Hello 69bugs,
That is just a template defence by them so nothing to worry about here.
I will answer all their points below.
Quote:
1. The claimant purchased a Hewlett Packard laptop from us on 29 July 2007. He paid £1199.99 for the laptop.
That seems ok, nothing to worry about.
Quote:
2. Having had the laptop since July 2007 we aver that based on time the claimant has accept it and therefore waived the right to now reject it and obtain a full refund.
Not quite true that. The customer has six years to take action against a retailer. If the goods cannot be repaired (which it cannot due to the unavailability of reliable parts) then you are indeed entitled to a refund.
Quote:
3. We deny that the claimant was advised by Amy that should the fault be confirmed by a Comet engineer a refund would be given. All Comet customer Service colleagues are fully aware that in the event of a problem occuring with a product a repair would be carried out. A refund would not be offered. We therefore put the claimant to strict proof of this allegation.
You should contact Comet cutomers services and request, under the Data Protection Act, a copy of that phone call.
Are they trying to say you are lying? If I remember rightly didn't they first say that there wasn't someone called Amy who worked there but then you called and spoke to her?
This is your word against theirs and you should push the point of the transcript of the phone call.
Quote:
4. The independant report the claimant obtained only states that in the writers opinion the laptop had an inherant defect at the time of purchase. Given the age of the laptop the Sales of Goods Act puts the onus on the claimant to prove that the fault was present at the time of purchase and therefore aver that the claimant has not provided this proof.
This is where they are twisting what the report actually says.
On page 3 of your report it states:-
Quote:
There was no need to test the laptop further anyway as the results of the “rework” test proved conclusively that the Nvidia chip resident in this laptop is indeed defective.
The fault that is present in this laptop is a classic example of the defect that is widely reported in Nvidia GPU’s and the fact that they are failing in huge numbers due to overheating.
Had the Nvidia GPU not been defective then I would not have seen the image display correctly after “reworking” it.
Could I have been more precise than that?
I did end the report by stating that it was my opinion that the laptop was inherently defective at the time of purchase but that was also based on the irrefutable facts before me.
They also state "Given the age of the laptop the Sales of Goods Act puts the onus on the claimant to prove that the fault was present at the time of purchase and therefore aver that the claimant has not provided this proof."
The report you have most certainly does prove that your laptop is inherently defective at the time of purchase.
Quote:
5. The claimant states that the independant report also states it is impossible to repair the unit to quarantee the inherant defect has been removed. We aver that this statement only refers to the indendant company that compiled the report. It is not a statement made by the defendant.
This is where they are playing games now and trying to cloudy the waters.
There are no reliable parts available at this time. This includes complete mainboards or the Nvidia GPU's themselves.
If the replacement GPU is defective, which it most probably is, then we cannot state that the defect has been removed.
I was not saying that I lacked the technical skills to be able to replace an Nvidia GPU I was saying there are no GPU's available that will not be potentially inherently defective.
Therefore I was quite correct when I stated that it would be impossible to guarantee that the inherent defect had been removed.
Furthermore, there is a post on this forum from Staples who concur with my beliefs that there are no reliable parts available.
Quote:
6. Having had the laptop since July 2007 the claimant is not entitled to a free of charge repair.
Well you are because it is inherently defective and it is their duty and obligation to put it right.
The fact that they wouldn't give a written guarantee confirming that the repair would be free from the defect means that any offer of a repair would have been rejected anyway.
Quote:
7. In addition to a full refund the claimant is attempting to claim a further £184.99 but has not provided any substantiation of this cost.
Have you provided them with any receipts to confirm your costs?
You would need to do this for the court anyway.
You also said:-
Quote:
Lesley Laws must be psychic as he has not seen a copy of lapcures report yet.
Is that right? Because if it is the case then I would like to remove the words "It is my opinion" at the end of the report and replace them with "I have proved"
I will change that wording in future reports now as it says what I meant anyway.
Did you not send them the PDF copy of your report?
Best wishes
Paul
The Admin Team
Login
Register
Newsletters
FAQ
Search
Views: 1718
Favorites: 0
Followers: 0
