Looking for help on consumer rights for a computer that's been unfit for usage for 18+ months

FactoryFaultOLED18

Looking for help on consumer rights for a computer that's been unfit for usage for 18+ months (but the reasons have only just become known).

Hello.

I bought a fairly expensive computer from a well known and established computer retailer in England, in November 2022. The seller provides a 3 year warranty for parts and labour (a big part of the reason I went with them), which overrides the usual RMA process for computer components. I deal with the seller, not the manufacturer.

Across early to late 2023 I had to return the entire computer back to the seller because the processor kept failing. Three returns across the year which meant I lost two months of usage, in total. Now I've had to return it again, due to the same problem.

Intel, who makes my processor (a 13th generation) are in a mess with this. The problems, with public statements to corroborate from Intel, are as follows...

⦁ The motherboard vendors were not following Intel processor power specifications, allowing the processor to run with "unlimited" power profiles, which caused the processor to break down over time. This has only recently, earlier this year, been acknowledged meaning this has been happening since late 2022 to anyone who bought a 13th or 14th generation processor.

⦁ My processor SKU was affected by an oxidation issue at manufacturing, occurring from November 2022 through 2023 (but apparently addressed in 2023) but persisting on shelves/stock until "into 2024". Intel will however not provide date ranges or batch IDs, so that the affected processors can be identified first hand (batch ID information is stated on the processor lid). This cannot be fixed by software. It is a hardware defect that can only be addressed by swapping to a processor that was not affected by the fabrication manufacturing fault.

⦁ The processor was suffering from multiple microcode defects, one of which meant too much voltage was being requested, causing the processor to degrade over time. This has only just been fixed in a bios update issued last week, as a Beta, by Intel. It's yet to be determined if it actually does fix this problem or not but irrespective, it cannot fix processors which have already been affected, only attempt to make them more stable. Potentially (it's looking like) at the cost of performance.

To note and reiterate, none of the settings or bios changes or "fixes" in any of the above will fix an already degraded an unstable processor. The very best it will do is mask and manage the problem by ensuring the processor runs under its intended specification. If the processor is new, the theory is that the faults should not then happen.

Given the above knowledge, which as stated has only come to light recently, my computer was purchased with all these defects and problems from day one and throughout usage since.

Keeping the above in mind, my questions are around consumer rights when dealing with the seller. I'm getting anxious because when I first contacted them earlier this month, the response was very positive and reassuring with, "Don't worry, we know about the situation and we'll fix everything" but a later call to arrange the actual return, with someone else, was "When we get it back and when we can confirm a problem ourselves, we'll let you know".

The reason why I'm anxious is that the nature of the processor being damaged is a wide gap of instability, ranging from random background application crashes through to big events like BSODs and because of that, the notion that a problem can be determined on-demand just doesn't apply. They should know that, given this news and all my prior processor returns failing in identical ways (and their confirmations of those). Yet now, its "when we can confirm the problem ourselves".

This latest reply doesn't sit well and I feel there's an element here of them attempting to potentially push back and reduce the impact of this situation on their business. Any computer components bought are usually RMA'd directly back to their manufacturer, in this case that would be Intel. However, this seller, and others like them who offer direct support warranties on their systems, are now having to bear this burden directly which I can only imagine is exerting pressure down on them to address problems they didn't create.

My questions are....

⦁ What can I do if the seller refuses to acknowledge a fault with the processor, given the above information?

⦁ What can I do if the seller will not/cannot confirm if my most recent faulty processor is affected by oxidation?

⦁ What are my rights around the seller replacing the processor like-for-like but without a guarantee that it won't also be affected by the oxidation hardware fault?

⦁ What can I do if the seller has no stock and no ETA on when replacement processor stock may arrive?

⦁ What are my rights for potentially requesting a refund for the original computer sale, given the above information which has only recently come to light? 

I'm feeling so down about it all. Losing so much usage because each return takes 2-3 weeks to resolve and then finding out, after the fact, that each return was inevitably just going to fail again and force me to go back through it all. Again and again and now, again. 

I use this computer for home working, as well as gaming, so not having it available to use has caused me no end of problems.

I appreciate any help and advice anyone can offer.

Okell

FactoryFaultOLED18 said:

... Across early to late 2023 I had to return the entire computer back to the seller because the processor kept failing. Three returns across the year which meant I lost two months of usage, in total. Now I've had to return it again, due to the same problem...

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) a seller is only permitted a single attempt to repair or replace a "faulty" consumer item.

If that one attempt fails to fix it the consumer is entitled to a refund.  A full refund if within 6 months of purchase and a partial refund thereafter.  (Partial because a deduction can be made after 6 months to reflect the consumer's use of the item).

On the multiple occasions you have returned the item to the seller for repair, did you say you were exercising your rights under consumer legislation at all, or did you do it under warranty?

FactoryFaultOLED18

Okell said:

FactoryFaultOLED18 said:

... Across early to late 2023 I had to return the entire computer back to the seller because the processor kept failing. Three returns across the year which meant I lost two months of usage, in total. Now I've had to return it again, due to the same problem...

