Currys and out of warranty

flaneurs_lobster

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977758#Comment_81977758

There needs to be an (independent?) assessment of the laptop to show that the fault was a spontaneous failure and not caused by reckless or careless treatment (not that I am suggesting that this is the situation in the OP's case).

Thing goes phut, cause for complaint; thing goes phut after pint of full-fat coke over keyboard, not so much.

sheramber

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977758#Comment_81977758

It depends on why it has failed. Failed due to Misuse does not mean it was not of satisfactory quality.

sonearandyetsofa

The issue is whether the reason it's failed is because it has been damaged by the customer. After 12 months the customer is responsible for proving that it's faulty because it had a pre-existing issue, which in practice means they do need to pay someone to inspect it and provide that proof to the retailer. Easier to pay the retailer the £50 to get it inspected, or if you're suspicious then pay for your own inspection. The retailer doesn't know why it failed until they check, so it's not just a case of saying it should have lasted longer - they don't know if the customer has dropped it, or spilled water on it, or is carrying it around by the plug for example.

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head This is really puzzling me, I've seen multiple references to disproportionate cost of repair or replacement allowing the retailer to opt to refund instead. It's provided in local government guidance too, like this: https://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/314036/17/766/d Direct quote "You cannot insist that the trader repairs or replaces the goods if either remedy is impossible or disproportionate (too costly) when compared to other remedies you may have.". Other remedies include a refund, and I haven't seen anything suggesting that this is limited to any particular time period after purchase.

Given the variation in cost and availability of computer parts over time it's not outrageous that they could say a repair would be disproportionately expensive, but there shouldn't be a huge deduction from the refund offered as OP has only had 12 months out of it and personally I'd expect a reasonable quality laptop to last a good 5+ years. I suppose OP could claim for the cost of recovering and transferring the data from the faulty laptop as well under contract law, but if they have a refund and their data back I'm not sure what else would be required to put them back into the position they were before the contract was breached. Maybe any other costs associated with doing the work they would have been able to do on the laptop if it was working? But it's only a £600 device, I bet there's something in the smallprint to try and limit their liability to the cost of the item itself unless it actually causes an injury.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977775#Comment_81977775

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977777#Comment_81977777

If I were the OP and were confident that I had not damaged the laptop then yes, I'd just pay the £50 and let currys get on with the inspection knowing I'd get the cost refunded

But if I didn't want to pay the £50 in the first place I'd simply argue that the laptop was cleraly not of sufficient quality under s9 as no reasonable person - which is the test in the legislation - would consider it to be of satisfactory quality,

I'd argue that absent proof that I've damaged it the fact that a £600 laptop has failed after just over 12 months is prima facie evidence itself that it isn't of satisfactory quality. It doesn't take an expert to tell a court what a reasonable person would believe - it should be within the competence of the court to do that.

If currys want to establish that the OP has damaged it or misused it in some way, then they and not the OP can pay for the report to say that.

I'm aware that everybody will disagree with me and simply repeat "the OP must get an independent report proving a manufacturing fault"

I'm just not so sure about that as everybody else seems to be…

sonearandyetsofa

The legislation states that it is the consumers responsibility to prove the item was faulty at the time of purchase if the fault is discovered after the first six months. That's explicitly stated, in the same way that if the fault is reported within the first six months it's also explicitly stated that it's the retailers responsibility to prove that it wasn't faulty when purchased.

Given all of the many, many ways in which a laptop, which is a fairly delicate piece of equipment, can be misused, I cannot imagine it would be as simple as stating that it must have not been of satisfactory quality because it broke. I strongly suspect that any reasonable person who has had any substantial amount of contact with the general public, for example anyone who has worked in retail, would not accept the mere fact that the item is faulty as proof that it wasn't satisfactory quality. People do ridiculous things with their belongings every day.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977168#Comment_81977168

Do either of them run for anything like the same amount of time.

Hoover in our house, Max of 30 mins a week

Tumble dryer (£99 5 years old) will maybe be a couple of hours once a week in winter, rest of year sits doing nothing.

Laptop will be on at least 6 hours a day, every day of which 3 are watching video's in a evening. Then again I do spend a lot more than I should on them. (Not Apple)

Ergates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977758#Comment_81977758

A laptop (even one cheaper than £600) should definately last longer than 14 months - but laptops are quite easy to damage.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977799#Comment_81977799

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23

(3)The consumer cannot require the trader to repair or replace the goods if that remedy (the repair or the replacement)—

(a)is impossible, or

(b)is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

Guidance is usually badly written, the section (23) only covers repair/replace and the paragraph heading sentence specifically mentions "the repair or the replacement" and then later speaks of "the other" of those remedies.

I don't believe it makes any reference to the second tier remedies (final reject/price reduction). 🙂

You can't force repair/replace which then moves you on to reject/price reduction but you can seek damages for breach of contract instead of relying on the CRA remedies. Burden of proof either way is on the consumer after 6 months so is there much difference if the consumer really wants a repair? I don't think so but happy to be corrected.

Jumblebumble

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977749#Comment_81977749

My experience in the real world of Lenovo/Dell warranties is the exact opposite

Jumblebumble

No idea about Lenovo but with Dell if you extend a warranty ( even if out of warranty) no one asks if the unit is working or not and no one cares