Onus on the consumer to prove Televison Fault.

themadhair

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Maybe it might help if you outlined a hypothetical example of an out of warranty TV fault and what you think we should do, as I'm still at a bit of a loss.

Let’s do that. Here is a hypothetical example offered by a managing director, and what their company would offer:
“The product is indeed out of warranty and we would need to see that it has ceased to function as a consequence of component failure / manufacturing fault rather than misuse / wear and tear. It is just as likely to be the former as than the latter given that this product has been in use for 19 months. We would require the owner to commission an independent engineer's report, which we would reimburse once we see that the problem is component / manufacturing. Assuming this is the case we would then fix it. If it were not the case and was found to be misuse / wear and tear we can't intervene at that point. ”

This exact situation happened with regard to Smyths and the selling of PS3’s that malfunctioned well after any warranty had expired. Smyths tried to pull the same palaver as the above hypothetical. The SCC disagreed and found against Smyths.

This exact situation happened with regard to Tesco and the selling of a TV that malfunctioned well after any warranty had expired. The NCA issued advice that if Tesco wanted a technician report that Tesco should be the ones to pay for it.

Both of the real world examples contradict the hypothetical because the writer of the hypothetical has misrepresented (deliberately imo) what is required by the 1980 act. Quite simply if I were faced with the above hypothetical I would demand the company pay for any technician report, and then be seeing them in the SCC should they refuse. And I would expect the SCC to reach the same conclusion as in the Smyths case.

foggy_lad wrote: »

It is unreasonable on the common consumer to expect them to have to commission engineer reports on common household products!

This ^^^ in a nutshell.

themadhair

I’m reading the thread the OP took Declan’s quote from. Here are some comments from that thread that seem highly relevant to this one:

Elessar wrote: »

Well done Declan for assisting the OP and fixing his TV.

However, with all due respect, what was posted earlier in regards Currys obligations to the irish consumer are misleading. The EU directive mentioned is in addition to and not a replacement of existing legislation and the consumer can opt to invoke the irish Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 instead which offers greater protection. Under this act none of the stipulations mentioned by your legal expert apply. There is no 6 month time limit, there is no requirement to prove a fault was there at the time of sale.

I won't go into it in depth (the act is available to read here), but it concerns me that as a regular customer of the Currys/PC World/Dixons group, they do not seem to be aware of Irish law?

I would like to see what Currys legal advisors have to say about it.

axer wrote: »

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Have a look at my reply on the separate thread in consumer issues which you're contributing too. Probably best to keep it on one thread. And I will of course be looking into the points made to ensure that we are holding to our obligations. We might be wrong of course, and I wouldn't have any hesitation in admitting it, were it the case

The repair people could not determine that the fault was usage related (Does that mean from misuse/abuse? or just general usuage?) but yet decided that it was.

This is very worrying and has turned me off ever purchasing items in your shop without paying the extra tax of unnecessary insurance. It seems to me that a customer can only get Curry's to fulfill their statutory obligation (without invoking the courts system) by purchasing unnecessary insurance. From what I can see customers cannot even trust your repair experts to give an honest impartial decision. Very worrying indeed.

axer wrote: »

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Are you really saying that we have a statutory obligation to repair a TV that has been in use for 4 years ?

Products should be

Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 wrote: »

as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances

so possibly yes.

So with regards the OP's claim. The screen was described as having a life of around 60,000 hours but lasted 9,658 hours. That to me would mean that the tv was not as durable as it is reasonable considering the description suggested a longer life.

Elessar wrote: »

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Are you really saying that we have a statutory obligation to repair a TV that has been in use for 4 years ?

When taking into account price paid and the item in question, yes, in certain instances. If I paid €200 for a 30" TV and it failed after 4 years, taking the price into consideration, and other factors, it may be seen to not be "reasonable" for me to expect it to last longer than that. But If I paid €1200 for it, it would be considered reasonable, so the retailer would be obliged to repair. In reality the ultimate decision lies with a judge in the small claims court on what is "reasonable".

You can read an example here where a person purchased a TV in Arnotts which developed a fault after 4 years. The media are involved, but she did get it repaired under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services act.

