I did not need to specifically ask PC World as the law entitles me to rely upon the manufacturer's descriptions of a product (which I did and which states all Toshiba laptops are sole with a manufacturer's warranty) and the onus of responsibility for any changes to that descripton falls with the seller. Yes I did ask if PC World technicians were certified with any recognised qualications and the response was "no". I was told they have in-house training which is not neitehr a certification nor a recognised qualification. I have previous positive experience with Toshiba support. Toshiba are the de-facto experts on Toshiba machines. I would not have been necessary to spend hours on this - just to have some relevant technical expertise and knowledge. Regardless of all you say, which is more supposition without the facts, you continue to miss the while point of the thread. Consider the following quotations from this source: http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/shropshire/con1item.cgi?file=*adv0043-1011.txt "Statements about the goods you sell: Anything that is stated about the items you sell – by you, manufacturers, importers or producers – for example, in advertising or labelling, should be factually correct. It is important that you know what is being said about the goods you sell because these statements form part of your contract with your customer. For example, if an advert says that a pair of shoes is waterproof and a customer wears the shoes and finds they are not waterproof, then the item does not match the description." So, there is a duty on PC World to know what the manufacturer has publicly stated (e.g. that all Toshiba laptops are sold with a manufacturer's warranty). This description by Toshiba forms a part of my contract with PC World. PC World knew they were selling a laptop without a manufacturer's warranty and failed to disclose this fact. PC World knew they were selling something that did not comply with the publicly advertised description. "Any refund, repair or replacement you arrange with your customer relating to faulty goods must not cause them too much inconvenience and you will have to pay for other costs, for example, collection or delivery." To require me to unnecessarily destrou over 100 hours of work would certainly be causing me too much inconvenience. "If you disagree with a customer’s claim, you can ask if they are willing for you to send the item to a third party or the manufacturer for inspection. If the customer agrees you can do this, it is important to remember that the goods must not be damaged during this process." There never asked me to send the laptop to the manufactuer or a third party. This did insist that I destroy the work and cost that had been expended on the product, thereby damaging it. "If a customer suffers personally because of a problem with an item, they may be able to claim damages (money to make up for it). This is called consequential loss. One example would be if a customer had to pay out more money (perhaps to hire another item) because of a faulty item that you sold them." "Retailers must use reasonable skill and care in performing services, for example installation, and if no time limit is agreed between the retailer and the customer the retailer should ensure the services are completed within a reasonable time." PC World's attempts to identify the fault clearly demonstrated a lack of reasonable skill or care.

The point is that there is a vast difference between Toshiba and PC World. The fact is that I had I allowed PC World to perform the factory reset they wanted to do (as a first step 'diagnostic' approach, which Toshiba described as a 'last resort'), it would not have identified the cause of the problem (I have done this on my own) and it would not have solved the problem (which would have reappeared once the machine had been rebuilt). What it would have done is to totally unnecessarily destroy over a hundred hours of my work and cost me more money, for which PC World refused to accept any responsibility, without either identifying or solving the fault. That is why I would never allow PC World to try to fix a problem and that is why PC World's waranty is worthless to me. That would not have happened if Toshiba had tried to diagnose the problem. This simply demonstrates the difference between PC World and Toshiba and is why I wanted the Toshiba warranty that was advertised with the machine, the Toshiba warranty that I was led to believe I had with the machine, and the Toshiba warranty that PC World failed to disclose to me prior to purchase that the had removed from the machine. I am simply trying to warn people - if you buy from PC World and think you are getting a manufacturer's warranty - you are wrong. It is denied to you and you are not told about this. If you think the warranty PC World offers is that same, you are wrong. This experience demonstrates the danger and potential cost to you of letting PC World try to fix a problem - unnecessary destruction of all your work, failing to identify or fix the problem and refusing to take responsibility for any of this. If you prefer to have a warranty with an organisation that actually knows what it is doing - insist on a manufacturer's warranty. Toshiba knows how - PC World does not.

