High End PC Monitor has developed fault outside of warranty

Gimpy

Hi all, hoping for some help with this

I bought a high end PC monitor (Acer Predator XB270HU) from the website Overclockers in April of 2015, for just over £700 all in, which I am 99% sure I paid for on my Credit Card.

In the past few weeks, it's developed this huge, permanent blemish that is basically a long line that runs vertically across the screen, which is visible at all times - I tried to attach a picture, but can't as a new user.

From what I can tell from research, the layers of the LCD screen have started to come apart and a bubble has been created, causing the mark

I personally don't feel like 2.5 years is a reasonable amount of time for a £700, enthusiast-tier monitor to last, but Overclockers are saying that as it's out of warranty (by 5 months), I'd have no option but to pay for an out of warranty repair with the manufacturers.

I mentioned sale of goods to them, but they quoted the below at me, and essentially said that as it's older than 6 months old, the burden of proof would now be on me to prove that the fault existed at point of sale...is this correct? Surely the whole point is that this fault DIDN'T exist back then, and has developed over time.

This is what they quoted me

Under the sales of goods act/ consumer rights act, as the item is over 6months old there is a reversed burden of proof on the end user to prove that the item was faulty at the point of sale.

This would need to be done by an unbiased 3rd party and does not necessarily mean a claim will be accepted by us or the manufacturer.

The item has outlasted its whole warranty period so the item is classed as fit for purpose. Unfortunately there is nothing further we can do in this instance.

Here is the extract from the SOGA:

3. The reverse burden of proof
As explained in ‘1. In what circumstances does the trader have to give a remedy?’,
above, the remedies will only be available if the goods did not meet the rights (see the
‘Goods: What the Consumer Can Expect’ guidance) at the time they were delivered.
In some cases it will be very clear that the goods did not meet the rights at the time of
delivery. For example, goods may not match the description if they are a different colour
than was stated on the box – this is likely to have been the case when they were delivered.
In some cases it may not have been obvious at delivery that the goods breach one of the
rights, particularly in relation to the right that goods are of satisfactory quality. For example,
goods manufactured with low quality parts may function perfectly for some time but not be
as durable as a reasonable person would expect. The fault may therefore show itself
sometime after the goods were delivered, but the root cause of the problem was present at
that time.
GOODS: Business Guidance
40
If the goods breach the rights under the Act in the first 6 months there is an assumption
that the issue was present at the time of delivery – unless this is incompatible with the type
of goods or how the rights are breached, or it is shown that the goods did comply with the
rights at delivery. So if you do not believe that the assumption is correct, you must prove
otherwise. After the first 6 months, it is the responsibility of the consumer to show that
goods did not meet the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act at the time of delivery.
The assumption in the first 6 months does not apply where the consumer is seeking to use
the short term right to reject.
Note that the consumer always needs to be able to show that the goods do not meet the
Act’s requirements – the reverse burden of proof applies only to proving that this was the
case at the time of delivery.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Any advice or guidance would be hugely appreciated

Cheers!

JJ_Egan

<Under the sales of goods act/ consumer rights act, as the item is over 6months old there is a reversed burden of proof on the end user to prove that the item was faulty at the point of sale.

This would need to be done by an unbiased 3rd party and does not necessarily mean a claim will be accepted by us or the manufacturer.>

Thats essentially what consumer law says .
Its up to you to prove all your claims of manufacturing fault no fit for purpose etc .

Gimpy

Cheers for the response - I am happy to get someone to identify a fault (presumably this would be a PC repair place or something), but the bit that I don't really understand is surely the whole point is that the fault was never there at the point of sale? It's something that's developed over time, and even if it was there at the point of sale, I don't know how you'd ever definitively prove that - does that mean I am basically out of luck?

JJ_Egan

You risk the cost of the report .
Developed over time can basically be a manufacturing defect or damage . Reasonably been expected to last longer is what i would pursue .

shaun_from_Africa

Gimpy wrote: »

but the bit that I don't really understand is surely the whole point is that the fault was never there at the point of sale?

An inherent fault is something that was there at the time the goods were sold but this doesn't mean that the fault was apparent at that time.
It could be a component that was manufactured incorrectly or a solder joint that wasn't correctly done and which has failed due to it moving or getting warm during use.


You don't have to prove it 100% as civil law is based on the balance of probabilities.
You need to report to state something along the lines of:
"I have examined and tested the monitor and the fault id due to XXXXX and in my professional opinion, the cause of the failure is because of poor manufacturing or a substandard component."

unholyangel

Also, fit for purpose (since I'm guessing you said to them that the goods werent fit for purpose) means it can be physically used for that purpose - the goods not being durable does not make them not fit for purpose.

For example you buy a chair, if you can sit on it...its fit for purpose. If it only lasts 3 months then breaks, it is still fit for purpose just perhaps not sufficiently durable (aka did not last a reasonable length of time).