Acer Aspire - 5 and half months

[isdattrue]

Bought an acer aspire 15 sept 07, had it replaced 20th sept.

 

Last week this second one broke down completly would not boot up, and have tried everything, including using specialist boot up disks, which discovered bad sectors on the hard disk.

 

If anyone knows these type of problems are usually associated with the end of a hard drives life.

Now under SOGA i think i can ask for a replacement within the first six months - is this true?.

Anyway confronted Comet today who told me that they would have to try and repair it first, and that could take about a month, i argued with regards to my rights under SOGA, but as others have stated, it was like talking to robots.

 

I recorded my conversation with the store manager using my digital dictaphone with my microphone ear-piece, who would not even tell me her surname when asked. When i kept informing her of my rights under SOGA (which now i'm not too sure of), she just kept informing me that retailers had rights as well.

 

I phoned today also their customer support line and it also (recorded) was like talking to someone who kept saying the same thing over and over about "i assure you we work in conjunction with trading standards", basically telling me i could not ask for a replacement.

 

Now i have until the 20th of this month when the 6 month window closes which is offered to me under SOGA, so basically my question to you all is where do i stand with this?

 

Do i have to accept a repair offer from comet instead of a replacement?

[ForestChav]

Yes.

 

If the repair option is disproportionate to the cost of a new machine.

 

A new HDD for a laptop is likely to be less than £50. A new laptop is more likely to be 7 or 8 times that.

 

The "six month rule" is purely a way to decide if the fault, by default, was present at purchase. It is, provided a "reasonable time" has passed (usually 28 days) not regarding entitlement to a refund or replacement or anything else. Usually you can get a refund if you reject the goods before a reasonable time, but afterwards either a repair or replacement is sufficient remedy - the options dependent on the cost of repair and replacement, and whether changing in this case a HDD (a 5min job on a lappy) is inconvenient.

 

This is precisely why I always advise people NOT to go into stores spouting incorrect SOGA, because it makes them look like morons.

[isdattrue]

Thanks for replying chav.

 

How do they prove that it was'nt faulty at the time of purchase?

[ForestChav]

Usually they can't, unless they have a qualified report saying it is down to misuse or wear and tear.

 

In any case, your point has been answered - a repair is, initially, an appropriate remedy on a high-value item, you should let them fix it.

[gyzmo]

Usually they can't, unless they have a qualified report saying it is down to misuse or wear and tear.

 

And if they do say wear and tear then they have more than likely supplied an item that is not of reasonable durability - so either way its tough on them!

[ForestChav]

And if they do say wear and tear then they have more than likely supplied an item that is not of reasonable durability - so either way its tough on them!

No chance of wear and tear on a notebook of that age.

[SharpmanTF1]

any way of finding out the make/model of hdd in question.? The hdd itself has a manufactures warranty, and as you say i'm sure it far excedes the 5months or so that the machine has been used.

[isdattrue]

thanks people,

 

the point i'm trying to get at is if there's anyway i can sort of demand or claim a replacement laptop, not a harddrive. I know the hd is completely knackered and they will have to replace this, if sent for repair.

 

Seeing as this laptop should come under either the durability clause, or the not fit for purpose, then surely the onus is on the retailer to prove to me that this was not the case when purchased. In additon to this i think (probably mistakenly) that this sort of proof is impossible, so i should be in my rights to demand a new replacement laptop. Should'nt I? Can anyone see my logic?

 

Basically if the retailer cannot prove to the consumer/customer that the laptop was not fit for purpose, then surely they should have to honor the request of the consumer for a replacement and not a repair.

 

Anyway thanks again people.

[ForestChav]

thanks people,

 

the point i'm trying to get at is if there's anyway i can sort of demand or claim a replacement laptop, not a harddrive. I know the hd is completely knackered and they will have to replace this, if sent for repair.

 

Seeing as this laptop should come under either the durability clause, or the not fit for purpose, then surely the onus is on the retailer to prove to me that this was not the case when purchased. In additon to this i think (probably mistakenly) that this sort of proof is impossible, so i should be in my rights to demand a new replacement laptop. Should'nt I? Can anyone see my logic?

 

Basically if the retailer cannot prove to the consumer/customer that the laptop was not fit for purpose, then surely they should have to honor the request of the consumer for a replacement and not a repair.

 

Anyway thanks again people.

Not if the cost of replacement is disproportionately high to the cost of repair, as I have stated. The law merely states that if such faults were present at purchase then depending on the costs of either option, a repair or replacement must be offered by the retailer. It's slightly more complicated than that but you've not necessarily got an entitlement to a new machine as opposed to a new HDD.

