Misdiagnosis from an Apple-certified repairer leading to the unnecessary purchase of a new macbook

DoaM

bbjdfgd wrote: »

(therefore I cannot claim under the Consumer Act as it is still less than 6 years from purchase)

That doesn't make sense ... the ONLY reason you can't claim against the seller is because the goods were purchased in Hong Kong. The 6 years thing (for UK purchases) is a maximum of 6 years in which to make a claim, not a minimum time before you can claim.

bbjdfgd

Caz3121 wrote: »

could Apple explain why a machine with no issues would not turn on? or do you mean they could not find the same issue you had seen?
I just upgraded a 2012 macbook pro with new battery - runs like new and although over 6 years old doesn't need replaced
If your old machine has no issues, get the coating fixed then sell it or keep it and sell the new machine...you won't need 2 working machines

Cheers for the response. I've detailed what Apple has said in the response above - the battery needed reseating. The reason why I chose to buy a new macbook was because the current one was 3 years old (which I appreciate might not be that old) and coupled with the fact that this was a random, spontaneous occurrence that led to a £548 cost, I felt like buying a new one all together would reduce the risk of it happening again. I had no Mac and my exams were imminent so I needed a working OS as soon as possible so I made that decision quickly.

Thanks for the advice, if I can manage to get back compensation, I can just give it to my dad to use. Otherwise, I will look to sell one of them.

bbjdfgd

LilElvis wrote: »

You seriously expect the repairer to be penalised by losing their accreditation for (possibly) making a single diagnostic mistake?

You better hope that when you enter the world of work that your employer doesn't take such a hardline stance or you will be changing jobs with some frequency. Everyone makes mistakes.

This single diagnostic mistake has had significant financial repercussions on me. The whole point of being Apple-certified is so that the customer can have trust in the service provider to perform a satisfactory job. One also has to consider the nature of the mistake here. I think to be told that I have to pay £548 for a repair when all Apple had to do to fix the laptop was to reseat the battery, tells me that not even the basics has been performed correctly in this service.

I am a final year medical student who will be working as a doctor in the NHS next year. Funnily enough, I will be working for an employer that has a zero tolerance policy for 'simple mistakes'. If I prescribe the wrong dose of a particular medication to a patient that has fatal consequences, I naturally will expect to be struck off. Now obviously I am not comparing misdagnosis of a laptop issue to someone dying - the point I am trying to make is that simple, human mistakes happen but you have to be prepared to be held accountable for the consequences. The consequences in this case is that I bought a new macbook when one did not need to be bought in the first place.

bbjdfgd

DoaM wrote: »

That doesn't make sense ... the ONLY reason you can't claim against the seller is because the goods were purchased in Hong Kong. The 6 years thing (for UK purchases) is a maximum of 6 years in which to make a claim, not a minimum time before you can claim.

yes sorry, this is what I meant. Its not the age, its because its from Hong Kong. The point is I could not get it repaired for free like the poster had suggested

LilElvis

bbjdfgd wrote: »

This single diagnostic mistake has had significant financial repercussions on me. The whole point of being Apple-certified is so that the customer can have trust in the service provider to perform a satisfactory job. One also has to consider the nature of the mistake here. I think to be told that I have to pay £548 for a repair when all Apple had to do to fix the laptop was to reseat the battery, tells me that not even the basics has been performed correctly in this service.

I am a final year medical student who will be working as a doctor in the NHS next year. Funnily enough, I will be working for an employer that has a zero tolerance policy for 'simple mistakes'. If I prescribe the wrong dose of a particular medication to a patient that has fatal consequences, I naturally will expect to be struck off. Now obviously I am not comparing misdagnosis of a laptop issue to someone dying - the point I am trying to make is that simple, human mistakes happen but you have to be prepared to be held accountable for the consequences. The consequences in this case is that I bought a new macbook when one did not need to be bought in the first place.

Doctors do not get struck off for every mistake they make as that would clearly be ridiculous. Sanctions meted out are proportionate. What you are asking for is wholly disproportionate.

TuppenceWorth

OP.

You have done well taking the criticisms on the chin....
Best wishes for your future training. Once you start your Foundation Training years you can put this behind you. I wouldn't put too much more energy into this. Just my opinion but others may advise otherwise.

Gavin83

bbjdfgd wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, if I can manage to get back compensation, I can just give it to my dad to use. Otherwise, I will look to sell one of them.

Wait, so you're expecting the full cost of the new laptop back AND to keep the laptop? If (and it's a massive if) they gave you the money back due to their poor advice they would then own the new laptop, you don't just get to keep it as well. Be reasonable here.

mattyprice4004

Keeping the new laptop, the old laptop, AND getting over a grand back?

����

You’re on another planet sir

bbjdfgd

LilElvis wrote: »

Doctors do not get struck off for every mistake they make as that would clearly be ridiculous. Sanctions meted out are proportionate. What you are asking for is wholly disproportionate.

Gavin83 wrote: »

Wait, so you're expecting the full cost of the new laptop back AND to keep the laptop? If (and it's a massive if) they gave you the money back due to their poor advice they would then own the new laptop, you don't just get to keep it as well. Be reasonable here.

Thanks for your response guys. I feel like the discussion is starting to become a little unhelpful in terms of me getting any advice to move forward with the complaint and is focusing on other irrelevant issues and analogies. I feel like no one has addressed the position I was in. If you had bought a new macbook and then consequently found out that the apple certified repairer had made a mistake where there was no problem at all, just a simple reseating issue that costs nothing, would you not feel entitled to compensation? The fact remains, that if the diagnosis was made correctly, I would have not had to be charged anything as the diagnosis fee would have been waived. I should add at this stage that the original diagnosis was made by an apprentice bench engineer which further strengthens my suspicion that a proper analysis was not performed.

I agree with you guys, upon reflection, the demand for the provider to lose their status might be excessive. However, in my book, I had done everything right and its not like I had even damaged it in the first place! It was a simple matter of reseating the battery, if you can't do that right, why should you have the status of an Apple-certified repairer?

Sorry I should have explained myself clearly. I don't expect compensation and to keep the new laptop - I just thought they would not be able to take it back as it has been over a month since I bought it. However, I would happily give back the new macbook in return for my money.

bbjdfgd

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Keeping the new laptop, the old laptop, AND getting over a grand back?

����

You’re on another planet sir

No no, let me clarify what I want. I just want the money spent on my new mac in return for said mac. I have come here for advice on how to complain properly as I do not have much experience on it. I will make that more clear in my offical complaint so thank you for pointing out that my previous demand was unreasonable.