Laptop fault - failed repair. Can I still reject the item after 8 months from purchase?

Bristol_Rover

Hoping for some guidance re: the Consumer Rights Act (2015).

Brief timeline:

• Laptop purchased from AO.com 26th February 2024
• The laptop had an occasional issue with its power - you'd shut the lid but the device wouldn't always go to sleep and would drain the battery. Also, sometimes it wouldn't switch on after you shut the lid, and you'd have to do a hard reset.
• Issue first reported to AO.com on the 29th May 2024. They transferred my call to the manufacturer (Asus), who sent some advice by email.
• The advice didn't work, so Asus collected the item for a repair on the 16th July 2024. 
• I received the 'repaired' device back on the 21st July 2024.
• I'm not convinced any repair was actually done. I think they just reinstalled windows!
• For a while, it looked like the device was working fine, but less than 2 months later, the problem has returned
• Now whenever I shut the laptop lid overnight, it won't turn on the next morning without a hard reset. This is a nuisance as it means all programs/unsaved work are lost

I'm a little confused about my rights under the Consumer Rights Act. I have given the seller a chance to repair it, and this has failed. However, the the recurrence of the fault has happened outside of the 6 month window. Does this mean I am no longer entitled to reject the laptop for a full refund?

I've tried reading the Act but it's not particularly clear.

I'd be happy with a replacement or full refund, but I'd like to be sure of my rights before I go back to the seller.

Any thoughts/advice?

Okell

As the second failure is more than 6 months after purchase and after one failed repair attempt, then my understanding is that (1) you are entitled to a refund, but the seller can deduct an amount to reflect your use of the item, and (2) the onus is on you to prove that the "fault" - or its cause - was present at purchase.

You can negotiate the first with the seller.

What evidence do you have of the second?

If the seller offers you a replacement there's nothing to stop you accepting it - and that might be a better deal

Alderbank

You are correct that under CRA the trader has one attempt to repair and if that is unsuccessful you have the right to a refund.
However that is contingent on the fault being present at the time of sale, even if not apparent at that time.

You say they didn't actually replace any hardware, just re-installed windows and the clean machine ran perfectly. You re-installed your programs and the issue has returned.

I don't know, but I think Asos might report back to AO that they found no fault with the machine and they believe that the issue was caused by some incompatibility with the software installed by the purchaser. Are you quite sure that the stuff you use is definitely not the reason for your problem?

I appreciate it is a PITA to have to re-install your programs before you start work every day. I don't know about AO but many dealers will provide (at cost!) a higher level of support for business use, such as Asos technicians visiting you rather than RTB or will provide a replacement machine. Also be aware that if you bought the machine for use in connection with your trade or profession that AO might decide you are not a consumer. You would still have rights, of course, but not consumer rights.

Bristol_Rover

Thank you for replies so far.

The question is - am I entitled to a full refund now the repair hasn't worked, now I'm outside the 6 month window? Or only a partial one?

For the sake or argument, let's say I returned the item for repair at 5 months, 15 days. The seller attempts a repair. I receive it back 6 months, 1 day after purchase. The repair hasn't worked. I can now reject the item under the CRA for a refund, but is it a full refund or a partial refund? It would seem unfair that the consumer loses out because the repair is only received back outside 6 month window? But the Act doesn't seem clear.

I'm at 8 months, so a little longer for the failed repair to re-materialise, but not a significantly long period.

In reply to a couple of the issues raised above:
1. I reported the fault approximately 3 months after purchase. I don't think because the issue has recurred outside the 6 month window (after repair), that the onus now shifts to me to prove it was there at purchase. I've already reported the fault within the window where the onus is not on me to prove it.
2. I think it unlikely the software I'm using is causing the problems. It's only really light internet use/emails and occasional word processing. I only use the laptop when travelling (once or twice a month at most).

Alderbank

Just to clarify, can you confirm whether you claimed under the CRA three months after purchase, or you claimed under Asos's 12 month warranty?

Okell

Bristol_Rover said:

Thank you for replies so far.

The question is - am I entitled to a full refund now the repair hasn't worked, now I'm outside the 6 month window? Or only a partial one?...

I thought I'd answered that...

Bristol_Rover

I telephoned AO (citing the CRA). They then telephoned ASUS while I was on the line, and transferred me over to them. Asus then carried out the subsequent 'repair'.

Bristol_Rover

Okell said:

Bristol_Rover said:

Thank you for replies so far.

The question is - am I entitled to a full refund now the repair hasn't worked, now I'm outside the 6 month window? Or only a partial one?...

I thought I'd answered that...

You did, but I'm not sure you're right. As I said, if a hypothetical repaired product is received back 6 months 1 day after purchase, and is immediately obviously not satisfactorily repaired, it has benefited the seller by delaying sending it back outside the 6 month window (in as much as they can now negotiate a partial instead of full refund). I'm not convinced the law would be written to incentivise such conduct.

Okell

Bristol_Rover said:

Okell said:

Bristol_Rover said:

Thank you for replies so far.

The question is - am I entitled to a full refund now the repair hasn't worked, now I'm outside the 6 month window? Or only a partial one?...

I thought I'd answered that...

You did, but I'm not sure you're right. As I said, if a hypothetical repaired product is received back 6 months 1 day after purchase, and is immediately obviously not satisfactorily repaired, it has benefited the seller by delaying sending it back outside the 6 month window (in as much as they can now negotiate a partial instead of full refund). I'm not convinced the law would be written to incentivise such conduct.

Well you'd be right not to be convinced as the law obviously wasn't written to "incentivise" such conduct.

s28(8) of the Act says:

 "If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered..."

s28(10) qualifies that as follows:

"No deduction may be made if the final right to reject is exercised in the first 6 months..."

That's it literally in black and white.

AIUI in this case the fault re-appeared 8 months after delivery so you must be exercising the final right to reject well outside of 6 months.  There is no 6 months and one day, or 6 months an two days, or 6 months and three days etc etc.

Therefore the seller is entitled to make a deduction for use, the value of which you can argue with them.

I won't comment on whether the seller referring you ASUS for repair constitutes a first repair attempt by the seller except to say that hopefully you made that clear to the seller when you first contacted them