EU legacy 2 year consumer rights cover

Straightbat

Of course... hopefully I will remember 🙂

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Straightbat said:

Update and first thanks to all.  

It was an independent repair shop that told me about the EU 2 year cover malarkey.  Fortunately researching it led me to this site, the fount of all knowledge.  

I contacted the repair shop who had reckoned it was a common fault which would probably be repaired for £75 when they sent it off to confirm diagnosis and fix.  But in the nick of time after I got back to them they retrieved it just as it had been "heated up" ready to be opened. 

I have now had Currys response too, who sent me a letter specifying that they required the diagnostic report as described by a poster earlier in this thread (thank you).  I was pleasantly surprised at how readily apple are willing to provide these reports exactly as required by Currys, having run their own diagnostics first (which they had done before I took it to the repair shop).  So now I have the necessary documentation as requested by Curry's so that they can "look to provide a contribution towards a repair or replacement".

I just need to check what my rights are for the extent of the remedy - whether just a "contribution" is legal and how much it should be.

Currys will have to either repair, replace or refund. Which option they choose is upto them. 

Although it can come down to this, this isn't particularly correct.

If the OP acquires an inspection in their favour they have the right to a repair or replacement. 

If that is impossible, too expensive or the trader refuses then the OP has the right to a refund (subject to a reduction as you mentioned). 

Currys as a company know this but often with big companies rights and company policy can become blurred with staff advising customers what they've been told to say or what they interpret. 

If posters are armed with the correct info to remind the trader that they have the obligation in the first instance to repair/replace they are more likely to see the result they are entitled to. 

There is also a fourth option of a price reduction whilst keeping the goods, this should be the difference between what was paid for and what was received, in the event of ordering a 64GB device but getting a 32GB and the consumer arriving at a point where they are entitled to and wish for a price reduction then the value of that is obvious. 

With goods that require repair I think a logical deduction can be made that the current value of the goods is £x minus the cost of repair (well in fact the value is less than that as a trader would require some profit or a personal customer some aspect of a bargain for the trouble if acting as a buyer in that equation but I don't think that comes into play here). Thus seeking the cost of repair as a price reduction, assuming not too expensive, appears fair, particularly as that is an obligation the trader should have met to begin with.

With an iPad people may wish to retain the goods, or more importantly all the data on it, rather than be imposed with a refund and as their rights typically entitled them to that I think it's important for that right to be laid out fully and correctly  

You've near enough posted the same in your reply. You said if the report is in their favour they have the right to a repair or replacement. If the trader refuses then theyhave the right to a refund (subject to refund). - So it is the retailer that chooses! The customer can make a preference, but that's it.

powerful_Rogue

Straightbat said:

It sounds as though they are going to give me a cash settlement and leave the repair or replacement to me.  However I cannot see how anything less than £285 would be appropriate if  they should repair or replace, as that amount has a significant built-in reduction in value anyway.  Plus they should offer expenses of arranging the repair and compensation for the time and trouble!

You was doing so well up till that point. How much would you seek for your 'time and trouble'?

Manxman_in_exile

@Straightbat -  apologies if I've missed it, but what does the report from Apple say was the cause of the failure?

The report needs to conclude or be of the opinion that whatever caused the failure was in some way present or latent when you bought it, but only manifested itself later in failure.

So if, for example, the Apple report concludes that failure was caused by an error during manufacture or by the use of a faulty component, then you would be entitled to a remedy.  I'm not sure that a report attributing failure to a catch all "logic board failure" would be sufficient.

How exactly is that part of the report identifying the cause of the failure worded?

(I'm not saying it's impossible that Apple would produce a report saying that one of their products had failed because of a manufacturing fault or because of a faulty component, but I'd like to know what the report actually says... )

powerful_Rogue

Manxman_in_exile said:

@Straightbat -  apologies if I've missed it, but what does the report from Apple say was the cause of the failure?

The report needs to conclude or be of the opinion that whatever caused the failure was in some way present or latent when you bought it, but only manifested itself later in failure.

So if, for example, the Apple report concludes that failure was caused by an error during manufacture or by the use of a faulty component, then you would be entitled to a remedy.  I'm not sure that a report attributing failure to a catch all "logic board failure" would be sufficient.

How exactly is that part of the report identifying the cause of the failure worded?

(I'm not saying it's impossible that Apple would produce a report saying that one of their products had failed because of a manufacturing fault or because of a faulty component, but I'd like to know what the report actually says... )

Very good point. I've seen many videos on youtube and it appears Apple use the 'Logic board failure' to cover everything. It's quicker, and gets them more money by just replacing the logic board then actually identifying what the actual issue is. I also fail to see Apple issuing a report stating that the device was 'inherently' faulty upon purchase.

Straightbat

From Apple "Genius Bar" 

Problem Description/Diagnosis

Issue: Customer reports device will not power on
Steps to Reproduce: Able to replicate as described, used known good charger and ran testing
Cosmetic Condition: No signs of damage or misuse
Charging port clear
Proposed Resolution: Whole unit replacement required at out of warranty cost £285 due to logic board failure. Customer to peruse consumer law claim with place of purchase
Resolution: Customer Declined
Reason: Other
Contact Apple Support Case: 101720605457

Employee 2319649787

Straightbat

Curry's response:

Having received the report we will look to provide a payment of £284.25 which is straight line depreciation.  This is worked out by dividing the purchase price by 72 and deducting an amount for fair usage ( 18 months).  We will add £2.80 to the payment bringing the total to £287.05.  Please advise of acceptance and we will process this payment for you.

Straightbat

1. It is nearly 18 months since purchase but only 15 since first use (as shown on the Apple report's "purchase date".

2. Amazingly the calculated figure is only 75p less than the repair cost.  (The £2.80 is "out of pocket expenses" for a return train fare).  I am not going to quibble about the 18 months a) because that does reflect when I actually bought it b) I got a refund of £69 at the time of purchase on their price match promise which they later told me shouldn't have applied because the price was matched with an ineligibe retailer (based overseas I think).

So now I have to decide...1. Repair with Apple 2. Repair with local repairer IF they are right about the cause of the fault for £75 (not sure if that means Apple would not touch it afterwards though, if necessary) 3.  Put the money towards an iPad mini 6  4. Go back to android (the android tablet I am currently using must be at least 5 years old and has never broken down like the iPad mini did).

Straightbat

Manxman I hear your point about proving it was a manufacturing defect.  I raised this requirement with the Apple genius bar but had already anticipated that they would not want to 'dis' their own product.  

However I think when a product is in perfect condition externally with no evidence of abuse and the fault is solely internal, inaccessible to the customer, it is self evidently a "manufacturing fault" or quality issue, other than an unproveable and arguably unreasonable assumption on their part that I've somehow fried it with an incompatible electrical connection.

Jenni_D

If they give you a refund are they insisting you return the product to Currys? (That would be the normal outcome for a refund - the product ownership returns to the seller). If not then I'd take their offer; if yes then you need to argue some more as you're invoking your final right to a price reduction rather than a refund.