Saturday, 12 January 2019

The trials of returning an HP laptop via Nurnberg



What is the point of spending decent money on a laptop, researching the hard drive, screen capabilities, processing capabilities and paying over the odds for reliability if it just doesn’t work?  Why?  The motherboard is broken.  Recently consumer rights law changed so now we have to give the manufacturer a chance to repair unless the fault manifests its self in the 1st month.  But how long can you plausibly take to repair something?  Is not two weeks a bit long?  And what if the unit is still faulty?  You’d think then they’d just give you your money back.  But no HP insist you waste all your time ringing them and talk to somebody who can do nothing except refer you to another “team”.  HP have a lot of teams because fobbing off customers is a team sport.  When eventually, through liberal use of legal threats, a section 75 credit card claim and continual harassment on social media their resolve began to crumble someone on another team wrote back to say they would generously agree in the circumstances to “buy back” the box of spare parts that resembled a computer.  I duly returned the computer to the Czech Republic which took another 3 weeks as HP use UPS – a courier service that seems to be trying to match surface mail - sorry I mean “international economy” – for lackadaisicalness.  


Yesterday a lady from another team at HP informed me that they had finally received the machine and that I should be being refunded sometimes next week.  What’s the point of attempting to buy anything of decent spec anymore?  In the future I shall only be buying throwaway rubbish … as it seems to me that these days the more you spend the worse the product is.  The proliferation of meaningless reviews on the internet doesn’t help either in determining if anything is any good to begin with and Which are no better – mysteriously not reviewing entire manufacturers.  They don’t seem either to do manufacturer reliability statistics anymore… so what’s the point in them then?

Honestly, what’s the point in anything?

27/11/2018

Dear Sir or Madam,

REFERENCE: HP-5CG8271TQV

I purchased the HP Laptop 17-by0021na from HP. At the point of purchase I paid £799 to HP directly on the 6th of August 2018.  It was delivered on the 9th of August 2018. 

The HP Laptop 17-by0021na is not of satisfactory quality.

I reported it broken on the 7th of November since it suffered from a continual failure to boot properly which had deteriorated to the point where it would not even start using BIOS keyboard shortcuts.  The BIOS too was faulty.  After sending it for repair on this date HP concluded that errors were due to a faulty motherboard. This problem you claimed to have fixed, returning the item to us on the 20th of November.  A turnaround time of 13 days (nearly 2 weeks) during which the machine was wiped. 

After re-set up – the machine had been blanked meaning complete user re-set-up was required as well as the reinstallation of software and licences – the computer again showed boot problems within the next two days. 

It then began pronouncing error messages to do with the “PCCE SOLID STATE DRIVE” and “Smart Supporting Driver”.  Other missives from the unit warned us “Internal Disk At Risk” and “Early Warning Signs …” and advised us to “Contact Manufacturer”.  As well as showing errors the product has problems with log on and seems unable to remember the PIN with any sense of reliability meaning yet another complete re-setup may be required.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract I have with HP that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. 

As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the product for less than 6 months and a previous attempt at repair or replacement has also failed, I am within my statutory rights to ask for a full refund of the original cost paid.

I would remind you of Section 23 section 2

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer

It seems to me to be unreasonable to require me to now return the “repaired” product to HP for a repair that may take up to 13 days given that it has already taken HP 13 days to not repair the original product.  I would remind you of section 7 of the act.

(7)A consumer who requires or agrees to the replacement of goods cannot require the trader to repair them, or exercise the short-term right to reject, without giving the trader a reasonable time to replace them (unless giving the trader that time would cause significant inconvenience to the consumer).

It is my view that the inconvenience I am suffering from not having use of this computer is significant and that a downtime period of effectively a whole month is unacceptable. 

Having no usable computer for these extended periods of time is not viable for me and I have therefore passed the point at which necessity requires that I purchase an additional laptop to replace the one that should be working.  This is unreasonable.

I have already generously allowed HP time to attempt to repair the machine and their mistakes but they have failed to fix the machine adequately and I suspect that the original hardware issues have not been addressed. 

I therefore request that HP provide a full refund in return for the return of the goods. 

I await confirmation that you will provide the remedy set out above within 14 days of the date of this letter.

Etc Etc …wait for cows to come home.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Chinny rub of the Week

Apparently Essex Police turned up at the door of Allison Pearson on Remembrance Sunday to say someone had reported her for posting something...

Least ignored nonsense this month...