Bought laptop from argos, its faulty and manufacturer says it's not covered in warranty

[nigela...@googlemail.com]

Hi,
Last July 2014 I bought a laptop from Argos at the link below.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Toshiba-C50-15-6-Inch-Ci3-1TB-Laptop-/360950885935?ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:GB:3160
It was manufacturer refurbished with 12 month warranty.

Occasionally when typing I was getting double letters. I did not give it that much thought at the time but it steadily got worse. Anyway last week I decided to contact Toshiba so I could get it fixed. I figured it's under warranty so may as well get it fixed. Anyway when I phoned them they arranged for the laptop to be collected from my house (I thought this is a great service)

A couple of days later they sent me an email saying,

"We have a query, regarding the repair of your computer.
At present, our Toshiba engineers are unable to replicate the problem described."

They asked me to answer a list of question which I did and sent them back. They then contacted me again via email saying


You have liquid damage
"We are contacting you in regards to the repair of your unit. An Estimate of Costs (EOC) has been generated because your repair is not covered under the scope of the warranty. This means that you will have three options:

- Pay for the full repair to be completed.
- Pay for the return of the unit.
- Have it disposed of free of charge."

and a bill for £118


I know for sure I have not spilt anything on this laptop I have only used it a dozen times and it's in mint condition.
So I sent them an email back which you can see below what it said


Dear Mr Walker,
When I bought this item from Argos it was a "manufacturer refurbished" item it was not bought as new. This laptop is a customer returned item. I have not ever spilt any liquid on this item, it has been kept in immaculate condition at all times. Your engineer on the 12th March in an email stated he could not replicate the problem I described with the laptop. But now you are telling me there is evidence of liquid damage. Just because someone may be able to see a stain on the underneath of the laptop (as in picture you sent me) this does not show that I have damaged this laptop.
It simply explains to me that this is possibly one of the reasons it was returned by whatever customer purchased this item in the beginning. Let's face it after it had been refurbished by the manufacturer,
the manufacturer would have had no way of knowing there was still a problem with it if Toshiba's engineers struggled to replicate the problem that I described so you would of just sold it on.
I am just unfortunate in that I am the one who bought this item. Therefore I cannot accept that I will be billed for this repair. I bought this item in good faith ,if it had not come with a 12 month Toshiba Warranty I would not of purchased this item in the first place. I look forward to hearing from you with an adequate resolution,
Best regards Nigel.

They then sent me another email as below

Thank you for your recent enquiry.

We cannot speculate about when, where, how or who spilt liquid on the computer. This is the condition we received your computer in. The photograph of the underside of the keyboard shows the dried residue of a liquid ingress into the keyboard. Please note, that with liquid damage we cannot exclude secondary damages caused by advancing oxidation(rusting) effects to parts not listed in the Estimate of Costs.

Please be aware that a manufacturers' warranty is offered as a service in addition to your statutory rights as a customer to your retailer. It is not a contract made directly with the customer. This warranty does not limit or replace your rights a consumer and does not affect you statutory rights adversely. As a consumer, your rights actually lie with the entity you purchased your asset from, which is the retailer. Please refer to the Sales Of Goods Act 1979. This can be independently checked with the Citizen's Advice Bureau and the Office of Fair Trading. The retailer is responsible for any queries regarding the suitability, functionality or lifespan of the product so you may wish to contact the retailer from where you bought the asset in order to pursue a claim under the http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54.
For more information on consumer rights, please call Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 08454 04 05 06 or visit http://www.oft.gov.uk/consumer-advice/CAB-overview.

So after this very long winded post my question is what do I do. Toshiba are saying they will give me 3 choices.
Return my item unrepaired for £64
Repair my item and send it back to me for £118
Destroy it for free.

Do I have any comeback at all on this with Toshiba or Argos?
Thanks Nige

[The Todal]

Your rights are against Argos, not Toshiba.

I think your actual options are:

a) Ask for the item back, unrepaired (paying a fee) and then ask Argos
to repair the item and refund the fee, or

b) As Toshiba to repair the item, pay the fee of 118 pounds which is
quite modest, then ask Argos to refund this sum to you and if they
refuse, sue them.

I'd go for (b) because it gives you a repaired laptop and less
inconvenience all round.

Argos might be reluctant to reimburse you. But you have documents from
Toshiba verifying the defect and the cost of repair so the only question
is whether Argos sold you a defective laptop or whether you damaged it.
I don't see Argos going to court to argue over 118 pounds. You may have
to sue them before they pay up but that's what I'd do in your shoes.

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:56:26 -0700 (PDT), nigela...@googlemail.com
wrote:

>So after this very long winded post my question is what do I do. Toshiba are saying they will give me 3 choices.
>Return my item unrepaired for £64
>Repair my item and send it back to me for £118
>Destroy it for free.

>Do I have any comeback at all on this with Toshiba

No, the standard terms for their guarantee exclude liquid damage

"WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS
This Limited Warranty does not apply to....
6. damage caused by accident, abuse, contamination, misuse, viruses,
liquid contact, fire, earthquake, improper or inadequate maintenance
or calibration, negligence to the system or other external causes;"

They have found evidence of liquid damage so have decided to decline
to repair it under warranty which they are entitled to do. The
supplier of a guarantee can attach more or less any condition they
like and there are no implied terms.

> or Argos?

Not really, after 6 months if a fault occurs it is up to the buyer to
show what was responsible for the failure. This isn't usually too
onerous and can be satisfied by a report from a repairer - Toshiba in
this case. Unfortunately for you Toshiba will simply say liquid
damage and have photos of it. Any other repairer would say the same.
On the face of it this would show user damage and not be something the
supplier would be required to repair at their cost.

You would then have an uphill struggle to prove on balance of
probability that the liquid contamination was there at the time of
purchase. That will prove difficult. Simply saying "I'm really
careful and know liquid has never been near it" is unlikely to
convince anyone as everyone says that. Similarly claiming the
damage was there but not noticed when the laptop was reconditioned is
unconvincing.

[Pelican]

"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:m23mgapate9kd6loe...@4ax.com...

You are essentially saying that the OP is not being truthful, without
anything to support that claim. The reality is that the OP has quite a
reasonable story to tell, and the retailer is not likely to be in any
position to counter it. The retailer might not like it, but that's the risk
a retailer of refurbished goods takes.

[christophe...@gmail.com]

>
> - Pay for the full repair to be completed.
> - Pay for the return of the unit.
> - Have it disposed of free of charge."
>

I have a related question: Did they inform you there would be a cost for the return of the item before you sent it to them?

I have returned a phone (to a different manufacturer) under warranty as it has stopped charging. They wrote to say that the problem is the screen's cracked and it will cost ŁX to repair or ŁY to return.

My main issue with them is the screen has nothing to do with the fact it's stopped charging, as the screen was cracked well before it stopped charging.

But my question to the group is that they did not inform me in any way that sending the phone to them came with the risk of having to pay Ł50+ for it to be returned. They twice told me not to use their original packaging, as I won't get that back! But not once did they mention there was a fee for the return of the item (posting it to them was free; they even sent a preprinted label).

Is it considered reasonable for them to do this? And if not, what can I say to force them to return it me for free?

Thanks,
Chris

[Peter Parry]

No, I'm saying the purchaser has the responsibility to prove that the
cause of the failure was a condition which existed at the time of
sale. It is accepted that the damage was caused by liquid spilling
on the keyboard. It is the buyer who has nothing to support his claim
of how the damage occurred.

> The reality is that the OP has quite a
>reasonable story to tell, and the retailer is not likely to be in any
>position to counter it. The retailer might not like it, but that's the risk
>a retailer of refurbished goods takes.

Assuming it is true he still doesn't have a reasonable story. He
would be asking the court to believe that on balance of probability
the cause of the failure was because a previous unknown buyer had
spilled liquid on the keyboard over a year ago and returned the item
as defective. The fault wasn't reproduced at the time when the
computer was returned, no significant inspection took place and the
spilled liquid was undetected when the computer was examined. The un
repaired no fault found computer was simply returned to stock for sale
as a refurbished item. It was then sold some time later to the
purchaser who used it for nearly a year with no significant problem
and then decided to return it for repair of a minor fault they had
been living with as the warranty was running out.

He has no evidence the previous owner spilled liquid on it. He has no
evidence the computer was originally returned with a keyboard fault
(or any other fault which liquid damage may have caused). He has no
evidence the computer was incompetently examined. He has no evidence
it was returned to stock un repaired as no fault found.

The buyer also asserts that the computer couldn't possibly have been
damaged in his possession because it was only used a few times and
(presumably although not stated) no one else ever had access to it or
used it in the nearly 12 months of ownership.

On the other hand the seller could show the damage caused by the
liquid spilled on the keyboard and show the quality control process
used by the refurbisher. They could point out the proportion of
returns they get with liquid damage. They could point out that the
chances of liquid damage remaining quiescent for over a year before
manifesting itself were small, the damage would be more noticeable
earlier rather than later. They might be able to show the original
return had nothing to do with liquid damage and that the fault was
repaired.