It doesn't matter what Toshiba has in their warranty - as I don't have a Toshiba warranty - that's the point !!! This is NOT about the fault that developed, it is about the quality of support I might receive when a fault develops - the difference between support from Toshiba and the "PC World approach". The problem I have recently experienced just demonstrates this. A warranty is insurance for future problems (not covered by SOGA) that might occur. PC World's approach is to "destroy everything" in the blind hope it fixes the problem, even if it's not necessary and even if its doesn't fix the fault. In fact, it's a hardware proble, it fixes nothing and if it's a software problem, it just deletes the problem along with everything else - that's not a fix. It's like trying to cure a disease by killing the patient. Toshiba's approach is to "diagnose the fault" and fix just what is wrong. How may times do I need to repeat the same thing? This is about being misled as to what I though I was buying (I laptop with manufacturer's warranty) and what I actually received (i.e. laptop with worthless warranty). No matter what fault developed, I would never allow PC World to touch my laptop without first removing my hard drive. I would not trust them with a pocket calculator. They would not even try to diagnose what was wrong - they would simply destroy all my hard work, totally unnecessarily, and take no responsibility for doing so. Toshiba, on the other hand, would actually try to diagnose the fault. If it's a hardware problem - it's covered by warranty. If it's a software problem, they have identified it. Either way, the software and data are safe. The reason for the exclusion is in case of a hard disk failure. That is why I take backups of data as I know hardware faults do in fact occur. For all you posters who think you have technical expertise (but in fact do not) - go get a job at PC World - you will be welcomed.

Are you saying it is as described? Are you saying that simply 'offering' a repair (without actually repairing) satisfies SOGA obligations? Are you saying being incompetent is acceptable? What was offered was the unnecessary desctruction of 100 hours of work without any analysis of the fault. I also now know this would not have solved the problem. This was a an amateurish approach (as agreed by Toshiba), would not have solved the fault, would have cost me a lot, and PC World refused to agree to take responsibility for any damage they would have caused. This is about what I believed I had purchased vs I was actually sold - it is not about any fault that occurred. PC World's dangereous and amateurish attempts to deal with the fault simply demonstrate the vast difference between a Toshiba waranty and a PC World 'warranty'.

And it is not, in fact, a software problem. Regardless, this is not about the problem and never was. Try reading before posting.

This is the level of technical 'expertise' I would expect from PC World - none! I wonder if you work for PC World? Besides, I do not need technical advice, especially advice that is irrelevant to both the technical problem and the purpose of this entire thread.

How many times do I need to say that I am just trying to publicise a practice? I did not say there was a crimiinal offence, I said there may be. See post #19. Unless you are a qualified lawyer in possession of all the facts, you cannot determine if an offence has or has not been committed. As to prior to purchase, yes I did check the Toshiba web site which provides a description of the product and this includes the statement that all machines are sold with a manufacturer's warranty. I am entitled to rely upon the manufacturer's description of a product and there is is duty by the seller to advise me of any changes to that description. 1. Toshiba should have honoured the warranty (as they publicly offer this but do not exclude purchases made from PC World). 2. PC World should have notified me in advance of the change to the description of the product (i.e. that the warranty has been 'bought out'). They did not. 3. The product I received was not as described, so contravenes SOGA.

I don't want to go into specifics of the fault as it will likely just attract advice that I do not need and this is not the point of the thread. What you say about KnowHow (that's a misnomer if ever I heard one) back's up my own experience. Some of the comments I have heard from PC World are laughable (e.g. suggesting it is possible to run Microsoft Office on a standalone monitor). It is specifically because I know just how bad they are that I checked that my laptop came with a genuine manufacturer's warranty before I purchased from them. PC World denied me that warranty and failed to disclose that fact. To me, that is dishonest and disreputable and, according to Trading Standards, possibly a criminal offence.