Another example from this forum. One poster on here mentioned a small claims court registrar told him his €1400 macbook laptop would be expected to last at least 5 years when it failed out of warranty. He filed a small claims procedure with Apple and within days they repaired it free of charge, under the act. See here.

alanashe wrote: »

My Samsung LCD tv started to develop problems a few weeks ago, It was starting to retain images. The TV is 2 1/2 years old so well out of warrenty. I contacted the retailer about this and they told me straight out that it was no longer their problem. I mentioned the sale of goods act to them and they practically laughed at me.

I then sent an email to the retailers customer service department and within 2 hours of my mail being sent they rang me.

Since then my TV was collected, repaired and returned to me.

Currys PC World: Declan

Guys, I'm out of commission for the next couple of days. I'll come back to these and any other questions over the weekend or early next week. Off to the airport now

themadhair

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Great. A practical example. How this would work with us is quite straightforward. The product is indeed out of warranty and we would need to see that it has ceased to function as a consequence of component failure / manufacturing fault rather than misuse / wear and tear. It is just as likely to be the former as than the latter given that this product has been in use for 19 months. We would require the owner to commission an independent engineer's report, which we would reimburse once we see that the problem is component / manufacturing. Assuming this is the case we would then fix it. If it were not the case and was found to be misuse / wear and tear we can't intervene at that point.

Seems that a situation you yourself were involved in Declan differs from the bolded above:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69193989

themadhair

Currys: Declan wrote: »

We took the independent report provided by the OP but it wasn't really conclusive so we took the unit in to have a look at it ourselves.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

What the independent report could not attest to was as to whether this was an inherent issue or whether it was usage related. Neither could our own repair people although the bias was to the latter.

I’m know I’m being a complete pain in the ass, but this whole misrepresentation of consumer law has gotten me riled up. The above two comments were taken from the same thread the OP references. A number of points spring to mind.

1) Because the independent report wasn’t conclusive Currys decide to have a look themselves.

This disturbs me because I would imagine a large percentage of electrical goods that failed in the same manner would also generate inconclusive reports. Determining the specific source of a fault, and its precise cause, can often be next to impossible. It appears to me that Currys, by misrepresenting Irish consumer law, are coercing consumers into accepting a completely unreasonable standard of proof that they have little or no chance of meeting.

2) The above comments seem to indicate that Currys consider ‘usage related’ issues very differently from the 1980 act.

As I explained previously, sufficient durability for a reasonable length of time is required in order to meet the standard of merchantable quality as defined by the 1980 act. If using a product in line with manufacturer’s guidelines causes the product to fail then, per the 1980 act, the product has failed to meet the standard of merchantable quality. The above comments seem to indicate that Currys do not consider any differentiation between ‘reasonable use’ and misuse, as required by the 1980 act. In this case the act of merely using the tv could, under Currys construct, qualify as a ‘usage related’ issue barring reparation – something that flies in face of the very definition of merchantable quality per the 1980 act.

foggy_lad

If you get told to commission an independant report for any product by Currys I would suggest making a small claim straight away as it is an indication that Currys have scant regard for Irish Statutes and Consumer law once they have your money!

Currys PC World: Declan

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

What happened in the real life example I provided on this thread so?



Also in the recent example I gave you the OP contacted the NCA and received this response.



Nothing about commissioning his own engineer and or seeking refund for the engineers report if the fault was actually there at time of purchase, it would striker me as odd that they wouldn't at least have mentioned this. No?

3 days later



I know your not affilated with Tesco and as such can't speak for them, but why would they replace the television without question for a finish if they were not legally required to do so.

Also I can't find anything in Irish consumer law where it states a fault has to be inherent, I have written to the NCA and hopefully one way or another they can answer it.

As I said earlier I think it will be productive if we engage on both our parts with the NCA.

On the case which you mention here concerning us, I'm not familiar with it. What we quoted was, I assume, an assessment fee for a chargeable repair, which I presume the person elected to decline.

On the question / fairness of commissioning an engineer's report, I suppose the real point at issue here is whether it is incumbent on the seller of the product to assess a broken down product to ascertain whether it has broken down due to product failure/ component failure or wear and tear/ misuse, or whether it is incumbent on the buyer. The guidance we take is from the directive, where rebuttable presumption assumes that any failure of a product within the first 6 months is taken to be from an inherent product fault and leads to an automatic repair / replacement or refund. After that period the directive guides that the onus is on the buyer to prove product failure in order to avail of those rights. It's fairly logical to seek an independent report to prove that and to reimburse it if product fault has been shown to be the reason.