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) a seller is only permitted a single attempt to repair or replace a "faulty" consumer item.

If that one attempt fails to fix it the consumer is entitled to a refund.  A full refund if within 6 months of purchase and a partial refund thereafter.  (Partial because a deduction can be made after 6 months to reflect the consumer's use of the item).

On the multiple occasions you have returned the item to the seller for repair, did you say you were exercising your rights under consumer legislation at all, or did you do it under warranty?

To go over each response...

1. The hardware could not be fixed, only replaced. That's the fundamental aspect to this situation. Replacements are the only solution.

2. The failures and subsequent replacements took place over almost a year. Send it back, replaced, a few months later fails, send it back, replaced, a few months later it fails.

3. The returns were always done under the terms of the warranty, there's never been a discussion about consumer legislation which really is the point of my post and questions here. If that needs to rear its ugly head, where does it leave me.

Okell

The problem here is whether you have a better deal under (1) the seller's (or manufacturer's) warranty, or (2)  the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

Depending on what you are buying and on the precise terms of the warranty, you are generally better off relying on your statutory consumer rights rather than on any warranty.  But if the warranty gives you better rights than the legislation - go with the warranty.

Depending on the exact timeline of events - which you haven't bothered to give - you might have been better off exercising your stautory right to reject the item if the seller had had one attempt to repair or replace the item but it had still failed within 6 months of delivery.  In that case you could have got a full refund.

After 6 months after delivery, the seller can reduce any refund to atke account of the use you've had of the item.

So did you never mention your statutory rights and just rely on the warranty?

Even if you didn't mention your statutory rights you can still try to do so now.

FactoryFaultOLED18

Okell said:

The problem here is whether you have a better deal under (1) the seller's (or manufacturer's) warranty, or (2)  the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

Depending on what you are buying and on the precise terms of the warranty, you are generally better off relying on your statutory consumer rights rather than on any warranty.  But if the warranty gives you better rights than the legislation - go with the warranty.

Depending on the exact timeline of events - which you haven't bothered to give - you might have been better off exercising your stautory right to reject the item if the seller had had one attempt to repair or replace the item but it had still failed within 6 months of delivery.  In that case you could have got a full refund.

After 6 months after delivery, the seller can reduce any refund to atke account of the use you've had of the item.

So did you never mention your statutory rights and just rely on the warranty?

Even if you didn't mention your statutory rights you can still try to do so now.

Timeline of events, for more detail on three returns across 2023 and now is as follows...

1. Computer purchased November 2022.
2. Computer fault March 2023 and returned April 2023
3. Computer part replaced and returned April 2023.
4. Computer fault June 2023 and returned June 2023
5. Computer part replaced and returned July 2023
6. Computer fault September 2023 and returned September 2023
7. Computer part replaced and returned October 2023
8. Computer fault January 2024 and here, without the knowledge about three hardware-level defects in my OP, I decided to put a band aid on the problems to get stable.
9. Mid 2024 early August 2024, the hardware defects noted became known and widespread and understood.
10. Reported this fourth fault and returned August 2024.

All faults are identical. The processor.

Where this is getting complicated is the item being affected cannot be repaired, only replaced. The processor, however, is one part of an entire computer and the entire computer has to be returned each time the fault occurs.

Mentioning statutory rights never entered the conversation because through all the above, prior to this current broken processor, nobody knew about the three defects that were contributing to the processors becoming damaged. At no point did the seller flag any recalls or notifications from Intel but its unknown if Intel themselves even knew about the scale of the problems until earlier this year.

What this boils down to is that the seller has been selling hardware that isn't fit for purpose, for multiple but only now-known reasons, since late 2022. So across all that time, my computer has been a rollercoaster of is fit for purpose/is not fit for purpose/is fit for purpose/is not fit for purpose. If these defects were public, at the first processor going faulty, I would have been armed with that knowledge and able to make a decision on refund or warranty, but I wasn't. Nobody was. Only now are people aware.

FactoryFaultOLED18

For anyone else's benefit, after taking advice from Citizens Advice and going through the entire thing, from November 2022 to now, I was advised to contact the seller and reject the goods under Consumer Rights Act 2015, as not fit for purpose and not lasting for a reasonable amount of time, contextual to their repeated attempts to fix, failing.

If the seller fails to act on this, I was advised to escalate to my credit card company, used to purchase the goods initially, and progress a Section 75 and let them deal with it. This has a six year period of cover from the purchase date.

I'm deciding on my next steps but won't update this post any further.

Bradden

You say the processor kept failing.... . What makes you think its related to the microcode issues and not some other cause.

FactoryFaultOLED18

Bradden said:

You say the processor kept failing.... . What makes you think its related to the microcode issues and not some other cause.

There are three recognized ways that 13th and 14th gen have been/will degrade over time and usage...

