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

bbjdfgd

TuppenceWorth wrote: »

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.

I can't tell over text if that's sarcasm as everyone seems to be against me but if it's an honest remark, thank you! I just came here to look for some advice and I still feel like no one has addressed the main points I have been making in terms of justifying my position. I agree, I am excited and nervous to start training in July (if i pass finals) but currently I am a poor student that will be coming out with a lot of student debt - if I can scalpel back the not so small matter of £1300 that I gratuitously spent due to someone else's negligence, I will do so!

bbjdfgd

timmy963 wrote: »

I think the best you could ever hope to claw back would be the £36 (mis)diagnosis fee and even then I would say 'good luck' because you would have to prove it.

would you not say the proof lies in Apple's analysis report that did not report any logic board failure? This is the full report where my evidence would lie - let me know your thoughts. They talk about a screen problem but thats something that happened with a select batch of 2015 macbook pro retina display that was released and so was repaired for free as per the quality program.

Issue: Customer reported issues with Mac not powering on and a display coating issue on the display.
Steps to Reproduce: Verified at the Genius Bar. After disconnecting the battery and reconnecting it the machine now boots on and we have run our standard MRI test which has passed.
Cosmetic Condition: Mac has one missing foot, display coating issue, marks to the bottom case on the left hand side and was booked in with a shell case clipped on top.
Proposed Resolution: We booked the machine in for further tests to see if there are any further issues with the machine that caused the device to shut down as customer had been advised at a AASP that a possible MLB may be required. After running all diagnostics on the machine there has been no issues present on both software or hardware of the device therefore no repair needed accept from the display which had a coating issue (which is part of a quality program therefore no cost required).

JJ_Egan

Problem is as always > You have an opinion as to what you are entitled to .
Others on here do not have that same opinion .


Therefore everyone is against you .


I suggest you ask the advice of Citizens Advice or a legal expert .

davidmcn

bbjdfgd wrote: »

I decided it would be more economical to buy a brand new Macbook Pro for £1304.40 from Apple than to spend £548.04 on repairing a 3-year-old laptop.

That's your choice, but in relation to a legal claim (if you do have a valid one), you have a duty to mitigate your loss. So you could have opted to have it repaired (albeit overpriced), or to find a working second-hand 2015 model. You certainly don't have a claim in relation to the excess you paid for a shiny new one.

bbjdfgd

davidmcn wrote: »

That's your choice, but in relation to a legal claim (if you do have a valid one), you have a duty to mitigate your loss. So you could have opted to have it repaired (albeit overpriced), or to find a working second-hand 2015 model. You certainly don't have a claim in relation to the excess you paid for a shiny new one.

So do you think I should try claim for the cost of the 3 year old mac? In your opinion, what do you think I am entitled to? All I want right now is to trade my NEW mac for the money spent on it. I don't think that's an unreasonable request at all since any loss made from whoever will be receiving the Mac (Apple or Jigsaw) would be from the depreciation value since I bought it. I think at the very minimum, I am entitled to that since I would not be in this problem if it wasn't for their negligence.

lincroft1710

bbjdfgd wrote: »

but currently I am a poor student that will be coming out with a lot of student debt - if I can scalpel back the not so small matter of £1300 that I gratuitously spent due to someone else's negligence, I will do so!

You did not spend £1300 due to someone else's negligence, you spent £1300 because you chose to buy a new laptop rather than have the old one repaired or buy a secondhand reconditioned model or a cheaper model. If you're a "poor student" you should prioritise your spending, £1300 on a laptop is not a priority spend!

lockedout69

In other situations where a professionals get it wrong with their work they are liable to their customer and should have an insurance in place which may cover them, not compulsory but sensible to have.

Unfortunately the person who decides whats what when there is a disagreement is the court judge if it gets that far.

I think you have a genuine grievance, did you buy the replacement from the same place that messed up the fix?

PS. hope you do get somewhere with this, seems an unfair situation not at all of your making.

lockedout69

lincroft1710 wrote: »

You did not spend £1300 due to someone else's negligence, you spent £1300 because you chose to buy a new laptop rather than have the old one repaired or buy a secondhand reconditioned model or a cheaper model. If you're a "poor student" you should prioritise your spending, £1300 on a laptop is not a priority spend!

please read that back to yourself, I don't think the op came here for a lecture about second hand goods being cheaper. Instead maybe they came here for consumer advice about services paid for and not been delivered with any competence.

Carrot007

davidmcn wrote: »

That's your choice, but in relation to a legal claim (if you do have a valid one), you have a duty to mitigate your loss. So you could have opted to have it repaired (albeit overpriced), or to find a working second-hand 2015 model. You certainly don't have a claim in relation to the excess you paid for a shiny new one.

I think the most they could claim is the cost of a second hand model minus whatever they can sell the (not) dead one for. And since it is now working from what I can tell then they can gain that by selling it. So that brings it down to costs only.

lincroft1710

lockedout69 wrote: »

please read that back to yourself, I don't think the op came here for a lecture about second hand goods being cheaper. Instead maybe they came here for consumer advice about services paid for and not been delivered with any competence.

The OP moans about being a poor student and spending £1300 on a laptop which he found he did not need. That was his choice to buy new. Had he taken his old laptop for repair, there is a possibility that an experienced person may have worked on it and found the root cause very quickly. He also took it to Apple, but after he had bought the new computer.

Sometimes people need to be told the obvious.