 

If the fault was not present when you got it, the retailer doesn't have to do anything. It certainly isn't a "golden ticket" to pick your remedy as even Comet have rights.

 

And it is possible to prove- for example, if you had kicked it and cracked the screen, or dropped it which crashed the heads of the HD, or something there would clearly be evidence of misuse which isn't the retailer's responsibility after six days, let alone six months.

 

Besides which, it will probably go back under warranty if you, or Comet, contact Acer.

[gyzmo]

Yep. Within the first six months it is for them to prove that the item DOES conform to the contract - not for you to prove that it doesnt.

 

After 6 months it is for you to prove.

 

Get in there quick!

[isdattrue]

So gyzmo are you saying i could request a replacment?

[gyzmo]

What I meant was that the burden of proof is on the store to prove that the goods aren't faulty.

 

It is for the seller to choose a remedy - either repair, replacement or (pro-rata) refund in that order. Whichever one is chosen must be proportionate compared to the others and be of minimal inconvenience to you.

 

You can certainly ask, but you may not get! Don't know about gadgets and things so could not say which one is most appropriate.

[flipper7711]

My two cents on this one:

 

i think the Currys offer is reasonable. If the rest of the machine is fine then it's a fair offer. Regarding the store and call centre experience - businesses cannot force employees to give their personal details to customers (like their name), and nor should they, although managers should generally be comfortable with this but all you need is a first name if you are going to refer to them in conversation higher up. Retailers and store staff do have rights as well (although it's not terribly professional to use this as a response to a customer),

 

From a call centre perspective - after reading though this forum (which I think is great), one thing that people should remember is that you are calling as an individual, customer service staff are speaking on behalf of a business so there will always be a difference in language used. Customer engagement is great if and when it happens but if you steam in quoting SOGA or any other law then you are basically challenging the legality of their policy so of course they will resort to phrases like "we work in conjunction with trading standards" - it's a polite way of disagreeing with you that's all. The only people who should argue the law with customers is the legal department - not the customer service staff.

[ForestChav]

What I meant was that the burden of proof is on the store to prove that the goods aren't faulty.

 

It is for the seller to choose a remedy - either repair, replacement or (pro-rata) refund in that order. Whichever one is chosen must be proportionate compared to the others and be of minimal inconvenience to you.

 

You can certainly ask, but you may not get! Don't know about gadgets and things so could not say which one is most appropriate.

Hmm, that shows something. In my understanding of SOGA, the burden of proof, and appropriate remedy if proved/not disproved to be inherently faulty are two separate issues. Unless the commonly quoted (which I'm yet to find, certainly in SOGA 2k2) notion of having "accepted" the goods has not elapsed, that is.

 

AIUI, the option of replacement or repair depends on these:

- the inconvenience caused to the buyer (ie, either remedy must not cause undue inconvenience - which then I presume the buyer would have to prove/quantify if required)

- the cost of the goods

- the nature of the goods

- the purpose for acquiring the goods

- the relative costs to the seller of repairing the fault and replacing the goods (if either remedy is disproportionate, it is not an option to which you are legally entitled to pursue)

etc.

 

From a technical perspective, then I would say fixing the HDD is likely to fix the problem. A computer, regardless of form factor, is modular and replacing the faulty part is usually a successful repair, unless there is an inherent problem with the parts also affecting the replacement.

 

It is also disproportionate to expect that the machine is replaced when replacing the HDD would do. I don't know the specs of the PC, as the model or form factor hasn't been stated, but most PCs are about £500 for the unit and a HDD is rarely more than £100 unless it is extremely high capacity.

 

if you steam in quoting SOGA or any other law then you are basically challenging the legality of their policy so of course they will resort to phrases like "we work in conjunction with trading standards" - it's a polite way of disagreeing with you that's all. The only people who should argue the law with customers is the legal department - not the customer service staff.

Which is why I don't like telling people to print off a copy of SOGA and go in spouting it. It is good to know your rights but going in to a shop misrepresenting the rights aggressively will only make you look like a moron especially if you don't understand them.

[gyzmo]

If anyone spoke to me in that manner I would have their details and be writing to the CEO telling him to give the staff some proper training and stop treating a half day nursey school type training course on legislation as an authority.

 

Sellers do have rights. But if you read the legislation these rights extend only to recovery of property / money or a right to select a remedy within the confines of the relevant legislation. The consumer's rights come first and foremost, and anything that goes against that is basically void. A seller may well say that they want to try and repair it for a fourth time (taking a month each time). The consumer has a right to have a remedy which is not inconvenient. The sellers "rights" must come within those confines.