1. 13th gen CPUs affected by via oxidation defects, at manufacture, which cause degradation.
2. 13th and 14th gen CPUs using overzealous motherboard manufacturer power profiles,  which cause degradation.
3. 13th and 14th gen CPUs pulling too many volts, due to microcode defects introduced via Intel,  which cause degradation.

All my CPUs failed in identical ways to each other but also, to the vast number of people out there also affected by it.

The problem is so far reaching, Intel no longer have stock of 13th gen for RMA, so are providing refunds instead.

Okell

FactoryFaultOLED18 said:

For anyone else's benefit, after taking advice from Citizens Advice and going through the entire thing, from November 2022 to now, I was advised to contact the seller and reject the goods under Consumer Rights Act 2015, as not fit for purpose and not lasting for a reasonable amount of time, contextual to their repeated attempts to fix, failing.

If the seller fails to act on this, I was advised to escalate to my credit card company, used to purchase the goods initially, and progress a Section 75 and let them deal with it. This has a six year period of cover from the purchase date.

I'm deciding on my next steps but won't update this post any further.

FactoryFaultOLED18 said:

Bradden said:

You say the processor kept failing.... . What makes you think its related to the microcode issues and not some other cause.

There are three recognized ways that 13th and 14th gen have been/will degrade over time and usage...

1. 13th gen CPUs affected by via oxidation defects, at manufacture, which cause degradation.
2. 13th and 14th gen CPUs using overzealous motherboard manufacturer power profiles,  which cause degradation.
3. 13th and 14th gen CPUs pulling too many volts, due to microcode defects introduced via Intel,  which cause degradation.

All my CPUs failed in identical ways to each other but also, to the vast number of people out there also affected by it.

The problem is so far reaching, Intel no longer have stock of 13th gen for RMA, so are providing refunds instead.

The advice form CAB looks like good advice to me.

Bear in mind that from 6 months after purchase the onus is on you to prove (on the balance of probability) that the product is not of reasonable quaility and not reasonably durable because it had some inherent fault or latent defect at the point of sale.  (eg faulty components)

Usually posters on here are advised that they need an independent report to verify this but I'd suggest "the context" (ie you've had it repaired for the same fault 3 times already and it now seems to be a widely recognised fault accepted by Intel) is sufficient to establish that.  Collect ehat evidence you can to support it

Bradden

FactoryFaultOLED18 said:

Bradden said:

You say the processor kept failing.... . What makes you think its related to the microcode issues and not some other cause.

There are three recognized ways that 13th and 14th gen have been/will degrade over time and usage...

1. 13th gen CPUs affected by via oxidation defects, at manufacture, which cause degradation.
2. 13th and 14th gen CPUs using overzealous motherboard manufacturer power profiles,  which cause degradation.
3. 13th and 14th gen CPUs pulling too many volts, due to microcode defects introduced via Intel,  which cause degradation.

All my CPUs failed in identical ways to each other but also, to the vast number of people out there also affected by it.

The problem is so far reaching, Intel no longer have stock of 13th gen for RMA, so are providing refunds instead.

I agree that there are issues with these chips but that does not mean yours are affected.. what makes you think yours are. Do you suffer with BSOD Crashes.. what do the dump files indicate when this happens?

FactoryFaultOLED18

Bradden said:

FactoryFaultOLED18 said:

Bradden said:

You say the processor kept failing.... . What makes you think its related to the microcode issues and not some other cause.

There are three recognized ways that 13th and 14th gen have been/will degrade over time and usage...

1. 13th gen CPUs affected by via oxidation defects, at manufacture, which cause degradation.
2. 13th and 14th gen CPUs using overzealous motherboard manufacturer power profiles,  which cause degradation.
3. 13th and 14th gen CPUs pulling too many volts, due to microcode defects introduced via Intel,  which cause degradation.

All my CPUs failed in identical ways to each other but also, to the vast number of people out there also affected by it.

The problem is so far reaching, Intel no longer have stock of 13th gen for RMA, so are providing refunds instead.

I agree that there are issues with these chips but that does not mean yours are affected.. what makes you think yours are. Do you suffer with BSOD Crashes.. what do the dump files indicate when this happens?

PC has been back to the supplier, under warranty, several times to date and all returns confirmed faulty by that supplier.

I *know* all my processors have been affected by 1, 2 or all 3 of the known issues because all three, to date, have been running hitting each processor, during heavy DX12 gaming which utilizes decompression threads constantly.

The problems leading to processor failure are all relating to heavy single thread calls, which see a zillion volts put through a single core for it to achieve boost clocks. Prior to the plethora of band-aids and power limitations that we're only now seeing added.

Again, all my failures are consistent with the massive volume of the same failure symptoms out there. "Out of video memory trying to allocate a rendering resource" is a good one, during DX12 game boot and/or initial shader compilation and/or gameplay shader decompression.
 
WHEA-Logger Warnings, citing Translation Lookaside Buffer and Internal Parity errors.

The list goes on. All consistent.

There's zero doubt.