Which do you think is the more believable tale? Can the buyer be
confident no one else ever had access to this rarely used computer?
Does he live alone? What is the likelihood of such a fault remaining
undetected for a year?

It is not the job of the seller to prove the computer was perfect when
it was sold but the job of the buyer (after 6 months) to prove the
cause of the failure was a condition existing at the time of sale, in
this case the spilled liquid. His story may well be entirely true,
it is however unconvincing and improbable.

[Roland Perry]

In message <dc028569-c379-4fb8...@googlegroups.com>, at
15:31:25 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015, christophe...@gmail.com remarked:

>I have a related question: Did they inform you there would be a cost for the return of the item before you sent it to them?
>
>I have returned a phone (to a different manufacturer) under warranty as it has stopped charging. They wrote to say that the problem is the
>screen's cracked and it will cost ŁX to repair or ŁY to return.
>
>My main issue with them is the screen has nothing to do with the fact it's stopped charging, as the screen was cracked well before it stopped
>charging.

The reason the phone has stopped charging may well be damage to the
power connector, something that could have been initiated at the same
time as whatever force caused the screen to be cracked.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <olfmgadca94kg1rfh...@4ax.com>, at 22:19:55 on
Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:

>They could point out that the chances of liquid damage remaining
>quiescent for over a year before manifesting itself were small, the
>damage would be more noticeable earlier rather than later.

If the original liquid spill was coffee (or similar), which is plausible
from the description of a "stain" being found, then the residue can
attract dust and crumbs, which build up inside the mechanism and start
to manifest faults. We should also remember that the OP said he's only
used the laptop a dozen times, so compared with the daily use many
laptops get it's only a "fortnight old".
--
Roland Perry

[Pelican]

"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message

news:olfmgadca94kg1rfh...@4ax.com...

The buyer says that he did not spill any liquid on the keyboard. He doesn't
need any further support - no 24/7 video, no corroboration, just what he
says. That's the way that a person is free to prove his or her claim.

>> The reality is that the OP has quite a
>>reasonable story to tell, and the retailer is not likely to be in any
>>position to counter it. The retailer might not like it, but that's the
>>risk
>>a retailer of refurbished goods takes.
>
> Assuming it is true he still doesn't have a reasonable story. He
> would be asking the court to believe that on balance of probability
> the cause of the failure was because a previous unknown buyer had
> spilled liquid on the keyboard over a year ago and returned the item
> as defective.

No, he isn't.

> The fault wasn't reproduced at the time when the
> computer was returned, no significant inspection took place and the
> spilled liquid was undetected when the computer was examined. The un
> repaired no fault found computer was simply returned to stock for sale
> as a refurbished item.

That's just pure guesswork.

> It was then sold some time later to the
> purchaser who used it for nearly a year with no significant problem
> and then decided to return it for repair of a minor fault they had
> been living with as the warranty was running out.
>
> He has no evidence the previous owner spilled liquid on it.

He doesn't need such evidence.

> He has no
> evidence the computer was originally returned with a keyboard fault
> (or any other fault which liquid damage may have caused).

He doesn't need such evidence.

> He has no
> evidence the computer was incompetently examined. He has no evidence
> it was returned to stock un repaired as no fault found.

Hw doesn't need such evidence.

> The buyer also asserts that the computer couldn't possibly have been
> damaged in his possession because it was only used a few times and
> (presumably although not stated) no one else ever had access to it or
> used it in the nearly 12 months of ownership.

Which he is free to assert, and it is evidence.

> On the other hand the seller could show the damage caused by the
> liquid spilled on the keyboard and show the quality control process
> used by the refurbisher.

Sure. That's a way that the seller can counter the buyer's story.

> They could point out the proportion of
> returns they get with liquid damage.

Sure.

> They could point out that the
> chances of liquid damage remaining quiescent for over a year before
> manifesting itself were small, the damage would be more noticeable
> earlier rather than later.

Sure, if it's true.

> They might be able to show the original
> return had nothing to do with liquid damage and that the fault was
> repaired.

Sure, if it can.

> Which do you think is the more believable tale?

On the face of it, the buyer's story, hands down. The seller will be stuck
with the liquid damage as the cause of the problem. It is extremely
unlikely that the seller will attempt to challenge the buyer's story in
court, if push comes to shove.

> Can the buyer be
> confident no one else ever had access to this rarely used computer?
> Does he live alone? What is the likelihood of such a fault remaining
> undetected for a year?

Crystal ball gazing isn't evidence.

> It is not the job of the seller to prove the computer was perfect when
> it was sold but the job of the buyer (after 6 months) to prove the
> cause of the failure was a condition existing at the time of sale, in
> this case the spilled liquid. His story may well be entirely true,
> it is however unconvincing and improbable.

I'm afraid that I find your story unconvincing and improbable. In my view,
it's certainly not a good exposition of the legal situation.

[Peter Crosland]

It is reasonable for them to make a charge for testing it and diagnosing
the fault plus the return costs. Ł50 would not be unreasonable for that.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[meow...@care2.com]

£64 is surely not the real cost of returning the goods. Unless you've at some point in advance agreed to pay for their services I'd not want to pay more than the actual courier cost.


NT

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:18:05 +1100, "Pelican"

<water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:


>"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>news:olfmgadca94kg1rfh...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:03:32 +1100, "Pelican"
>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:

>> No, I'm saying the purchaser has the responsibility to prove that the
>> cause of the failure was a condition which existed at the time of
>> sale. It is accepted that the damage was caused by liquid spilling
>> on the keyboard. It is the buyer who has nothing to support his claim
>> of how the damage occurred.
>
>The buyer says that he did not spill any liquid on the keyboard. He doesn't
>need any further support - no 24/7 video, no corroboration, just what he
>says. That's the way that a person is free to prove his or her claim.

The buyer is indeed entitled to do nothing more than make any claim
they like without any supporting evidence. However, the burden of
proof is upon the buyer to show the nature of the non conformity
present at the time of sale not the seller to show it was perfect.

It is accepted by buyer and seller that the fault was liquid damage.

The buyer has a complicated explanation, the seller a simple one.

>> Assuming it is true he still doesn't have a reasonable story. He
>> would be asking the court to believe that on balance of probability
>> the cause of the failure was because a previous unknown buyer had
>> spilled liquid on the keyboard over a year ago and returned the item
>> as defective.
>
>No, he isn't.

That is what he said in his e-mail to the manufacturer.

>> The fault wasn't reproduced at the time when the
>> computer was returned, no significant inspection took place and the
>> spilled liquid was undetected when the computer was examined. The un
>> repaired no fault found computer was simply returned to stock for sale
>> as a refurbished item.
>
>That's just pure guesswork.

It is the inevitable consequence of his claim. He said

"... Just because someone may be able to see a stain on the

underneath of the laptop (as in picture you sent me) this does not
show that I have damaged this laptop. It simply explains to me that
this is possibly one of the reasons it was returned by whatever
customer purchased this item in the beginning. Let's face it after it
had been refurbished by the manufacturer, the manufacturer would have
had no way of knowing there was still a problem with it if Toshiba's
engineers struggled to replicate the problem that I described so you
would of just sold it on."

If he is going to claim the liquid damage was present at the time of
sale and before he owned it he needs evidence to support his claim.
The burden of proof is upon him to show the liquid damage existed at
the time of sale. His claim is :-

1. Some previous owner caused the damage and returned the machine as
faulty.

2. The fault wasn't reproduced or detected when the machine first went
for repair.

3. The machine was not returned to the owner as no fault found as you
would expect.

4. Instead was simply returned to stock.

5. It was sold to him with the liquid damage already present at the
time of sale.

Against that the sellers response to his claim is "he or someone else
spilled liquid on it - here is the photo of the damage"

Which is the more credible story?

Some years ago I used to help a mobile phone supplier challenge claims
in the small claims track when they refused to repair water damaged
phones under warranty. In every case the buyer claimed the phone had
never been near liquid. The defence in all cases was simply to show
photographs of the liquid damage. In the dozen or so cases I was
involved with they never lost one.

[Pelican]

"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message

news:aspngal1t48iushb6...@4ax.com...

The buyer's claim is that the goods are defective, and it is now known that
the defect was due to liquid damage. The buyer says he did not cause the
liquid damage, which means that the goods (refurbished) were liquid damaged
when sold to him. He doesn't have to say any more. The seller is free to
counter what the buyer says, if the seller can.

In your personal experience situation, if the mobile phones were apparently
first-time sales, I would expect that there would be some reluctance to
accept a buyer's story. New phones rarely get dropped in water before sale.
A refurbished laptop is quite another matter.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <aspngal1t48iushb6...@4ax.com>, Peter Parry

<pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

>
> Some years ago I used to help a mobile phone supplier challenge claims
> in the small claims track when they refused to repair water damaged
> phones under warranty. In every case the buyer claimed the phone had
> never been near liquid. The defence in all cases was simply to show
> photographs of the liquid damage. In the dozen or so cases I was
> involved with they never lost one.

In this case the OP isn't saying the laptop had never been near liquid,
they are saying that they themselves have not caused the damage.

If the original purchaser had caused liquid damage, and returned the
laptop as unwanted rather than damaged, I could believe that the item
was returned to stock without much checking.