 

And traders do not "work in conjunction with trading standards" - they (should) operate under the law, receiving help and guidance from TS and similar services, and will ultimately face sanctions if they consistently fail to do so. Sellers do not have statutory powers in they way TS have, do not operate on the same level and have completely different interests.

 

The closest they get to such a thing is operating some "working together" policy which is basically lip service to half heartedly doing what they are supposed to be doing in the first place.

 

And the legality of their policies is already challenged as soon as some fob off excuse is given. If there is a dispute, then the best option is to write in rather than deal with some numpty who has bare minimal trainin and is more interested in hitting targets than they are of helping the customer.

[gyzmo]

As to SoGA. The problem comes because there are two separate routes. The traditional one is to rescind the contract before acceptance or to claim damages after acceptance. Acceptence is covered under s. 35 of SoGA.

 

The newer route (Part 5A - additional rights of buyer) brings a different approach that is not dependant upon aceptance of the goods. the rights there - of repair / refund (partial) refund etc are designed to be fairer and more convenient for the consumer and business. It is under this part that the consumer gets the 6 months of reversed burden of proof (ie - the seller has to prove it ISNT faulty) but the seller can choose the remedy so long as it meets the proportional and convenience criteria. Thr pro rata refund (nd recission) is an acknowledgement of the removal of the need for goods to be accepted. The sooner it i rejected (presuming a refund is to be used) then the closer to the actual selling price will the refund be.

 

Its interesting in that in practice Part 5A and Part II (thetraditional route) have become mixed up in practice, though in theory they are entirely separate.

 

Also, I also do not like people who quote legislation without having proper regard as to what they are talking about, but I equally dislike sellers who seem to think that the can decide whether or not the law will apply to them.

[isdattrue]

Thanks people,

 

Yeah i went into the store pretty sure of myself, and probably made myself look like an ass, left feeling pretty dejected, not wanting to take their option of a repair that would have taken at least a month.

 

Anyway today i phoned consumer direct and they confirmed what you guys have been spouting, that i could probably push for a replacement if i worded it correctly but that in the end i would have to accept the repair offer.

 

Phoned acer today and they will send a courier and have promised to return the laptop within 10 days.

Amazing eh?, comet told me that they would have to send the laptop to acer and it would take them 30 days, and yet acer seem to offer a gold star pickup service and return right to my door.

 

Thanks again people

[flipper7711]

Re traders rights:

 

I need to disagree here - some retailers do work in conjunction with Trading Standards in the sense that they have a direct representative in the organisation and hold regular meetings. They also submit any policy changes to this representative to ensure TS requirements are being met. This, to me, certainly qualifies as "working in conjunction with".

 

I apologise for not being more specific re the rights of retailers and staff - I was really getting at the issue regarding courtesy and professionalism. Generally, store staff follow policy. They do not create policy and it's usually not part of their job to argue or even discuss legal interpretation of SOGA with customers. Customer Relations staff should have a working knowlege of legislation as it applies to their policies.

[gyzmo]

The problem, as I have highlighted in any post concerning call centres, is poor training, the company promising the earth, and disillusioned staff. That is obviously not down to the individual - it is down to the company which causes the failings in staff and the failure of service that consumers expect. I have lost count of the number of times that I have had "debates" with staff over some aspect of consumer legislation, and heard the most ridiculous things being said. It is for that reason that I normally bypass the normal route and simply write a letter which does not have the disadvantage of being answered back or someone telling me that their trainer said such and such therefore it must be right (thus making what my lecturer, a fully qualified and experienced Weights and Measures Inspector) wrong.

 

As to the TS reps, these are usually companies that have been so poor in fulfilling their obligations that TS have had to undertake special measures to improve things (mostly because of the size of these companies who employ more legal staff than most TS authorities have in total numbers of staff and certainly hundreds of times their budget).

 

Part of TS's remit, under the Enterprise Act especially, is to provide effectve enforcement via education and advice to businesses to help them comply with legislation (or in some cases force it upon them). That is a whole lot different from "working in conjunction". It is very much a one way street. Sellers may sometimes get a free lift every now and again, but they certainly are not behind the steering wheel.

 

It is not a joint enterprise. It is not the organisation suddenly deciding that they are in fact subject to the law. It is the enforcement authority forcing these companies to sit down at a table and to have a little "chat" about where they stand.