The SOGA is far more vague. It brings us to the question of reasonableness, and what is that ? I may consider it reasonable that a TV that has been in use for 12 months and then breaks down has probably broken down for reasons other that product failure. Many other people do not.

For us, the best solution that we can come up with is to ask someone independent to declare that the breakdown is product related, and that this product related fault should have been present at the time of the sale of the product. What we can't do is to automatically repair / replace or refund every product that has broken down without reasonable proof that this breakdown was product related. As I said earlier, power surges can knock out TV's, as can a host of other things. No SCC judge is going to force us to act in these circumstances, so it is in our and the consumer's interest to determine the fault and, if the responsibility lies with the product we sold within the completely vague parameters of " reasonable time", then we will of course fix it in the first instance, or replace it or ultimately refund it.

I'll be interested in what the NCA has to stay. I intend to have a meeting with them at Asst Director level once I get Christmas out of the way and to bring our Head of Business Standards with me.

MunsterCycling

That is a misnomer, DSG having a Head of Business Standards, what do they do all day?
Think of ways to get your sales reps to make rubbish up along the lines of: Gold plated cables are a must to get the best from this TV...

foggy_lad

Currys: Declan wrote: »

On the question / fairness of commissioning an engineer's report, I suppose the real point at issue here is whether it is incumbent on the seller of the product to assess a broken down product to ascertain whether it has broken down due to product failure/ component failure or wear and tear/ misuse, or whether it is incumbent on the buyer. The guidance we take is from the directive, where rebuttable presumption assumes that any failure of a product within the first 6 months is taken to be from an inherent product fault and leads to an automatic repair / replacement or refund. After that period the directive guides that the onus is on the buyer to prove product failure in order to avail of those rights. It's fairly logical to seek an independent report to prove that and to reimburse it if product fault has been shown to be the reason.

Again you are quoting directives which are not at all relevant in the Republic Of Ireland!

The SOGA is far more vague. It brings us to the question of reasonableness, and what is that ? I may consider it reasonable that a TV that has been in use for 12 months and then breaks down has probably broken down for reasons other that product failure. Many other people do not.

For us, the best solution that we can come up with is to ask someone independent to declare that the breakdown is product related, and that this product related fault should have been present at the time of the sale of the product. What we can't do is to automatically repair / replace or refund every product that has broken down without reasonable proof that this breakdown was product related. As I said earlier, power surges can knock out TV's, as can a host of other things.

I have highlighted the part that sums up the retailers obligation and struck out the incorrect part about any defect being present from the time of purchase.

Nobody has an automatic right to repair replace or refund but what people are entitled to and what Currys are obliged to do is offer a form of redress. telling a customer thay must get it repaired themselves as it is out of warranty is not redress just as telling them to get a tv independantly examined to prove a fault is manufaturer related and present from time of sale is not.

if i buy a tv and it develops a screen or power fault after a few months or years that was not there at time of purchase it is still a manufacturing fault and still covered under Irish law by virtue of the tv not being reasonable durable and not fit for its intended purpose of watching programming for a reasonable time..

No SCC judge is going to force us to act in these circumstances, so it is in our and the consumer's interest to determine the fault and, if the responsibility lies with the product we sold within the completely vague parameters of " reasonable time", then we will of course fix it in the first instance, or replace it or ultimately refund it.

I'll be interested in what the NCA has to stay. I intend to have a meeting with them at Asst Director level once I get Christmas out of the way and to bring our Head of Business Standards with me.

to be honest from reading al your posts on this and other threads i dont think i would ever buy anything from the DSG group again after such disregard for Irish consumers and Irish consumer law!

themadhair

Currys: Declan wrote: »

What we quoted was, I assume, an assessment fee for a chargeable repair, which I presume the person elected to decline.

Why do you assume that? You can click on the little blue/white arrow on the quote to take you to that discussion. Even a cursory reading shows that this had nothing to do with an ‘assessment fee for a chargeable repair’. I’ll quote you the relevant portion of the discussion since it is directly relevant here:

Oirish31 wrote: »

He then said he remembered a case such as this they had with a PS3 and that the burden of proof lies with me to demonstrate there was an inherent fault with the TV. I told him I wouldn't be doing that as to get an engineer to asses the TV would both cost me money and break the warranty seal on the TV, leaving it open to suggestion that the damage was done by the TV being opened. All of this is in spite of the fact that he actually agrees with me that an expensive TV such as this such operate far beyond the 18 months without a problem.