--
Armagedon is tiny

[steve robinson]

Dust and crumbs may jamb a keyboard up, the liquid however will cause
far more problems fairly quickly shorting of the electronics possibly
the destruction of the pathways between the components too if the
laptop is powered up

[steve robinson]

You may find PP story unconvincing but your not the judge unfortunatly,
Its up to the op to prove his case not the seller to disprove it

[Roland Perry]

In message <xn0jjr0jq...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, at
11:20:13 on Fri, 20 Mar 2015, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:

>> > They could point out that the chances of liquid damage remaining
>> > quiescent for over a year before manifesting itself were small, the
>> > damage would be more noticeable earlier rather than later.
>>
>> If the original liquid spill was coffee (or similar), which is
>> plausible from the description of a "stain" being found, then the
>> residue can attract dust and crumbs, which build up inside the
>> mechanism and start to manifest faults. We should also remember that
>> the OP said he's only used the laptop a dozen times, so compared with
>> the daily use many laptops get it's only a "fortnight old".
>
>Dust and crumbs may jamb a keyboard up, the liquid however will cause
>far more problems fairly quickly shorting of the electronics possibly
>the destruction of the pathways between the components too if the
>laptop is powered up

I'm speaking of the time after the keyboard has largely dried out, and
all that's left is a sticky residue.

It is of course possible to get laptops with a waterproof keyboard (and
I don't mean a plastic condom stretched over the top, nor an
"underwater" model). Mine has such a keyboard, and spills don't drain
into the body of the laptop because it has a seal between the bottom of
the keyboard and the rest of the works, plus drain-holes to let the
liquid escape.

"Sticky" liquids are going to be a bit of a problem, but in principle
you could flush it through with clean water.
--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

If you send an item back to the supplier for repair and the fault is
due to customer misuse its nly reasonable to expect to pay for the time
of those investigating the fault. you wouldnt go to work and expect to
be unpaid if the client after you spending some considerable time
investigating an issue decided not to go any further wth the works.

The test equipment for electronic equipment such as lapops and mobiles
can be very expensive (one machine i dealt with was well over £250K)

even basic kit runs into £1000.00 plus, thats without calibration.

[Neil Williams]

On 2015-03-20 11:06:24 +0000, Sara Merriman said:

> If the original purchaser had caused liquid damage, and returned the
> laptop as unwanted rather than damaged, I could believe that the item
> was returned to stock without much checking.

It is not at all uncommon at stores offering no-quibble guarantees that
such items do just go back on the shelves, as the person returning them
often doesn't say they are faulty and so they are just taken as
unwanted. Having to check for such things and return them as faulty is
the price you pay for shopping at such stores.

So it's possible that someone bought it, spilt liquid on it, returned
it as "unwanted" within the specified period, it went back on the shelf
and he bought it. So it hadn't been back to the manufacturer in that
time.

It's unfortunate, but I suspect the OP will have terrible trouble
proving it and may be best just paying up for the repair and putting it
down to experience.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

[The Todal]

However, I'd say that the plain fact of the matter is this: if he sues
Argos for 118 pounds, and has a plausible case as he seems to have, then
Argos isn't likely to pay an engineer to come to court and give evidence
or pay lawyers to come and argue the point, in the small claims track
where no costs are recoverable.

Instead, they'll pay up.

[Neil Williams]

On 2015-03-20 13:40:55 +0000, The Todal said:

> However, I'd say that the plain fact of the matter is this: if he sues
> Argos for 118 pounds, and has a plausible case as he seems to have,
> then Argos isn't likely to pay an engineer to come to court and give
> evidence or pay lawyers to come and argue the point, in the small
> claims track where no costs are recoverable.
>
> Instead, they'll pay up.

If he didn't go to Argos *first*, as seems to be the case, would he
win? They haven't been given the chance to discharge their
responsibilities, as the OP unilaterally went first to the manufacturer
under a contractual guarantee, rather than the store under the SoGA?

[christophe...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 20 March 2015 08:17:40 UTC, Peter Crosland wrote:

> On 19/03/2015 22:31, wrote:
> >>
> It is reasonable for them to make a charge for testing it and diagnosing
> the fault plus the return costs. Ł50 would not be unreasonable for that.
>

Should this potential cost not have been made clear? It was not mentioned once (in two phone calls and the email in which they sent the prepaid return sticker).

If the answer is "no, you should have expected that" then I will chalk it up to experience. (I genuinely did not expect it, and I genuinely expected the answers here to be "that's not reasonable, quote this Act".)

Thanks,
Chris

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:06:24 +0000, Sara Merriman
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


>In this case the OP isn't saying the laptop had never been near liquid,
>they are saying that they themselves have not caused the damage.

>If the original purchaser had caused liquid damage, and returned the
>laptop as unwanted rather than damaged, I could believe that the item
>was returned to stock without much checking.

Argos don't offer laptop no fault returns in store so if it had
previously been sold it must have been returned as faulty or as a DSR
return after an on-line sale. In either case it wouldn't have gone
back into stock without checking.

It was sold as "manufacturer refurbished". Items such as laptops
which are returned to major stores generally go straight to a
retained repair organisation (not usually the manufacturer). Those
returned as faulty or no fault found are fixed and returned to the
purchaser.

Those returned as DSR (as was) returns are sent to the same (usually)
retained repair organisation) where they are inspected, tested,
cleaned and all packaged accessories, manuals etc included. They will
be identical to new items in all respects except the packaging will
often be plain boxes. They are sold as "refurbished" .

As part of the examination the device will amongst other things have a
full manufacturers test.

It is possible that the laptop was bought online over 12 months ago
and that the then buyer split liquid on it almost immediately, cleaned
it up superficially and sent it back as a DSR return.

It is possible that the repairer it went to for refurb and repacking
didn't notice the damage when they checked it and refurbished it and
also possible that the functional check didn't pick it up.

It is possible that the now purchaser has had it for nearly 12months
before the fault became apparent.

The problem for the purchaser is that there are really only two things
which could have happened. Either his postulated and jointly
improbable chain of events or that in the 12months he has owned the
machine liquid was spilt on the keyboard.

The onus on proving the liquid was there at purchase is on the buyer.
The seller doesn't have to prove it wasn't.

He has to show in some way that his hypothetical string of events,
supported by no facts is more likely than that at some time in the 12
months he has had the machine someone has spilt something on it.

He will find that difficult.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:06:06 +1100, "Pelican"

<water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:

>
>"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>news:aspngal1t48iushb6...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:18:05 +1100, "Pelican"
>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:

>> Against that the sellers response to his claim is "he or someone else
>> spilled liquid on it - here is the photo of the damage"
>>
>> Which is the more credible story?
>>
>> Some years ago I used to help a mobile phone supplier challenge claims
>> in the small claims track when they refused to repair water damaged
>> phones under warranty. In every case the buyer claimed the phone had
>> never been near liquid. The defence in all cases was simply to show
>> photographs of the liquid damage. In the dozen or so cases I was
>> involved with they never lost one.
>
>The buyer's claim is that the goods are defective, and it is now known that
>the defect was due to liquid damage. The buyer says he did not cause the
>liquid damage, which means that the goods (refurbished) were liquid damaged
>when sold to him.

It only means that is his claim. It is up to him to prove it, not the
seller to disprove it..

> He doesn't have to say any more.

He does as the onus of proof is upon him. He has to show, that on
balance of probability, the liquid damage was present at the time of
sale. Simply stating "I didn't do it so it must have been there when
I bought it" isn't very compelling.

> The seller is free to counter what the buyer says, if the seller can.

All the seller needs to say is we don't sell liquid damaged goods.
They are not the ones who need to prove anything.

>In your personal experience situation, if the mobile phones were apparently
>first-time sales, I would expect that there would be some reluctance to
>accept a buyer's story. New phones rarely get dropped in water before sale.
>A refurbished laptop is quite another matter.

"Refurbished" stock isn't machines which have been in circulation and
used for months.

Also bear in mind that many of the damaged phones fell under the 6
months reverse burden of proof. There was an assumption the fault was
there before sale unless the seller could prove otherwise. Never once
did we have to prove the phone wasn't delivered wet, merely producing
evidence of liquid damage satisfied the court that the item had been
damaged by the owner.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:40:55 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>However, I'd say that the plain fact of the matter is this: if he sues
>Argos for 118 pounds, and has a plausible case as he seems to have, then
>Argos isn't likely to pay an engineer to come to court and give evidence
>or pay lawyers to come and argue the point, in the small claims track
>where no costs are recoverable.
>
>Instead, they'll pay up.

Increasingly companies are training quite junior staff to act for them
in small claims track cases where they believe they are being taken
for a ride. Presuming they will give in no matter how weak the case
isn't necessarily going to be the case. Here no engineer would be
required, it is accepted that the damage was caused by liquid.

[Roland Perry]

In message <v6aoga1qmo3f7du43...@4ax.com>, at 14:55:49 on
Fri, 20 Mar 2015, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:

>"Refurbished" stock isn't machines which have been in circulation and
>used for months.

