Am I covered by consumer rights?

neilmcl

Manxman_in_exile said:

neilmcl said:

unholyangel said:

The default position in law is that it is for the party alleging breach (of contract, tort etc) to prove their claim.

The CRA makes an exception to that rule that if the goods don't conform to contract in the first 6 months, it is assumed the lack of conformity was inherent. 

If it's after 6 months there's no such assumption and it's back to the party alleging breach, to prove there has been a breach. In other words, they need to prove the goods inherently failed to conform.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But isn't part of the issue to do with "to prove"? 

I may well be completely mistaken - probably am - but isn't Sandtree arguing that the use of "to prove" puts many people off because many people take it to mean to prove with certainty.  Wouldn't it be clearer to say "to show (or to demonstrate) that the cause of the fault was more likely than not present at purchase"?

And that "the cause of the fault" might be something as ordinary as an insufficiently durable component which might work OK for 6 months and then wear out too quickly or break?

TBH, I've no idea what his argument is about, I've simply explained what the law would require.

George_Michael

neilmcl said:

TBH, I've no idea what his argument is about, I've simply explained what the law would require.

It gets even more confusing when they have previously stated things such as:

Sandtree said:

The retailer gets once chance to deal with the matter as they see fit, after that attempt is exhausted you are entitled to request a refund as a resolution. If it goes wrong next time outside of the first 6 months of ownership in theory they can demand that you prove its an inherent fault however in my experience of Samsung (which is a lot unfortunately) they tend to not do this. Similarly a refund can be discounted for the use you've had of the item but again Samsung tend to be fairly generous in this space and I suspect if its still under a year old you'd get a full refund.

Sandtree said:

But if the item becomes faulty within 1 to 6 months it is up to the merchant to prove the items wasnt inherently faulty... so they, or the bank in its obligations under S75, need to prove the OP caused the damage rather than the OP proving it was faulty. If it was over 6 months old then the onus of proof reverts to the OP.

unholyangel

Manxman_in_exile said:

Isn't this debate really just about different usages and meanings of the words "proof" and "prove" in relation to post-6 months faults?

Although I do agree with the_lunatic that some responses on these boards regarding the "after 6 months" problem are sometimes - no doubt unintentionally - a bit unclear and confusing.  Even though I'm sure the meaning is perfectly clear to the author!

To be honest, I've read and re-read their post and still no further forward as to what they were trying to say. 

But the section in CRA about durability was lifted almost word for word from SoGA, likewise with the 6 month rule. So I'm not sure which "older legislation" they were referencing or what they were referring to when they said current legislation is better worded and talks about durability without the notion of "historically proving something" (which I took to mean the inherent point). 

Turner79

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.

Apologies for the slight delay in response… that is exactly what I did in the end. After lots of toing and froing with MS i was provided with this email.

‘Thanks for contacting Surfacesupport. As requested this the independ report under case #######, in which we can confirm that your Surface Laptop 3 of 13,5 inches with serial # #######, is defective presenting multiple crashes while being used. We performed several remote test and suggested other test to try to fix the incident with no positive results, based on this we have determined that the equipment mentioned above requires a replacement or exchange based on the warranty which still covered.’

I took this very unofficial feeling email with me to argos and after being refused by the worker, spoke to a manager who begrudgingly found out the process of providing a refund.

As much as it was broken after almost no use, I felt lucky to get a full refund so long afterwards.