How do you get your interpretation of “an assessment fee for a chargeable repair” from the above? A bit of a quandary this. On the one hand Currys are eagle-eyed enough to complain about one of my posts being misrepresentative while not being eagle-eyed when it doesn’t suit them. Apparently.

The SOGA is far more vague.

I am not seeing how this is vague:

” Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.”

I may consider it reasonable that a TV that has been in use for 12 months and then breaks down has probably broken down for reasons other that product failure.

How about commenting on the actual case in question. I reiterate my questions from the other thread:
” So do you, Declan, seriously believe it is reasonable to expect a grand’s worth of TV to last only 3½ years? Do you think it is reasonable to expect a grand’s worth of TV to only last 9,658 hours out of a life expectancy of 60,000?”

There are two reasons I am asking you to focus on the situation that actually transpired. Firstly, it concerns a product being used in the manner expected which is by far and away the most common scenario when it comes to folks trying to exercise their consumer rights. Secondly, I think it is disingenuous to create on a hypothetical that you have constructed to be unreasonable when there is a clear and reasonable actuality at hand that your company attempted to shirk its legal responsibilities on.

No SCC judge is going to force us to act in these circumstances, so it is in our and the consumer's interest to determine the fault and, if the responsibility lies with the product we sold within the completely vague parameters of " reasonable time", then we will of course fix it in the first instance, or replace it or ultimately refund it.

Actually you may be surprised what the SCC would do. If the person who owned the TV that failed after 3½ years had, instead of commissioning an engineer’s report, filed an SCC case I believe they would have proved successful. What would your company have argued to the SCC in this case? Would you have argued that “reasonable time” was too vague in this case? I’d be interested to know. As I said in the other thread, I think this whole business of asking for proof of a product-related fault is simply a con to coerce customers into accepting a burden of proof that has no basis in the 1980 act.

foggy_lad wrote: »

to be honest from reading al your posts on this and other threads i dont think i would ever buy anything from the DSG group again after such disregard for Irish consumers and Irish consumer law!

I’m beginning to think that Currys honestly and genuinely don’t realise how bad their comments in this thread makes them look.

foggy_lad

I am beginning to wonder if this Currys rep is actually their managing director as surely that person would not want to see the statutory rights of a whole nation trampled upon by trying to impose British consumer law and European directives that are not in force in this jurisdiction.

Elessar

Hi Declan,

The problem here, as I see it, is the confusion over what is "wear and tear" and what is an inherent fault, and who should pay for an engineers report.

The issue you are failing to see Declan (and I refer to you strictly as a Currys representative and not on any personal level) is that both are the same thing under the SOGA. That is to say, it doesn't matter. A product sold by a business to a customer must be of merchantable quality and be as durable as is reasonable to expect.

The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980:

Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

In fact if you look closely at various consumer reports, "wear and tear" refers mainly to second hand goods, in particular cars. If you look even closer, the term does not appear once in the text of the actual act.

On the question / fairness of commissioning an engineer's report, I suppose the real point at issue here is whether it is incumbent on the seller of the product to assess a broken down product to ascertain whether it has broken down due to product failure/ component failure or wear and tear/ misuse, or whether it is incumbent on the buyer.

It doesn't matter what way it has broken down (with the exception of misuse), that fact is it has broken down. If it is considered reasonable for a product to last longer than it has, the retailer must provide a remedy.

I found this Irish independent article about an issue with a couch with problems that the retailer claims were "wear and tear". As you can see, it doesn't matter - "You would reasonably expect a leather suite to last in terms of its support and also for the leather material to be durable, wear well and last for a long time."

Keeping in mind the consumer has a right to invoke the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 instead of the European Directive 99/44/EC, it is that act we are talking about. On the issue of engineers reports, it's a bit more complicated, as the act makes no mention of a burden of proof.

As I understand however, having read the act, the consumer should not be at any loss to have a faulty product remedied. Thus he/she should not have to pay for an engineers report. Again we come back to the retailers responsibility under the act, that a product must be of merchantable quality and last as long as one would reasonably expect. Of course, there is nothing stopping the retailer from denying a repair if through their own investigations the product was misused or a TVs PCB was destroyed by a power surge, provided there is proof. The point about whether the fault was present at the time of sale is moot, because along with what I described above, we are not dealing with the EC directive.