Often they are items which were returned under the "DSRs" or no-quibble
return policies, but they can also include ex-demo stock that's had
quite a bit of use/abuse. I bought an upmarket tablet of that kind
recently, from a trader who specialises in that sort of thing.

And while there's some risk involved, one can still return them if DOA
or in much worse physical condition than described. But at around 1/3 of
list price, I think it's sometimes a risk worth taking.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <4u7oga9jt81uvsdqr...@4ax.com>, at 14:49:40 on

Fri, 20 Mar 2015, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:

I agree with much of what you've written, but:

>It is possible that the now purchaser has had it for nearly 12months
>before the fault became apparent.

He said "Occasionally when typing I was getting double letters. I did
not give it that much thought at the time but it steadily got worse."
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 06:56:09 -0700 (PDT),
christophe...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, 20 March 2015 08:17:40 UTC, Peter Crosland wrote:
>> On 19/03/2015 22:31, wrote:
>> >>
>> It is reasonable for them to make a charge for testing it and diagnosing

>> the fault plus the return costs. Å?50 would not be unreasonable for that.

>>
>
>Should this potential cost not have been made clear? It was not mentioned once
> (in two phone calls and the email in which they sent the prepaid return sticker).

It is in their warranty conditions :-

"Toshiba reserves the right to charge the end-user for such costs
if the end-user culpable raised a claim under this Limited Warranty
which in fact is not covered by it. In such case and to the extent
permitted by applicable law, Toshiba or its Authorised Service
Providers reserves the right to retain the System until such time
until the end-user pays the costs of preparing the cost estimate."

http://www.toshiba.co.uk/ltr/images/en/warranties-insurance/warranty_en.pdf

>If the answer is "no, you should have expected that" then I will chalk it up to experience
>. (I genuinely did not expect it, and I genuinely expected the answers here to be "that's not reasonable, quote this Act".)

As Peter has said It isn't an unreasonable charge for dismantling and
examining the machine, repackaging it and shipping it back.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:39:07 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

>Yes. But other than to make his claim and give his testimony as evidence,
>what more need the OP do make a case that the trier may find to be proven?

In a case like this probably nothing is going to help. The chances
that the laptop was delivered with liquid damage are not zero but are
very low. The possibility that at some time during his 12months of
ownership something was spilt on it (quite possibly without his
knowledge) are much higher. He can't prove his rather complicated and
unlikely hypothesis.

He can certainly try spending another £25 to issue a moneyclaim online
case but I'd expect the supplier to at least produce a written defence
in a case as weak as this.

[steve robinson]

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> Yes. But other than to make his claim and give his testimony as
> evidence, what more need the OP do make a case that the trier may
> find to be proven?

he would need to show any liquid damage predated his ownership which is
not going to be either easy or cheap, the costs are unlikely to be
recoverable either

[GB]

If the liquid was a sugary drink, that would be slightly hygroscopic.
The continuing moisture on the keypad could then lead to gradually
worsening corrosion, so whatever problem there is will get worse over
time. Thus, the OP's account is inherently plausible.

Whether a judge will view it like that is in the lap of the gods, but
it's irrelevant. As Todal says, Argos are very unlikely to defend the
claim. It would cost them far more than the OP is claiming in order to
defend the claim. They don't want to be taken as a soft touch, so they
might defend it if they thought the OP is trying to defraud them, but I
really don't see that in this case.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Pelican]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0jjr0dc...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

Of course, you are correct. But my view is that a buyer who says what
actually happened, and that he didn't spill liquid on the refurbished
laptop, proves his case of a defective product at the time of sale on the
face of it, on the balance of probabilities. He doesn't have to prove that
he didn't spill the liquid beyond denying that he did. What happened to the
laptop before the sale to him isn't something he can say anything about. My
real concern about the arguments for the seller presented in the thread is
the guesswork about the checking of the refurbished laptop before its sale
by the seller. It's pure guesswork. It's certainly not evidence of
anything but speculation.

If this case reached a court, my view is that the buyer should expect to
succeed on the material presented by the buyer in the thread, unless the
buyer is seen by the court as not a witness of truth. Tales about
shock-horror dishonest buyers notwithstanding.

It's unlikely that the seller would want to defend the matter if it went to
court, but that isn't the point.

[Pelican]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message

news:xn0jjrahv...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

In reality, it would be a practical impossibility (because of the cost) for
a buyer in a case like this of a refurbished laptop (ie any re-conditioned
consumer goods). I don't believe your assessment is correct. The buyer
accepts that there is liquid damage. He says he didn't do it, meaning that
the liquid damage existed when the laptop was sold to him. He only has to
prove his case on the balance of probabilities. If he is believed when he
says he didn't do it, that should be the end of it.

[Iain Archer]

Pelican <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 at
06:33:32:

>If this case reached a court, my view is that the buyer should expect
>to succeed on the material presented by the buyer in the thread, unless
>the buyer is seen by the court as not a witness of truth.

What might lead a court to believe that the buyer was not such a
witness?
--
Iain Archer

[steve robinson]

The onus is on him to provide suitable evidence that the problem was
pre existing which he can't game over

[steve robinson]

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:39:07 +0000, "steve robinson"

> Why? Having made his claim with his own testimony the OP is now
> winning based on the preponderance of evidence. And that will
> continue unless and until something contradictory is offered by
> Argos, which I believe ain't going to happen. No-one at Argos is
> likely to be in a position to swear that there was no ingress of
> moisture to that particular second hand computer before the OP took
> possession of it, but also I doubt anyone at Argos would think it
> cost effective to mount such a defence against such a trivially small
> claim even if it did happen to be available to them. If Argos
> suspected any fraud or organised crime was at play they would likely
> feel very differently, but this is a just routine customer complaint
> that they can settle at very minor cost to themselves.


Argos should be able to show the repair report, its probably on the
laptop anyway within a hidden file along with all the test reports.
they could certainly get copies from the repair centre all they require
is the model number and serial number of the machine , wether its cost
effective is entirely different

[Pelican]

"Iain Archer" <iane...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Gnd$TcA$KDV...@gmail.com...

In part, that's why witnesses give evidence on oath, and are subject to
cross-examination. Witnesses are sometimes shown to be mistaken or lying.

[Iain Archer]

Pelican <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 at

20:07:07:

Assume that the case were to be decided on the papers. What would be
the answer then?
--
Iain Archer

[Pelican]

"Iain Archer" <iane...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2eKeqBDk...@gmail.com...

I'm afraid that a bit hypothetical. But, since you insist, any issue about
the buyer's credibility disappears if the case is decided on the papers. My
point was that it is always open to a litigant to test the evidence of a
witness and ask the court to treat the witness' evidence as unreliable.

[The Todal]

You have absolutely no obligation to go to the retailer first.

[The Todal]

Just as no engineer would be required, if the customer says "but I
assure this court that I didn't spill any liquid on it".

[Roland Perry]

In message <cn7si2...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:57:40 on Sun, 22
Mar 2015, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:

>> Increasingly companies are training quite junior staff to act for them
>> in small claims track cases where they believe they are being taken
>> for a ride. Presuming they will give in no matter how weak the case
>> isn't necessarily going to be the case. Here no engineer would be
>> required, it is accepted that the damage was caused by liquid.
>
>Just as no engineer would be required, if the customer says "but I
>assure this court that I didn't spill any liquid on it".

Which leaves the circumstances where the customer's child, or cat,
spilled the liquid.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

Yes, but Argos have no obligation to pay the repair bill if they could
have repaired or replaced the item more cheaply. Admittedly, that is
unlikely to be true in this case, or, at least, not by very much. But
with a more expensive appliance it is quite possible.



--
Roger Hayter

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:57:40 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>Just as no engineer would be required, if the customer says "but I
>assure this court that I didn't spill any liquid on it".

Can't see why, no one disputes the liquid caused the damage, it is
just deciding whether it was more likely that it occurred in the
possible week the possible first owner (if there was one) had it
(followed by the ineptitude of everyone involved in the refurbishment
process) or the 12 months the now owner has had it.

I am reminded of one occasion when a customer was loudly and
vehemently declaring that their rather expensive phone which wasn't
working and had condensation inside the screen meant so much to them
that it was never out of their sight. That it was quite impossible it
was liquid damaged because it had ever been near liquid of any sort
etc. That it was not of satisfactory quality because it must have
collected moisture from their pocket and was insufficiently robust if
it had.

I was asked to take it apart in front of the customer and duly drained
about a teaspoon full of what looked and smelled remarkably like
Guinness from it. The customer looked at it, sniffed it, and promptly
declared that was proof positive they hadn't mistreated it as they
never drank Guinness.

[The Todal]

On 22/03/2015 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> On 20/03/2015 14:19, Neil Williams wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-20 13:40:55 +0000, The Todal said:
>>>
>>>> However, I'd say that the plain fact of the matter is this: if he sues
>>>> Argos for 118 pounds, and has a plausible case as he seems to have,
>>>> then Argos isn't likely to pay an engineer to come to court and give
>>>> evidence or pay lawyers to come and argue the point, in the small
>>>> claims track where no costs are recoverable.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, they'll pay up.
>>>
>>> If he didn't go to Argos *first*, as seems to be the case, would he
>>> win? They haven't been given the chance to discharge their
>>> responsibilities, as the OP unilaterally went first to the manufacturer
>>> under a contractual guarantee, rather than the store under the SoGA?
>>>
>>
>> You have absolutely no obligation to go to the retailer first.
>
> Yes, but Argos have no obligation to pay the repair bill if they could
> have repaired or replaced the item more cheaply.

