Who actually 'pays' for an out-of-warranty CRA 2015 claim?

Jeepers_Creepers

Hi all.

This relates to a 2-year old Lenovo laptop. The warranty was for one year, so that ran out in November 2019. This November it developed a broken hinge which mean that to open and close the lid caused the screen and bezel to flex in that corner and separate away from the lid itself - so son has been using it with the lid in a fixed position.

Anyhoo, I'm chasing Lenovo themselves for a FOC repair citing 'not of satisfactory quality' as termed by the CRA 2015. I know that I should really be going back to the retailer for this, but I'm trying to get Lenovo themselves to sort it for a number of reasons;

1) Lenovo have the repair shop for such repairs, so it would probably end up going back to them anyway.

2) It's Lenovo's bludy fault - broken hinges is a not-uncommon issue with their Ideapad laptops - so I'd feel bad tackling the supplier for this.

3) Son is at home for Chrimbo, but will need his laptop on his return to Uni in January - I'm hoping it'll be quicker going direct.

However, if I need to CRA the supplier, I'll do.

Which brings me to my Q! If I do have to oblige the supplier to arrange a repair, will they end up footing the bill (which I've read could be circa £200!). Or will their part of this task be to get Lenovo to do it for them FOC?

Anyone know?

Cheers.

powerful_Rogue

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Hi all.

This relates to a 2-year old Lenovo laptop. The warranty was for one year, so that ran out in November 2019. This November it developed a broken hinge which mean that to open and close the lid caused the screen and bezel to flex in that corner and separate away from the lid itself - so son has been using it with the lid in a fixed position.

Anyhoo, I'm chasing Lenovo themselves for a FOC repair citing 'not of satisfactory quality' as termed by the CRA 2015. I know that I should really be going back to the retailer for this, but I'm trying to get Lenovo themselves to sort it for a number of reasons;

1) Lenovo have the repair shop for such repairs, so it would probably end up going back to them anyway.

2) It's Lenovo's bludy fault - broken hinges is a not-uncommon issue with their Ideapad laptops - so I'd feel bad tackling the supplier for this.

3) Son is at home for Chrimbo, but will need his laptop on his return to Uni in January - I'm hoping it'll be quicker going direct.

However, if I need to CRA the supplier, I'll do.

Which brings me to my Q! If I do have to oblige the supplier to arrange a repair, will they end up footing the bill (which I've read could be circa £200!). Or will their part of this task be to get Lenovo to do it for them FOC?

Anyone know?

Cheers.

Your claim is against the retailer and NOT the manufacturer.

As the item is 2 years old, the onus is on YOU to prove the item is inherently faulty. To do this you will need to pay and get a report. If the report confirms this, you can claim the cost of the report back. The retailer can then offer a repair, replacement or refund, the choice is theirs. If they refund, they can deduct for the 2 years use of the laptop.

With a faulty hinge, I don't think you will get much joy after 2 years of use.

neilmcl

Lenovo have zero obligation to you outside the terms of their warranty. The retailer are responsible for any breaches in contract so ultimately they will foot the bill. TBH, why would it matter who pays for it.

One thing to add., the responsibility on proving that a fault exists, rather than damage caused by yourselves, will be yours and I doubt the seller will do anything until you can do this. TBH, it'll probably less hassle to get a replacement hinge and fix it yourself.

Sandtree

Your title and thread don’t seem to tie up to each other.

The CRA is about your rights against the merchant and them alone. The CCA can mirror those rights to be against the credit provider if you directly used regulated credit to make the purchase (eg on a credit card).

Manufacturers in UK law have relative minimal statutory obligations however a little more when it comes to common law.  Obviously any business can chose to do something as a gesture of goodwill and some manufacturers are better known for doing so than the merchants that sell their products.  Quoting statute, especially inappropriate statute, however isnt normally a good way to get goodwill.

If you enforce your rights then its the merchant that has to pay in the first instance, they may have commercial agreements that they can recover all or some of those monies back from their suppliers but that is irrelevant to you. These types of commercial terms inevitably impact the wholesale price they pay for their stock.

Jeepers_Creepers

Thanks folks.

Yes, I understand the claim process and to whom it should be directed. The reason why I'm curious about whether the retailer rather than Lenovo could end up footing the repair bill if the item is deemed to be of unsatisfactory quality, is because I think that would be completely unfair on the retailer as well as making them far less likely to be helpful in the first place. As I said, Ideapad hinges are known for this issue.