You asked me what I think Currys should do in these circumstances. I think, as with small claims cases, each case must be handled on its own merits. I believe you should, at least (for products out of warranty) offer to repair the item if it is deemed reasonable to expect it to last longer. Reasonable is indeed a vague term, but a general belief must apply. If I bought a laptop from you at €1000 with a 1 year warranty and it failed after 2 years, I would expect you to repair it under the SOGA. Any disagreement could be settled at the Small Claims Court. I think aswell, you seriously need to re-educate your store staff (particularly managers) as to their legal obligations under the SOGA as opposed to the EC directive.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

As good timing would have it, I was speaking with a friend of mine at the weekend who experienced first hand Currys procedure with warranty repairs.

Her television of 2 years purchased for €650 euro refused to switch on. It wasn't abused, mistreated, etc. It had actually very moderate use, analogue TV only.

She immediately brought it back in store, where she was to put it mildly shocked at the response.

Speaking with the manager she was informed that Currys were not obliged to fix the television as it was out of warranty. They would take the TV from her, but it would cost €120 just to look at it, this did not include the cost of any repair.

Of course she mentioned her statutory rights,. which was met with a polite smile and some strange advice, she should take it to a local repair man, as he would probably be alot cheaper.

The manager was more than nice, and seemed to be reading from the Currys hymn sheet, she mentioned her rights again, but it was a flat out no. No point arguing or making a scene, she knows her rights so she is going down the only route left open to her.

Just an update on this case as I was talking to the lady yesterday.

She sent a registered letter to head office outlining her grievances.

Over 2 weeks later she received no reply.

She initiated a Small Claims Court Case.

Within 2 weeks and this is a quote from her.

"It's amazing how fast my consumer rights kicked in when I got the courts involved".

My original question has been more than answered and sanity restored, thankfully.

themadhair

Boggles wrote: »

Within 2 weeks and this is a quote from her.

"It's amazing how fast my consumer rights kicked in when I got the courts involved".

Just asking this for clarification – do you mean that Currys fulfilled their legal obligations or do you mean the SCC ruled against them?

Arciphel

Yes, can you give us a bit more details about what she had to do to get sorted out? Cheers.

Our man in Havana

themadhair wrote: »

Just asking this for clarification – do you mean that Currys fulfilled their legal obligations or do you mean the SCC ruled against them?

It would apprear that they settled out of court once the received the summons.

Boggles

themadhair wrote: »

Just asking this for clarification – do you mean that Currys fulfilled their legal obligations or do you mean the SCC ruled against them?

Arciphel wrote: »

Yes, can you give us a bit more details about what she had to do to get sorted out? Cheers.

She filed the case, the SCC contacted Currys HQ, to notify them.

An engineer was sent out almost immediately after this.

It didn't go to court, the nudge from the SCC was enough for Currys to fulfil their contractual obligations.

Arciphel

Interesting. Also interesting that Declan hasn't resurfaced back in this thread.

themadhair

Boggles wrote: »

It didn't go to court, the nudge from the SCC was enough for Currys to fulfil their contractual obligations.

Thanks for clarifying this. It would seem to contradict this from earlier in the thread:

Currys: Declan wrote: »

If you were asking if we fix faulty products at a point when we are " threatened " with the SCC , the answer is that we don't.

Currys are a major outfit and I doubt they have hired incompetent lawyers. The only interpretation of this thread, imo, is that Currys are fully aware of their legal obligations – but are instead deliberately choosing to try avoid fulfilling such for business reasons, gambling that a sizeable portion of their customers will give up before going the SCC route.

There is no good interpretation that can be attached to this thread.

Jumpy

Bloody hell.

I will be staying away from these guys in future. As well as any other stores in the conglomerate.

Bravo Currys. This thread has been a pretty major fail for you.

foggy_lad

Jumpy wrote: »

Bloody hell.

I will be staying away from these guys in future. As well as any other stores in the conglomerate.

Bravo Currys. This thread has been a pretty major fail for you.

you will have to stay away from all companies in the DSG group as well as Smyths toys and several other companies who use the same flawed thinking when dealing with customers returning faulty goods.

foggy_lad

"The only interpretation of this thread, imo, is that Currys are fully aware of their legal obligations –but are instead deliberately choosing to try avoid fulfilling such for business reasons, gambling that a sizeable portion of their customers will give up before going the SCC route."