I totally disagree.

In some circumstances you might be under an obligation to get more than
one competitive quote before having repairs done. But having them done
by the manufacturer cannot possibly be considered unreasonable or too
expensive.

[Pelican]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ST+LODGH...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk...

Or Act of God?

[Fredxxx]

On 22/03/2015 17:37, The Todal wrote:

<snip>

> But having them done by the manufacturer cannot possibly be
> considered unreasonable or too expensive.

Why is that? A court would hardly agree that is mitigation of cost.

If Argos got a few quotes from independent sources that were a fraction
of the manufacturer's charges, I could see a successful defence on
limiting liability.

[steve robinson]

It may however viod the warranty

[Roger Hayter]

Is that really the sort of thing God does?

--
Roger Hayter

[steve robinson]

It does rain :)

[Peter Parry]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:33:32 +1100, "Pelican"
<water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:


>Of course, you are correct. But my view is that a buyer who says what
>actually happened, and that he didn't spill liquid on the refurbished
>laptop, proves his case of a defective product at the time of sale on the
>face of it, on the balance of probabilities. He doesn't have to prove that
>he didn't spill the liquid beyond denying that he did.

Or that anyone else could have in the year he has owned it. Unless he
lives alone, never has visitors or keeps the laptop in a locked
cabinet it is more than possible that someone else could have damaged
the machine unbeknown to him. It is certainly far more likely than
the trail of supposition which relies upon everyone else failing to do
their job.

>If this case reached a court, my view is that the buyer should expect to
>succeed on the material presented by the buyer in the thread, unless the
>buyer is seen by the court as not a witness of truth. Tales about
>shock-horror dishonest buyers notwithstanding.

It isn't necessarily (or even ordinarily) being dishonest but usually
of forgetting trivial events which happened months ago, forgetting
that someone borrowed the machine for a few hours 10 months ago.
Forgetting someone called to see you over Christmas and had their kids
with them who were in the same room as the computer while you were out
the back etc. "Are you absolutely sure no one else ever had physical
access to this machine in the year you have owned it" is a question
which in most households would usually have to be answered "no" (even
if no one could switch it on and operate it).

It is far more likely that the machine was damaged in the 12months it
has been owned by, used by and in the possession of the poster than
that it was damaged by liquid before purchase.

[christophe...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 20 March 2015 06:46:46 UTC, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > - Pay for the full repair to be completed.
> > - Pay for the return of the unit.
> > - Have it disposed of free of charge."
> >
>
> I have a related question: Did they inform you there would be a cost for the return of the item before you sent it to them?
>
> I have returned a phone (to a different manufacturer) under warranty as it has stopped charging. They wrote to say that the problem is the screen's cracked and it will cost ŁX to repair or ŁY to return.
>
> My main issue with them is the screen has nothing to do with the fact it's stopped charging, as the screen was cracked well before it stopped charging.
>
> But my question to the group is that they did not inform me in any way that sending the phone to them came with the risk of having to pay Ł50+ for it to be returned. They twice told me not to use their original packaging, as I won't get that back! But not once did they mention there was a fee for the return of the item (posting it to them was free; they even sent a preprinted label).
>
> Is it considered reasonable for them to do this? And if not, what can I say to force them to return it me for free?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris


To give an update: I phoned the manufacturer (not Toshiba in my case) to say I wasn't claiming under warranty for the cracked screen, just for the fact it had stopped charging. She confirmed that I "only wanted repairs under warranty performed". Yesterday, the phone was returned repaired, free of charge. It now charges and the screen is still cracked.

I'm obviously pleased with this outcome, and have also learned the lesson that returning something for free under warranty comes with a significant financial risk.

Thanks,
Chris

[meow...@care2.com]

On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:33:32 +1100, "Pelican"
> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
>
> >Of course, you are correct. But my view is that a buyer who says what
> >actually happened, and that he didn't spill liquid on the refurbished
> >laptop, proves his case of a defective product at the time of sale on the
> >face of it, on the balance of probabilities. He doesn't have to prove that
> >he didn't spill the liquid beyond denying that he did.
>
> Or that anyone else could have in the year he has owned it. Unless he
> lives alone, never has visitors or keeps the laptop in a locked
> cabinet it is more than possible that someone else could have damaged
> the machine unbeknown to him. It is certainly far more likely than
> the trail of supposition which relies upon everyone else failing to do
> their job.

First its normal & routine for people to cut corners on their jobs, and be incompetent. This is a widespread and routine issue. There is nothing unlikely about that, unfortunately.

2nd there is no reason to suppose that an examination of the circuit tracks of the keyboard formed a normal part of the examination of returned laptops. Indeed I would suggest it quite unlikely that it did or does.

If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it as a total gamble. Meanwhile I would question whether the steep payments & return cost the manufacturer is asking for have been agreed to at any time. If not I'd object & seek a far more economical repairer.


NT

[steve robinson]

meow...@care2.com wrote:

> On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:33:32 +1100, "Pelican"
> > <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Of course, you are correct. But my view is that a buyer who says
> > > what actually happened, and that he didn't spill liquid on the
> > > refurbished laptop, proves his case of a defective product at the
> > > time of sale on the face of it, on the balance of probabilities.
> > > He doesn't have to prove that he didn't spill the liquid beyond
> > > denying that he did.
> >
> > Or that anyone else could have in the year he has owned it. Unless
> > he lives alone, never has visitors or keeps the laptop in a locked
> > cabinet it is more than possible that someone else could have
> > damaged the machine unbeknown to him. It is certainly far more
> > likely than the trail of supposition which relies upon everyone
> > else failing to do their job.
>
> First its normal & routine for people to cut corners on their jobs,
> and be incompetent. This is a widespread and routine issue. There is
> nothing unlikely about that, unfortunately.

Thats quite offensive, i certainly do not cut corners, neither do all
the tradesmen or women i know, neither is it the norm to be incompetent.

These problems happen when unskilled people assume the mantel of
proffesionals, the addage a little knowledge is a dangerous tool
springs to mind

>
> 2nd there is no reason to suppose that an examination of the circuit
> tracks of the keyboard formed a normal part of the examination of
> returned laptops. Indeed I would suggest it quite unlikely that it
> did or does.

It would depend why the machine was returned, its not unusual though
for the hard disk to be removed and all the oem software reinstalled
back to factory default, so that the new user can register the machine
and operating system.

Most liquids spilt on a keyoard will leave tell tale marks

>
> If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it as a
> total gamble. Meanwhile I would question whether the steep payments &
> return cost the manufacturer is asking for have been agreed to at any
> time. If not I'd object & seek a far more economical repairer.

Taking the machine to a third party would in all probablity void the
manufacturers warranty, its also unlikely that the independants have
the equipment or infomation to check the motherboard to the same level
as the manufacturer. Laptop motherboards tend to be machine/
manufactuer specific.


Its certainly worth a punt though, they may just roll over and pay up

[meow...@care2.com]

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:45:23 AM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:33:32 +1100, "Pelican"
> > > <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Of course, you are correct. But my view is that a buyer who says
> > > > what actually happened, and that he didn't spill liquid on the
> > > > refurbished laptop, proves his case of a defective product at the
> > > > time of sale on the face of it, on the balance of probabilities.
> > > > He doesn't have to prove that he didn't spill the liquid beyond
> > > > denying that he did.
> > >
> > > Or that anyone else could have in the year he has owned it. Unless
> > > he lives alone, never has visitors or keeps the laptop in a locked
> > > cabinet it is more than possible that someone else could have
> > > damaged the machine unbeknown to him. It is certainly far more
> > > likely than the trail of supposition which relies upon everyone
> > > else failing to do their job.
> >
> > First its normal & routine for people to cut corners on their jobs,
> > and be incompetent. This is a widespread and routine issue. There is
> > nothing unlikely about that, unfortunately.
>
> Thats quite offensive, i certainly do not cut corners, neither do all
> the tradesmen or women i know, neither is it the norm to be incompetent.

I didn't say that you or they were.

> These problems happen when unskilled people assume the mantel of
> proffesionals, the addage a little knowledge is a dangerous tool
> springs to mind

that happens too.

> > 2nd there is no reason to suppose that an examination of the circuit
> > tracks of the keyboard formed a normal part of the examination of
> > returned laptops. Indeed I would suggest it quite unlikely that it
> > did or does.
>
> It would depend why the machine was returned, its not unusual though
> for the hard disk to be removed and all the oem software reinstalled
> back to factory default, so that the new user can register the machine
> and operating system.

sure, that has nothing to do with the keyboard though

> Most liquids spilt on a keyoard will leave tell tale marks

if the user wanted to return it they'd wipe it clean

> > If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it as a
> > total gamble. Meanwhile I would question whether the steep payments &
> > return cost the manufacturer is asking for have been agreed to at any
> > time. If not I'd object & seek a far more economical repairer.
>
>
> Taking the machine to a third party would in all probablity void the
> manufacturers warranty,

and save the steep cost the manufacturer wishes to charge. Which is the better.