Please carefully read my responses above and maybe your will see how your response misses the point. - What matters is what happens if/when a future fault occurs (regardless of my existing fault) - especially if a hardware fault - that is what a warranty is for - it is insurance - What matters as well is the competence of who might deal with the fault - an expert or an amateur (who might cause considerable unnecessary damage) I do have considerable technical knowledge (25 years) and that is why I can recognise the difference between competent and incompetent diagnostic approaches. Why does who provides the warranty matter? Imagine a scanario whereby, 11 months after purchase, a fault developed that might be either software or hardware; after diagnosis it turns out to be a memory (hardware) failure. This most likely would not be covered by SOGA, but it would be covered by a warranty. However, it is first necessary to diagnose the fault. Toshiba would use relevant diagnostic techniques allowing them to identify the problem and replace the memory: problem solved, minimal cost and effort. PC World's approach would be to carry out no analysis whatsoever but instead perform a factory reset (deleting all software, configuration, data etc.) just to see if it fixed the problem. This would neither identify nor solve the problem, but would have cost hundreds of hours of work with associated costs - all completely unnecessarily and all at your expense. Why does a warranty matter? When I travel, I take out travel insurance. I also make sure the policy provides for treatment by qualified doctors. If I started a year-long journey and discovered after two weeks that the policy I thought I had, which provided for expert medical care, did not actually exist, but had instead been replaced by a policy that only covered for care by back-street butchers. I would take immediate action and not wait until a butcher had amputated my arms and legs to deal with a headache and then complain later. As I have repeatedly stated, the point of this thread is to publicise this practice by Dixons. It is not about my specific fault and I am not seeking advice or assistance. If you buy from Dixons (Currys/PC World) and think you have the protection of a manufacturer's warranty, or even something as good as a manufacturer's warranty - you are wrong. If you have a problem, you will be denied the support of the experts and will have to rely on amateurs (PC World's own description). Whatever comfort the assurance of a manufacturer's warranty might give you is false. If you're the sort of person who travels without insurance and then complains when things go wrong, then that's your choice and your risk. If you're the sort of person who takes out insurance and who cares who might deal with any problems, don't buy from Dixons. If you don't care, then fine, you probably travel without insurance and that is your choice to take that risk, but don't complain if you get sick and have to deal with a butcher rather than a doctor. If, however, you do want the assurance of a warranty that will provide expert care in case something goes wrong, then think again before you buy as the assurance you thought you might get from Dixons does not exist - if you want a genuine manufacturer's warranty you need to shop elsewhere.

I am not asking for advice and I am not asking for responses. The BMW analogy was intended to represent my point about the competence of who would carry out repairs. The difference between an organisation with relevant expertise, technical knowledge, direct access to genuine parts etc vs. an organisation with none of these staffed by, in Dixon's own words, "amateurs". I have most certainly not misunderstood anything in Terms and Conditions. This is because Dixons and knowingly excluded this from their Terms and Conditions. The point you are making about the warranty is exactly what I am saying. It is an extra I was led to believe that I had, but which Dixons denied to their customers.

Yes, I am technical. Forget about the fault - that is not the point of this thread. It DOES matter who resolves the problem. What would you prefer - a medical insurance policy where you got surgery from a qualified doctor, or one where you got treated by the high street butcher?

DX, Again you are wrong and appear to be fixated by SOGAs provisions for product faults. This is not about getting support for problems under SOGA. This is about the additional protection offered by warranties over and above the provisions of SOGA. The relevance of SOGA is in the description of the product (i.e. it is sold with a manufacturer's warranty). The manufacturer's warranty is for 12 months, so yes it could be used after 6 months and it certainly could provide additional protection that was over and above what SOGA provides. It is not just a gimmick, it is a legal contract between the issuer of the warranty and the consumer. And it absolutely does make a difference if it has been bought out. Firstly, the manufacturer has certain expertise, access to parts, experience and knowledge that is not necessarily available to anyone else. Secondly, different organisations have difference competences: Toshiba has previously demonstrated their competence to me; PC World has demonstrated nothing but incompetence to me. In the same way as you might choose to take your car to a garage you trust for repair and to avoid one that you do not trust, the consumer has the right to decide who provides whatever warranty they choose. If I buy from, say, John Lewis, I get a Toshiba warranty and Toshoiba expertise. If I buy from PC World, I am denied Toshiba's expertise and competence. Had I known this, I would not have purchased from PC World. They solicited and obtained my business and my money under false pretences as they failed to disclose the loss of the manufacturer's warranty. The fact is a simple one. Toshiba warranties do not apply to purchases made from Dixons. The consumer is being misled and is not getting what they pay for. That is all that matters.

DX, actually you do. You may pay for these separately or as part of the contract of sale if it is part of the description of what is being sold.

Again, that is not the point. The point is that I believed I had a manufacturer's warranty, I do not. Even if I did not have a problem today, and I experienced a definite hardware fault in 6 month's time, I would not be able to use the manufacturer's warranty as it has been denied to me. Furthermore, this could well apply at a time when SOGA was of no longer applicable. This thread is NOT about my specific technical problem, it is about the practice of Dixons Group of buying out manufacturer's warranties.

The fault has not been properly diagnosed. PC World's attempts to do so have been a joke. I do not want to start detailing technical issus here as this is the wrong forum. As I have repeatedly tried to make clear, the purpose of this thread is to publicise Dixon's practice of "buying out" manufacturer's warranties, the consequence of which is that customers do not get what they think they have paid for.