram-32gb-hard-drive-133-inch-hd-laptop-with-optional-microsoft-office-365-purple/1600020526.prd

Leo2020

Neilmcl - apparently so, so we are back to the onus being on the customer for the first 30 days if they want a refund. So for example a customer cannot get a laptop to switch on, they return it to store and say it is faulty. The store says prove it's faulty the customer being non tec savvy doesn't know how and leaves the store without a refund.