> its also unlikely that the independants have
> the equipment or infomation to check the motherboard to the same level
> as the manufacturer. Laptop motherboards tend to be machine/
> manufactuer specific.

I'm not aware of any reason the OP would want someone to check the mobo


NT

[steve robinson]

You implied it was the norm it isnt

>
> > These problems happen when unskilled people assume the mantel of
> > proffesionals, the addage a little knowledge is a dangerous tool
> > springs to mind
>
> that happens too.
>
> > > 2nd there is no reason to suppose that an examination of the
> > > circuit tracks of the keyboard formed a normal part of the
> > > examination of returned laptops. Indeed I would suggest it quite
> > > unlikely that it did or does.
> >
> > It would depend why the machine was returned, its not unusual though
> > for the hard disk to be removed and all the oem software reinstalled
> > back to factory default, so that the new user can register the
> > machine and operating system.
>
> sure, that has nothing to do with the keyboard though

Depends where the hard disk is positioned

>
> > Most liquids spilt on a keyoard will leave tell tale marks
>
> if the user wanted to return it they'd wipe it clean

you cant clean under the keys without removing them

>
> > > If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it as a
> > > total gamble. Meanwhile I would question whether the steep
> > > payments & return cost the manufacturer is asking for have been
> > > agreed to at any time. If not I'd object & seek a far more
> > > economical repairer.
> >
> >
> > Taking the machine to a third party would in all probablity void the
> > manufacturers warranty,
>
> and save the steep cost the manufacturer wishes to charge. Which is
> the better.

Ultimatly the manufacturer will be the expert, they are expensive
because they have all the correct equipment and technical expertise to
dianose the problem

>
> > its also unlikely that the independants have
> > the equipment or infomation to check the motherboard to the same
> > level as the manufacturer. Laptop motherboards tend to be machine/
> > manufactuer specific.
>
> I'm not aware of any reason the OP would want someone to check the
> mobo

If coffee has run into the keyboard its possible its run into the
internals

[meow...@care2.com]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 12:21:42 PM UTC, steve robinson wrote:

> If you send an item back to the supplier for repair and the fault is
> due to customer misuse its nly reasonable to expect to pay for the time
> of those investigating the fault.

In this case the OP insists it was not due to customer misuse.
Its reasonable to pay if there is a contract in place whereby payment is required without repair...

> you wouldnt go to work and expect to
> be unpaid if the client after you spending some considerable time
> investigating an issue decided not to go any further wth the works.

Its normal for this to happen with electronic repairs, and there are 2 types of service offered. 1 is pay something anyway, 2 is no fix no fee. Both are entirely normal.


> The test equipment for electronic equipment such as lapops and mobiles
> can be very expensive (one machine i dealt with was well over £250K)
>
> even basic kit runs into £1000.00 plus, thats without calibration.

some does. some costs a few pounds. Spotting a duff keyboard is more about typing to reproduce the fault, and eyeball inspection rather than testgear.


NT

[Peter Parry]

On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:44:22 -0700 (PDT), meow...@care2.com wrote:

>On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:

>First its normal & routine for people to cut corners on their jobs, and be incompetent.
>This is a widespread and routine issue. There is nothing unlikely about that, unfortunately.

I suspect that forming your case on the wholly unproven assumption
that every technician in the country is lazy and incompetent may not
be lead to success.

> 2nd there is no reason to suppose that an examination of the circuit tracks of the keyboard
> formed a normal part of the examination of returned laptops. Indeed I would suggest it quite unlikely that it did or does.

There is a presumption, based upon the OP's original guess, that the
laptop has had a previous user. The most common source of supplier
"reconditioned" machines is not from customer returns but ones
returned by the shops before sale with damaged packaging. Most have
never been used. Machines which have been used tend to be disposed of
to resellers.

> If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it as a total gamble.
> Meanwhile I would question whether the steep payments & return cost the
> manufacturer is asking for have been agreed to at any time.

The cost isn't steep and the T's&C's do clearly say a charge will be
made.

[meow...@care2.com]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:57:44 PM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:45:23 AM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> > > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:33:32 +1100, "Pelican"
> > > > > <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:

> > > > First its normal & routine for people to cut corners on their
> > > > jobs, and be incompetent. This is a widespread and routine issue.
> > > > There is nothing unlikely about that, unfortunately.
> > >
> > > Thats quite offensive, i certainly do not cut corners, neither do
> > > all the tradesmen or women i know, neither is it the norm to be
> > > incompetent.
> >
> > I didn't say that you or they were.
>
> You implied it was the norm it isnt

I said it was normal, routine and widespread. It is. I did not say everyone or you were incompetent.

> > > These problems happen when unskilled people assume the mantel of
> > > proffesionals, the addage a little knowledge is a dangerous tool
> > > springs to mind
> >
> > that happens too.
> >
> > > > 2nd there is no reason to suppose that an examination of the
> > > > circuit tracks of the keyboard formed a normal part of the
> > > > examination of returned laptops. Indeed I would suggest it quite
> > > > unlikely that it did or does.
> > >
> > > It would depend why the machine was returned, its not unusual though
> > > for the hard disk to be removed and all the oem software reinstalled
> > > back to factory default, so that the new user can register the
> > > machine and operating system.
> >
> > sure, that has nothing to do with the keyboard though
>
> Depends where the hard disk is positioned
> >
> > > Most liquids spilt on a keyoard will leave tell tale marks
> >
> > if the user wanted to return it they'd wipe it clean
> you cant clean under the keys without removing them

I can remove them & clip them back on.

> > > > If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it as a
> > > > total gamble. Meanwhile I would question whether the steep
> > > > payments & return cost the manufacturer is asking for have been
> > > > agreed to at any time. If not I'd object & seek a far more
> > > > economical repairer.
> > >
> > >
> > > Taking the machine to a third party would in all probablity void the
> > > manufacturers warranty,
> >
> > and save the steep cost the manufacturer wishes to charge. Which is
> > the better.
>
> Ultimatly the manufacturer will be the expert,

Manufacturer and other repairers have the expertise required here

> they are expensive
> because they have all the correct equipment and technical expertise to
> dianose the problem

So do other much cheaper places, so that's not the reason

> > > its also unlikely that the independants have
> > > the equipment or infomation to check the motherboard to the same
> > > level as the manufacturer. Laptop motherboards tend to be machine/
> > > manufactuer specific.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any reason the OP would want someone to check the
> > mobo
>
> If coffee has run into the keyboard its possible its run into the
> internals

IIRC the manufacturer said its the keyboard that needs work.


NT

[newshound]

On 19/03/2015 16:56, nigela...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> Last July 2014 I bought a laptop from Argos at the link below.
>
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Toshiba-C50-15-6-Inch-Ci3-1TB-Laptop-/360950885935?ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:GB:3160
> It was manufacturer refurbished with 12 month warranty.
>
> Occasionally when typing I was getting double letters. I did not give it that much thought at the time but it steadily got worse. Anyway last week I decided to contact Toshiba so I could get it fixed. I figured it's under warranty so may as well get it fixed. Anyway when I phoned them they arranged for the laptop to be collected from my house (I thought this is a great service)
>
> A couple of days later they sent me an email saying,
>
> "We have a query, regarding the repair of your computer.
> At present, our Toshiba engineers are unable to replicate the problem described."
>
> They asked me to answer a list of question which I did and sent them back. They then contacted me again via email saying
>
>
> You have liquid damage
> "We are contacting you in regards to the repair of your unit. An Estimate of Costs (EOC) has been generated because your repair is not covered under the scope of the warranty. This means that you will have three options:

>
> - Pay for the full repair to be completed.
> - Pay for the return of the unit.
> - Have it disposed of free of charge."
>