Clearly it would be impossible to 'prove' that the hinge was inherently faulty and broke through normal use. Fortunately, tho', even Lenovo's own support forum has numerous similar cases involving Ideapad machines. Between that and the fact the laptop is in otherwise immaculate condition, it should surely be enough to suggest that the item is not of satisfactory quality and has an inherent weakness; it's a 2-year old, top-of-that-particular-range laptop which has never been subjected to anything other than normal use - the opening and closing of the lid.

Does anyone know, then, should a CRA-based claim be successful against the retailer, would Lenovo take on the repair, or would the retailer have to foot any bill?

Edit - sorry, Neil - I see you did answer my specific Q. Thanks.

davidmcn

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Does anyone know, then, should a CRA-based claim be successful against the retailer, would Lenovo take on the repair, or would the retailer have to foot any bill?

I don't know specifically about Lenovo or this retailer, but in theory they can come to any agreement between themselves about such things, it's going to depend on the relative negotiating positions of the parties. I doubt there's a standard answer. I've heard the big supermarkets effectively "fine" suppliers if any customers so much as complain about their items.

neilmcl

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Thanks folks.

Yes, I understand the claim process and to whom it should be directed. The reason why I'm curious about whether the retailer rather than Lenovo could end up footing the repair bill if the item is deemed to be of unsatisfactory quality, is because I think that would be completely unfair on the retailer as well as making them far less likely to be helpful in the first place. As I said, Ideapad hinges are known for this issue.

Clearly it would be impossible to 'prove' that the hinge was inherently faulty and broke through normal use. Fortunately, tho', even Lenovo's own support forum has numerous similar cases involving Ideapad machines. Between that and the fact the laptop is in otherwise immaculate condition, it should surely be enough to suggest that the item is not of satisfactory quality and has an inherent weakness; it's a 2-year old, top-of-that-particular-range laptop which has never been subjected to anything other than normal use - the opening and closing of the lid.

Does anyone know, then, should a CRA-based claim be successful against the retailer, would Lenovo take on the repair, or would the retailer have to foot any bill?

Edit - sorry, Neil - I see you did answer my specific Q. Thanks.

I really don't get this argument. The retailer chooses to sell something therefore they take on the legal responsibility for the quality of those goods. Whether they can get something back from the manufacturer is neither here nor there.

Jeepers_Creepers

I thought it was interesting, Neil.

So, a manufacturer makes a product with what is very likely an inherent weakness - it becomes a 'known' issue over time - and the retailer carries the can? It just does not seem right.

neilmcl

Retailers probably have some arrangements with manufacturers to deal with faulty stock but at the end of the day dealing with repairs etc, is all part and parcel of their business model and fully taken into account when setting their markup etc, otherwise they'd soon go out of business. I wouldn't be feeling to sorry for them.

Manxman_in_exile

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I thought it was interesting, Neil.

So, a manufacturer makes a product with what is very likely an inherent weakness - it becomes a 'known' issue over time - and the retailer carries the can? It just does not seem right.

Why?  If the manufacturer is making a sub-standard (or not sufficiently good enough standard) product, which is causing an unacceptable (to the supplier) number of consumer complaints, then the supplier stops stocking the manufacturer's product or starts to impose a "penalty" on them for each complaint.

I'm 100% certain that your question "who pays for the repair etc?" is meaningless in this respect and will ultimately be covered by the contractual terms negotiated between the two commercial parties - and these will depend on the respective bargaining powers of the two parties.

So, if a manufacturer has a popular product which has a very high demand and needs virtually no effort to be sold by the bucketload, they will be in a very strong position to dictate terms.  On the other hand, if the manufacturer is relatively unknown or unfashionable they will be in a weak position when negotiating the terms of distribution contracts with established suppliers, and may find themselves heavily penalised if their product results in too many returns.

That's sort of how the free market works.  It's demonstrated on Dragons' Den each week.

Jeepers_Creepers

I get what you are saying, Neil. However, I do think it's unfair on them in a case such as this where I understand the hinges are sub-par.

The practical difference it would make here is in my determination to pursue a FOC repair. I'm pretty confident I have a good case for the reasons stated before, but if I thought the retailer - a smaller one in this instance - was going to face a £200 bill, it would give me pause. (If it had been Tescos or PC World or similar, I'd go for it quite happily.)

It's just weird, I think! Under the CRA 2015, consumers have pretty solid protection well after warranties have expired; if a washing machine suffers failed bearings after, say, 5 years' normal use, and it carried only a 1 year warranty, the retailer has to cover all the costs for the additional years?! Jeepers, it's a wonder they manage to exist. :-)