£1500 Laptop - Now faulty 13 months after purchase

enginestar

Guys, I've read this thread with great dismay.
What happened to the consumer rules that says things should last a reasonable amount of time?
I can't quote the exact rule off the top of my head...
But... I've heard looads of times from the mouth of Martin Lewis AND Dean Dunelm (I'm sure I have the name wrong) from LBC.

But then you guys put a spanner in the works by saying that YOU (the person with the problem) need to get an expert opinion that the item had some sort of fault originally or something to this effect. This doesn't make sense and goes against the advice that I have heard said.

I had a problem with Ikea. £300 cupboard: heavy door fell off. I asked for help from Ikea, they told me to **** off. 😕 
My credit card company made me file a report and collect evidence and then turned around and said I needed an expert review of the wood. They said it was highly unlikely I can get this report and that I should lie down and get screwed by Ikea (or something to that effect).

I was going to make up a report from my mate Dave who has done carpentry for 50 years - no formal qualifications though. I just gave up.

The thing is... one didn't need an expert! Ikea furniture are beautiful on the outside - but hollow and made from cardboard inside!!! As such, there's ALWAYS a chance for bits to fall off!

OP: don't give up. Please chase them on this. Post back here if you resolve in your favour.

MattMattMattUK

Safe'n'Sound said:

Fault makes the laptop unusable

What is the fault?

prowla

MattMattMattUK said:

Safe'n'Sound said:

Fault makes the laptop unusable

What is the fault?

That's the question; nobody can give proper advice without knowing if it's software, hardware, config, hard disk/SSD, power supply, etc.

sheramber

Why are all 'mates ' called Dave?

Manxman_in_exile

While the nature of the fault might be of interest, is it really relevant so long as the OP can show it was not caused by him?

Surely what he needs to do is what I suggested yesterday.  Go back to HP and tell them that he is NOT relying on their own 12 month warranty, but on his statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that goods should be of a satisfactory quality and be fit for purpose.  Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

s9(3)(e) of that Act specifically refers to "durability" of the item as a factor that can be taken account of in assessing whether something is of "satisfactory quality".  A £1500 laptop that fails after 13 months is clearly not of satisfactory quality - unless it's been broken by the consumer.

If HP want to argue that it is perfectly reasonable for one of their £1500 products to fail after 13 months and want the OP to get an independent report as to the cause of failure, the OP can cross that bridge when he gets to it.

Personally I'd then get a computer repair engineer to produce a report and I'd specifically ask them (1) to identify the cause of the fault so far as possible and (2) to say whether there is any evidence at all that the fault has been caused by something that has happened since the OP came into possession of it.  (eg dropping it or other rough handling).

If there is no evidence that the fault has been caused by the OP's handling of the laptop, then it seems to me the only other conclusion must be that it's HP's responsibilty.  (eg badly designed or badly put together or substandard components used).  I think if a report presented to court showed that - on the balance of probabilities - the fault had not been caused by something done by the OP, then the court would find against HP.

Once he's got a report and if it either goes against the OP or HP don't accept it, the OP can decide whether it's worth suing them, or just pay to get it repaired himself.

I wouldn't pay for a repair myself until I'd done all the above...

Of course I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if my understanding of the position is right or not - but I don't see how it would be reasonable to accept an expensive laptop packing up after 13 months - if the OP has done nothing to break it.

MattMattMattUK

Manxman_in_exile said:

While the nature of the fault might be of interest, is it really relevant so long as the OP can show it was not caused by him?

The nature of the fault is more than an interest though, if it is hardware they will need an specialist report to demonstrate an inherent fault, if it is software it is almost certainly their fault on some level and will be easily fixed, so the fault jo longer exists. 

Phantom151

Manxman_in_exile said:

Personally I'd then get a computer repair engineer to produce a report and I'd specifically ask them (1) to identify the cause of the fault so far as possible and (2) to say whether there is any evidence at all that the fault has been caused by something that has happened since the OP came into possession of it.  (eg dropping it or other rough handling).