> and a bill for £118
>
>
> I know for sure I have not spilt anything on this laptop I have only used it a dozen times and it's in mint condition.
> So I sent them an email back which you can see below what it said
>
>
> Dear Mr Walker,
> When I bought this item from Argos it was a "manufacturer refurbished" item it was not bought as new. This laptop is a customer returned item. I have not ever spilt any liquid on this item, it has been kept in immaculate condition at all times. Your engineer on the 12th March in an email stated he could not replicate the problem I described with the laptop. But now you are telling me there is evidence of liquid damage. Just because someone may be able to see a stain on the underneath of the laptop (as in picture you sent me) this does not show that I have damaged this laptop.
> It simply explains to me that this is possibly one of the reasons it was returned by whatever customer purchased this item in the beginning. Let's face it after it had been refurbished by the manufacturer,
> the manufacturer would have had no way of knowing there was still a problem with it if Toshiba's engineers struggled to replicate the problem that I described so you would of just sold it on.
> I am just unfortunate in that I am the one who bought this item. Therefore I cannot accept that I will be billed for this repair. I bought this item in good faith ,if it had not come with a 12 month Toshiba Warranty I would not of purchased this item in the first place. I look forward to hearing from you with an adequate resolution,
> Best regards Nigel.
>
> They then sent me another email as below
>
> Thank you for your recent enquiry.
>
> We cannot speculate about when, where, how or who spilt liquid on the computer. This is the condition we received your computer in. The photograph of the underside of the keyboard shows the dried residue of a liquid ingress into the keyboard. Please note, that with liquid damage we cannot exclude secondary damages caused by advancing oxidation(rusting) effects to parts not listed in the Estimate of Costs.
>
> Please be aware that a manufacturers' warranty is offered as a service in addition to your statutory rights as a customer to your retailer. It is not a contract made directly with the customer. This warranty does not limit or replace your rights a consumer and does not affect you statutory rights adversely. As a consumer, your rights actually lie with the entity you purchased your asset from, which is the retailer. Please refer to the Sales Of Goods Act 1979. This can be independently checked with the Citizen's Advice Bureau and the Office of Fair Trading. The retailer is responsible for any queries regarding the suitability, functionality or lifespan of the product so you may wish to contact the retailer from where you bought the asset in order to pursue a claim under the http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54.
> For more information on consumer rights, please call Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 08454 04 05 06 or visit http://www.oft.gov.uk/consumer-advice/CAB-overview.
>
> So after this very long winded post my question is what do I do. Toshiba are saying they will give me 3 choices.
> Return my item unrepaired for £64
> Repair my item and send it back to me for £118
> Destroy it for free.
>
> Do I have any comeback at all on this with Toshiba or Argos?
> Thanks Nige
>

I went through a similar argument with Argos over an ultrabook which
died. I took it to a one-man computer services business who, for £20,
wrote a half page letter saying in his opinion it was a motherboard
fault. They did phone him up to check, but they gave me a full refund
without a quibble.

[steve robinson]

meow...@care2.com wrote:

> On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 12:21:42 PM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
>
> > If you send an item back to the supplier for repair and the fault is
> > due to customer misuse its nly reasonable to expect to pay for the
> > time of those investigating the fault.
>
> In this case the OP insists it was not due to customer misuse.
> Its reasonable to pay if there is a contract in place whereby payment
> is required without repair...

You ask the manufacturer to diagnose a fault you have entered into a
service contract for which they are entitled to charge, wether you have
it repaired or not is entirely up to you.



snip>

> Its normal for this to happen with electronic repairs, and there are
> 2 types of service offered. 1 is pay something anyway, 2 is no fix no
> fee. Both are entirely normal.

You keep saying normal, its not normal, all business offer different
types of and different levels of service. Just because joe bloggs
computer services offer no fix no fee for walk in customers doesnt mean
others have to follow thier lead

>
>
> > The test equipment for electronic equipment such as lapops and
> > mobiles can be very expensive (one machine i dealt with was well
> > over �250K)
> >
> > even basic kit runs into �1000.00 plus, thats without calibration.
>
> some does. some costs a few pounds. Spotting a duff keyboard is more
> about typing to reproduce the fault, and eyeball inspection rather
> than testgear.
>

That may reproduce the fault, it doesnt diagnose what the fault is,or
if its something simple to repair.

It may well be that the actual cost of a replacement keyboard makes
any fault finding pointless for most service techs, it may however be
cost effective for the manufacturers

[meow...@care2.com]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 5:57:06 PM UTC+1, Peter Parry wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:44:22 -0700 (PDT), meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
>
> >First its normal & routine for people to cut corners on their jobs, and be incompetent.
> >This is a widespread and routine issue. There is nothing unlikely about that, unfortunately.
>
> I suspect that forming your case on the wholly unproven assumption
> that every technician in the country is lazy and incompetent may not
> be lead to success.

I never said that was the case. Why do some people not read what's written?

> > 2nd there is no reason to suppose that an examination of the circuit tracks of the keyboard
> > formed a normal part of the examination of returned laptops. Indeed I would suggest it quite unlikely that it did or does.
>
> There is a presumption, based upon the OP's original guess, that the
> laptop has had a previous user. The most common source of supplier
> "reconditioned" machines is not from customer returns but ones
> returned by the shops before sale with damaged packaging. Most have
> never been used. Machines which have been used tend to be disposed of
> to resellers.
>
> > If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it as a total gamble.
> > Meanwhile I would question whether the steep payments & return cost the
> > manufacturer is asking for have been agreed to at any time.
>
> The cost isn't steep and the T's&C's do clearly say a charge will be
> made.

£118 to fit a new keyboard is very steep, as one would expect from an OEM.


NT

[steve robinson]

You may be able to not everyone has this skill , not all keyboards can
be pulled apart removing keys will leave tell tale sins

>
> > > > > If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it
> > > > > as a total gamble. Meanwhile I would question whether the
> > > > > steep payments & return cost the manufacturer is asking for
> > > > > have been agreed to at any time. If not I'd object & seek a
> > > > > far more economical repairer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Taking the machine to a third party would in all probablity
> > > > void the manufacturers warranty,
> > >
> > > and save the steep cost the manufacturer wishes to charge. Which
> > > is the better.
> >
> > Ultimatly the manufacturer will be the expert,
>
> Manufacturer and other repairers have the expertise required here


>
> > they are expensive
> > because they have all the correct equipment and technical expertise
> > to dianose the problem
>
> So do other much cheaper places, so that's not the reason

Most high street repair centres only have the basic kit they tend to
swap out rather than repair,generally targeting software issues and
broken screens you need a proper electronics repair centre if your
going much deeper, the equipment levels are far superior (usally
running into many hundreds o thousands of pounds worth of kit)

[steve robinson]

The large retailers are usally pretty good a soughting things if you
dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

All they will do is send it back to the manufacturer for a refund'

[Roland Perry]

In message <xn0jkdh0r...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, at
10:59:23 on Sat, 4 Apr 2015, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:

>The large retailers are usally pretty good a soughting things if you
>dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
>
>All they will do is send it back to the manufacturer for a refund'

Part of the problem is that many of the large chain stores don't send
things back to the manufacturers, because they have what's known as a
"bought out warranty". In other words, they get a cheaper buy-price for
taking on the risk of repair and returns.

The corollary to this is that some chains are therefore much more picky
about what brands they sell, because they don't want anything that might
come back and bite them.

Back in the day Boots used to have their own lab for testing electrical
products before they'd accept that range for sale. The shops were very
savvy and didn't just go on rumour and prejudice, but examined
everything in detail.

One of the reasons that Amstrad's CPC464 got wide distribution wasn't
just that I went and talked to the technical departments in the shops
about how they'd be simple to support, but it was the first home
computer with a proper maintenance manual with full circuits, exploded
diagrams, and spare parts list, all of which the shops were familiar
with from earlier products.

I also wrote a test-ROM which fitted on the back, and diagnosed a range
of common problems in seconds. Not that there were lots of problems,
iirc our target was 1% returns at a time that 10-20% was commonplace in
the industry.
--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

That seems a reasonable price for OEM replacement , if yuo want to go
down the route of cheap and cheerful thats your choice, but you
invalidate any warranties

[meow...@care2.com]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:57:01 AM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:57:44 PM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> > > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:45:23 AM UTC+1, steve robinson
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:33:32 +1100, "Pelican"
> > > > > > > <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:

> > > > > Most liquids spilt on a keyoard will leave tell tale marks
> > > >
> > > > if the user wanted to return it they'd wipe it clean
> > > you cant clean under the keys without removing them
> >
> > I can remove them & clip them back on.
>
> You may be able to not everyone has this skill , not all keyboards can
> be pulled apart removing keys will leave tell tale sins

lots of people dislodge a key then snap it back on, its well known and leaves nothing noticeable.

> > > > > > If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but regard it
> > > > > > as a total gamble. Meanwhile I would question whether the
> > > > > > steep payments & return cost the manufacturer is asking for
> > > > > > have been agreed to at any time. If not I'd object & seek a
> > > > > > far more economical repairer.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Taking the machine to a third party would in all probablity
> > > > > void the manufacturers warranty,
> > > >
> > > > and save the steep cost the manufacturer wishes to charge. Which
> > > > is the better.
> > >
> > > Ultimatly the manufacturer will be the expert,
> >
> > Manufacturer and other repairers have the expertise required here
>
>
> >
> > > they are expensive
> > > because they have all the correct equipment and technical expertise
> > > to dianose the problem
> >
> > So do other much cheaper places, so that's not the reason
>
> Most high street repair centres only have the basic kit they tend to
> swap out rather than repair,generally targeting software issues and
> broken screens you need a proper electronics repair centre if your

a new keyboard is as easy as a new screen, but its all a bit moot

> going much deeper, the equipment levels are far superior (usally
> running into many hundreds o thousands of pounds worth of kit)

Most repair shops have nothing like that level of equipment and can replace keyboards no problem. You're offering a false dichotomy again


NT

[Roland Perry]

In message <5289732a-1957-4c0f...@googlegroups.com>, at
03:12:37 on Sun, 5 Apr 2015, meow...@care2.com remarked:

>>not all keyboards can
>> be pulled apart removing keys will leave tell tale sins
>
>lots of people dislodge a key then snap it back on, its well
>known and leaves nothing noticeable.