This is exactly what currys and others are hoping for. Much like insurance companies who reject ALL claims regardless of their merits at first reporting then go on to use every excuse under the sun to avoid paying out on legitimate claims.

JimsAlterEgo

the NCA shoudl grow a pair and tackle this type of crap head on with them and make it clear if they hear of similar issues in the future they will start fining them, growing larger for each case that arises.

Samba

Very interesting.

About a month ago my monitor started going dodgy, some investigation into the issue suggested it may have been a manufacture defect due to sub-standard components. (turns out it was precisely the same issue with mine)

I contacted PC world via phone and stated the following.

Price - €395
Age - 3yrs 8months
Where it was bought
My consumer rights.

It's worth noting they have two options on their switchboard under warranty and out of warranty, when I selected the latter I was on hold for an eternity.
I then redialled and selected under warranty number, another very long wait but eventually got hold of someone, the above points were all clearly stated, I believe
I was even asked at first was it still under warranty, it was certainly not a case of crossed wires.

Following that the gent on the phone was very helpful and promised that they would look at it and if deemed to be a manufacture defect he assured me that they would repair it at no charge. He was about to start the process only for the fact that I couldn't locate my receipt, at which point he suggested that I go to the store with ID and have them locate my purchase in the system and get a receipt printed, he would then be able to take it from there.

So why are PC World telling me this but then if I contact Currys I would be told to produce a technicians report, furthermore would having someone examine the fault potentially affect your case on SCC?

Turns out, I was way off the mark, I had bought a monitor there but I returned it and decided to go with an online retailer komplett.ie, who quite strictly state in their policy that once it's past it's warranty they have no liability essentially.

It seems to be standard practice amongst many retailers both in store and online but I can't fathom why one company under the same umbrella is using a different set of consumer rules than the other?

watty

It's irrelevant anyway what they claim. You can have right of replacement, repair or refund (never credit not) and/or Damages up to 6 years from purchase date. Computers, Screens, TVs etc would be expected to last for at least two years.

Damage due to misuse, accidents, floods, storms etc of course not covered.

Samba

watty wrote: »

It's irrelevant anyway what they claim.

In the context of the law that may be the case, however in reality if I know one shop will recognise my rights as opposed to another who will not,
I know where I will be taking my business,(peace of mind is very important) unless there's a colossal price difference which justifies the risk. I think most consumers would prefer not to have to go through the courts.

watty wrote: »

You can have right of replacement, repair or refund (never credit not) and/or Damages up to 6 years from purchase date. Computers, Screens, TVs etc would be expected to last for at least two years.

That's not for me or your to say imo, that's up to the judge to decide and after that, case law can provide us with a good guideline for this so called grey area of "reasonable durability".

foggy_lad

it now looks like Argos are trying the same rubbish as currys and smyths toys as they seem to be asking people for independant reports that laptops are faulty here in this thread

Unrealistic

foggy_lad wrote: »

it now looks like Argos are trying the same rubbish as currys and smyths toys as they seem to be asking people for independant reports that laptops are faulty here in this thread

Personally, in that situation, I would be inclined to agree to their demand as long as it was agreed that, if the engineers report demonstrated it was a manufacturing defect, the retailer would also recover the cost of the report.

It is the nature of things that, if you are the one paying the engineer, you are more likely to get the assessment that you want than if it is being done by someone employed by the retailer or the manufacturer.

Boggles

This independent engineer report proving manufacturing defects is a complete fallacy, in the real world it can only be conclusively proved if the manufacturer accepts liability.

And as we saw with HP and their over heating laptop ranges, manufacturers don't tend to accept liability of shoddy parts or workmanship too readily.

As for the example in this thread, modern televisions have only a handful of parts, "TV engineers" independent or not don't have a forensic lab where they can test faulty parts to determine low level manufacturing faults, it's a ridiculous notion.

themadhair

Boggles wrote: »

This independent engineer report proving manufacturing defects is a complete fallacy, in the real world it can only be conclusively proved if the manufacturer accepts liability.

And as we saw with HP and their over heating laptop ranges, manufacturers don't tend to accept liability of shoddy parts or workmanship too readily.

As for the example in this thread, modern televisions have only a handful of parts, "TV engineers" independent or not don't have a forensic lab where they can test faulty parts to determine low level manufacturing faults, it's a ridiculous notion.

QFT. This is simply a tactic to try imposing a burden a proof on the consumer that simply cannot be met.