If there is no evidence that the fault has been caused by the OP's handling of the laptop, then it seems to me the only other conclusion must be that it's HP's responsibilty.  (eg badly designed or badly put together or substandard components used).  I think if a report presented to court showed that - on the balance of probabilities - the fault had not been caused by something done by the OP, then the court would find against HP.

Once he's got a report and if it either goes against the OP or HP don't accept it, the OP can decide whether it's worth suing them, or just pay to get it repaired himself.

I wouldn't pay for a repair myself until I'd done all the above...

Of course I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if my understanding of the position is right or not - but I don't see how it would be reasonable to accept an expensive laptop packing up after 13 months - if the OP has done nothing to break it.

Then OP is firmly in the court of which will cost more, the report or the repair. No point in spending £200 on a report if the repair would only cost £50...

Maybe a starting point would be to ask HP what the likely repair cost would be.

bris

Manxman_in_exile said:

I wouldn't pay for a repair myself until I'd done all the above...

Of course I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if my understanding of the position is right or not - but I don't see how it would be reasonable to accept an expensive laptop packing up after 13 months - if the OP has done nothing to break it.

But thats the whole point, people use them in different ways. The laptop could be running 24 7 mining crypto coins (very popular nowadays), an electrical surge could have fried a component, a drop or water could have driped on it unnoticed, along with numerous other reasons so the manufacturer or retailer can demand this report to rule out user fault.

Liquid damage is usually the suspect. I have spilt drinks over my keyboard numerous times but been lucky so far.

Manxman_in_exile

But wouldn't the OP still be following exactly the course I have suggested?  So far all that has happened is that HP have said it's out of warranty - the OP so far as I know hasn't told them he's claiming under the legislation.  (That's why he's come here asking what to do).

When he tells them that, there is a possibility (albeit faint) that HP might accept it's an inherent fault and give him a remedy anyway.  If they don't accept it, he can then decide whether to go down the route of getting an independent report or not.

In my view, so long as the independent report says that there is no evidence of the OP having caused the damage, then it would be up to HP to demonstrate that it wasn't an inherent fault.  I think they would find that very difficult to do if there is no evidence that the OP caused the fault.

I don't see that the nature of the fault affects what action the OP takes.  Whatever the nature of the fault he shouldn't be paying to have a 13 month old laptop repaired.  (It might affect the outcome but it doesn't affect what the OP needs to do - ie challenge HP under the legislation).

What I don't understand from yesterday is that several posters seemed to be suggesting that because HP had told the OP that it was out of warranty, that therefore the OP should consider paying for a repair himself.  WHAT? 

I don't think anybody had spelled out for him to go down the route of the Consumer Rights Act.  (Although I'm happy to be correctd on that point.)

Phantom151

Manxman_in_exile said:

But wouldn't the OP still be following exactly the course I have suggested?  So far all that has happened is that HP have said it's out of warranty - the OP so far as I know hasn't told them he's claiming under the legislation.  (That's why he's come here asking what to do).

When he tells them that, there is a possibility (albeit faint) that HP might accept it's an inherent fault and give him a remedy anyway.  If they don't accept it, he can then decide whether to go down the route of getting an independent report or not.

In my view, so long as the independent report says that there is no evidence of the OP having caused the damage, then it would be up to HP to demonstrate that it wasn't an inherent fault.  I think they would find that very difficult to do if there is no evidence that the OP caused the fault.

I don't see that the nature of the fault affects what action the OP takes.  Whatever the nature of the fault he shouldn't be paying to have a 13 month old laptop repaired.  (It might affect the outcome but it doesn't affect what the OP needs to do - ie challenge HP under the legislation).

What I don't understand from yesterday is that several posters seemed to be suggesting that because HP had told the OP that it was out of warranty, that therefore the OP should consider paying for a repair himself.  WHAT? 

I don't think anybody had spelled out for him to go down the route of the Consumer Rights Act.  (Although I'm happy to be correctd on that point.)

If memory serves, it is up to the OP to prove that the fault lies with HP after 6 months. It will have to be an expert report. That is why I suggest it comes down to costs. Which is cheaper? No point in winnng the argument if the report is more costly than a fix would've been.