Am I covered by consumer rights?

Turner79

Afternoon all,
I bought a Microsoft laptop from Argos just over a year ago which has now started playing up to a point it can’t be used. I took the direct route of going to Microsoft to see what my warranty covered and the best they can do after a failed repair attempt is a refurbished device. This isn’t really any good as mine is so well looked after and low in usage, who knows what the refurb could be like. I decided to go to an independent repair shop rather than lose my original device and they said as it’s a Microsoft surface 3 it’s not classed as a laptop and they couldn’t repair it, however he did advice looking into the consumer rights act and believe I would be able to speak to Argos and get a new replacement.

Has anyone got some experience in this area to help me decide my next steps please 

neilmcl

Your laptop is over a year old, doesn't really matter how well you've looked after it you wouldn't be entitled to a brand new device. Is it still in warranty or not, if not then the MS offer is very generous as they don't have to offer you anything, unless you purchased it directly from them, which I can see you haven't.

So on to your consumer rights, you may be entitled to remedy of either a repair, replacement (could be a refurb) or refund (partial at this time) but your rights are with the retailer, not the manufacturer, unless they are one and the same. After 6 months the onus is on now on you to prove that an actual fault exists and did so at the time of sale, ie not something that's occurred due to user error, excess wear & tear or damage.

Sandtree

neilmcl said:

After 6 months the onus is on now on you to prove that an actual fault exists and did so at the time of sale,

This is throw back to the older legislation and was only ever a theoretical idea... if something broke after 18 months and it wasnt reasonable for it to wear out in that time nor was it missused/misstreated its assumed to have had a defect from the point of sale and never required you to prove it had a fault then.

The current legislation is better worded and talks about reasonable durability etc which covers off the same point without the notion of historically proving something.

As to the OP, ,your rights are with the retailer and at this point they have a choice of repair, replace or refund. On the later option they can reduce settlement to reflect the use you've had. As the item is over 6 months old it is the retailers right to ask you to evidence the fault via a report (and that its a fault not miss-use etc) however many retailers don't exercise this right.

You simply need to inform Argos that the item is defective and you believe it has not lasted a reasonable life. You can point out that Microsoft have declared it beyond economic repair but they don't have to be swayed by this as they are entitled to one repair attempt of their own if they wish. If they do and it fails then you have the right to demand a refund but they can reduce to reflect use.

neilmcl

Sandtree said:

neilmcl said:

After 6 months the onus is on now on you to prove that an actual fault exists and did so at the time of sale,

This is throw back to the older legislation and was only ever a theoretical idea... if something broke after 18 months and it wasnt reasonable for it to wear out in that time nor was it missused/misstreated its assumed to have had a defect from the point of sale and never required you to prove it had a fault then.

The current legislation is better worded and talks about reasonable durability etc which covers off the same point without the notion of historically proving something.

As to the OP, ,your rights are with the retailer and at this point they have a choice of repair, replace or refund. On the later option they can reduce settlement to reflect the use you've had. As the item is over 6 months old it is the retailers right to ask you to evidence the fault via a report (and that its a fault not miss-use etc) however many retailers don't exercise this right.

You simply need to inform Argos that the item is defective and you believe it has not lasted a reasonable life. You can point out that Microsoft have declared it beyond economic repair but they don't have to be swayed by this as they are entitled to one repair attempt of their own if they wish. If they do and it fails then you have the right to demand a refund but they can reduce to reflect use.

Sorry, but you're totally incorrect, or simply not understanding what was posted. There was nothing "theoretical" regarding the onus of proofing that goods don't conform to contract in either the old SOGA or the CRA. You even go on to say pretty much exactly the same as I did in your third paragraph.

Sandtree

neilmcl said:

Sorry, but you're totally incorrect, or simply not understanding what was posted. There was nothing "theoretical" regarding the onus of proofing that goods don't conform to contract in either the old SOGA or the CRA. You even go on to say pretty much exactly the same as I did in your third paragraph.

But there was on the statement that you had to prove that they were faulty at the point of purchase.

This is always something that people struggled with as if their oven worked perfectly for 12 months and then suddenly stopped heating they get confused or put off with the idea that they'd need to prove that the fault was there when it was bought.

neilmcl

Sandtree said:

neilmcl said:

Sorry, but you're totally incorrect, or simply not understanding what was posted. There was nothing "theoretical" regarding the onus of proofing that goods don't conform to contract in either the old SOGA or the CRA. You even go on to say pretty much exactly the same as I did in your third paragraph.

But there was on the statement that you had to prove that they were faulty at the point of purchase.

This is always something that people struggled with as if their oven worked perfectly for 12 months and then suddenly stopped heating they get confused or put off with the idea that they'd need to prove that the fault was there when it was bought.

As you said yourself, after 6 months the seller can require (and I accept this doesn't always happen) the buyer to provide proof that not only a fault exists but it was an underlying fault that was present at the time of purchase. SOGA mentions inherency to manufacture but the CRA simply states that it had to be there when it was delivered, which tbh, is pretty much the same thing. I pretty much said the same as you later did by clarifying what that meant ie, "not something that's occurred due to user error, excess wear & tear or damage.".

Sandtree

neilmcl said:
the CRA simply states that it had to be there when it was delivered

Do you have the section/clause that says that?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Sandtree said:

neilmcl said:
the CRA simply states that it had to be there when it was delivered

Do you have the section/clause that says that?

There isn't really a clause, the CRA deals with the goods conforming to the contract based upon a range of different aspects. 

Quite often posts here (correctly) state that the fault has to be present at the point passing of risk occurred but that statement on it's own can be a bit misleading* without an addition to clarify that this includes for example, as it's most relevant in this instance, internal parts failing before their time which to be fair Neil did say in another way by adding not due to user error, excess wear & tear or damage.

*A lot of people when told it has to be present originally would take that to mean the current problem had to be there rather than the underlying cause. 

Sandtree

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
There isn't really a clause, the CRA deals with the goods conforming to the contract based upon a range of different aspects. 

And so if @neilmcl agrees with you then my point is correct, that the CRA no longer states you must prove the fault was there at point of purchase... which is a good thing as the whole inherent fault confused a lot of people and put people off. The faster we move away from talking about that and move to the new language which is of the goods being of satisfactory quality which includes explicitly durability the better.

People understand that if something breaks after 14 months it probably wasnt durable enough... the idea it was always faulty is harder.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Sandtree said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
There isn't really a clause, the CRA deals with the goods conforming to the contract based upon a range of different aspects. 

And so if @neilmcl agrees with you then my point is correct, that the CRA no longer states you must prove the fault was there at point of purchase... which is a good thing as the whole inherent fault confused a lot of people and put people off. The faster we move away from talking about that and move to the new language which is of the goods being of satisfactory quality which includes explicitly durability the better.

People understand that if something breaks after 14 months it probably wasnt durable enough... the idea it was always faulty is harder.

Effectively it's the same thing, that underlying issue of a non durable part would have been present originally. 

I agree about the type of language used and have raised that point on the board previously. 

neilmcl

Sandtree said:

neilmcl said:
the CRA simply states that it had to be there when it was delivered

Do you have the section/clause that says that?

"

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract."

In other words under 6 months any fault is assumed to be present on the day the goods were delivered, unless proven otherwise. Ergo the opposite is true after 6 months, the buyer would have to establish that the goods didn't conform to contract at the time of the goods were delivered.