Many keys can indeed be replaced at that level - I did it for my
daughter's laptop last year where the mechanism under one key had
broken, although I had to buy a spare key online (which wasn't
difficult).

If there's been water (or other liquid) on the keyboard that's quite
likely a bigger job, although once again entire keyboards can often be
replaced fairly easily. Look for videos on youTube to get instructions
on how to dismantle the laptop (it's not always obvious).

The last three laptops of mine (Toshiba, Sony and Dell) all had their
memory slots under the keyboard, and it was necessary to remove the
keyboard to do an upgrade. So they had been designed to be done by end
users. As was an Acer I updated both the memory and HDD for a colleague.
--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

meow...@care2.com wrote:

> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:57:01 AM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:57:44 PM UTC+1, steve robinson
> > > wrote:
> > > > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:45:23 AM UTC+1, steve robinson
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:33:32 +1100, "Pelican"
> > > > > > > > <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Most liquids spilt on a keyoard will leave tell tale marks
> > > > >
> > > > > if the user wanted to return it they'd wipe it clean
> > > > you cant clean under the keys without removing them
> > >
> > > I can remove them & clip them back on.
> >
> > You may be able to not everyone has this skill , not all keyboards
> > can be pulled apart removing keys will leave tell tale sins
>
> lots of people dislodge a key then snap it back on, its well known
> and leaves nothing noticeable.

Lots of people cant snap them back in it depends on the keyboard and
how they are attached, one of my acers is like that , snap out the key
and the clip breaks

>
>
> > > > > > > If I were the OP I'd likely make a small claim, but
> > > > > > > regard it as a total gamble. Meanwhile I would question
> > > > > > > whether the steep payments & return cost the manufacturer
> > > > > > > is asking for have been agreed to at any time. If not I'd
> > > > > > > object & seek a far more economical repairer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Taking the machine to a third party would in all probablity
> > > > > > void the manufacturers warranty,
> > > > >
> > > > > and save the steep cost the manufacturer wishes to charge.
> > > > > Which is the better.
> > > >
> > > > Ultimatly the manufacturer will be the expert,
> > >
> > > Manufacturer and other repairers have the expertise required here
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > they are expensive
> > > > because they have all the correct equipment and technical
> > > > expertise to dianose the problem
> > >
> > > So do other much cheaper places, so that's not the reason
> >
> > Most high street repair centres only have the basic kit they tend
> > to swap out rather than repair,generally targeting software issues
> > and broken screens you need a proper electronics repair centre if
> > your
>
> a new keyboard is as easy as a new screen, but its all a bit moot


>
> > going much deeper, the equipment levels are far superior (usally
> > running into many hundreds o thousands of pounds worth of kit)
>
> Most repair shops have nothing like that level of equipment and can
> replace keyboards no problem. You're offering a false dichotomy again
>

> If you 'know' its actually the keyboard thats faulty then you pays
your money and takes your choice, it could just be a symptom

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:56:32 AM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 12:21:42 PM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
> >
> > > If you send an item back to the supplier for repair and the fault is
> > > due to customer misuse its nly reasonable to expect to pay for the
> > > time of those investigating the fault.
> >
> > In this case the OP insists it was not due to customer misuse.
> > Its reasonable to pay if there is a contract in place whereby payment
> > is required without repair...
>
> You ask the manufacturer to diagnose a fault you have entered into a
> service contract for which they are entitled to charge, wether you have
> it repaired or not is entirely up to you.
>
>
>
> snip>
>
> > Its normal for this to happen with electronic repairs, and there are
> > 2 types of service offered. 1 is pay something anyway, 2 is no fix no
> > fee. Both are entirely normal.
>
> You keep saying normal, its not normal, all business offer different
> types of and different levels of service. Just because joe bloggs
> computer services offer no fix no fee for walk in customers doesnt mean
> others have to follow thier lead

we know this

> > > The test equipment for electronic equipment such as lapops and
> > > mobiles can be very expensive (one machine i dealt with was well
> > > over �250K)
> > >
> > > even basic kit runs into �1000.00 plus, thats without calibration.
> >
> > some does. some costs a few pounds. Spotting a duff keyboard is more
> > about typing to reproduce the fault, and eyeball inspection rather
> > than testgear.
> >
> That may reproduce the fault, it doesnt diagnose what the fault is,or
> if its something simple to repair.

yes it does. The manufacturer might choose to do it differently, but that's how any 3rd party repair shop does it.

> It may well be that the actual cost of a replacement keyboard makes
> any fault finding pointless for most service techs, it may however be
> cost effective for the manufacturers

that's not usually the case.


NT

[steve robinson]

Yes, hit and miss, keep swaping out until they think its fixed, a
little like back street street mechanics
I prefer to have the fault correctly diagnosed first time.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 7:29:43 AM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:57:01 AM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> > > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:57:44 PM UTC+1, steve robinson
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:45:23 AM UTC+1, steve robinson
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 11:20:55 AM UTC, Peter Parry
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 06:33:32 +1100, "Pelican"
> > > > > > > > > <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:

> > lots of people dislodge a key then snap it back on, its well known
> > and leaves nothing noticeable.
>
> Lots of people cant snap them back in it depends on the keyboard and
> how they are attached, one of my acers is like that , snap out the key
> and the clip breaks

most arent

> > > going much deeper, the equipment levels are far superior (usally
> > > running into many hundreds o thousands of pounds worth of kit)
> >
> > Most repair shops have nothing like that level of equipment and can
> > replace keyboards no problem. You're offering a false dichotomy again
> >
> > If you 'know' its actually the keyboard thats faulty then you pays
> your money and takes your choice, it could just be a symptom

It is, a symptom of a faulty keyboard.


NT

[Phi]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0jkfu2...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

It is easy enough to plug in a usb keyboard and check out the system before
any dismantling is started.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

You're way off. No repair shop could keep its doors open operating like that. You don't know the industry, and further discussion is pointless


NT

[steve robinson]

What not having the correct equipment to diagnose problems,

Many do not stay in busines very long because thier business model
doesnt work, in the last 12 months 12 laptop repair centres have
appeared within 3 miles of my home 4 have since disapeared ,one only
deals with software issues now, 3 have been rebranded since opening.

One is an approved repairer for a couple of well known brands and you
can see why when you walk into the shop, he repaired a fault on my acer
motherboard , ok you pay more if you want cheap and cheerful go down
the road (his words not mine ).

[Ian Jackson]

In article <cn0go...@mid.individual.net>,
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>I think your actual options are:
...
>b) As Toshiba to repair the item, pay the fee of 118 pounds which is
>quite modest, then ask Argos to refund this sum to you and if they
>refuse, sue them.

I did this recently, in situation which was similar in practice
(although rather different in the underlying legal reliationship).

I ended up sueing Dell, who paid in full. Hopefully Argos and Toshiba
will be less intransigent, but regardless I agree with The Todal that
his (b) is your best option.


I was going to make a reference to my case against Dell but I don't
seem to have posted it here. But I can conveniently provide a copy of
my Particulars of Claim which explain the history:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/2013/dell-2013-claim.pdf

Dell did not file a defence. When I sued my complaint was immediately
escalated from their offshore call centre[1] Ireland where a member of
the "Executive Escalations" team wrote a letter offering to settle my
claim for its full value, an offer which I of course accepted.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

[Ian Jackson]

In article <6ux*Sp...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>I did this recently, in situation which was similar in practice
>(although rather different in the underlying legal reliationship).

relationship

>Dell did not file a defence. When I sued my complaint was immediately
>escalated from their offshore call centre[1] Ireland where a member of

^to

Missing footnote:

[1] Sending a letter before legal action produced an emailed
from the offshore call centre (!) offering to split the
difference.

It seems I was having a bad day for details when I posted that.
Sorry.

[banoc...@gmail.com]

Nige,

I have just had the same thing happen to me with regards Argos / Laptops
Purchased a refurbished laptop out of Argos Ebay outlet just before Christmas
2 weeks later its starts to act up (slow, responsive)
Therefore sent it back to Argos (DJ Henry - Argos repair contact) for repair
DJ Henry turn round and say it's water damaged and outwith any warranty
That It will cost £185 to repair - Which I refused
Because I didn't damage it with any liquid
Therefore in the exact same situation as you

[Paul Cummins]

In article <efc2cd60-95ec-4712...@googlegroups.com>,

banoc...@gmail.com () wrote:

> I have just had the same thing happen to me with regards Argos /
> Laptops
> Purchased a refurbished laptop out of Argos Ebay outlet just before
> Christmas
> 2 weeks later its starts to act up (slow, responsive)
> Therefore sent it back to Argos (DJ Henry - Argos repair contact)
> for repair DJ Henry turn round and say it's water damaged and
> outwith any warranty
> That It will cost £185 to repair - Which I refused
> Because I didn't damage it with any liquid

If a fault appears within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed to be
inherent unless the vendor can prove otherwise.

Threaten to sue.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2016022...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 12:55:00
on Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> I have just had the same thing happen to me with regards Argos /
>> Laptops
>> Purchased a refurbished laptop out of Argos Ebay outlet just before
>> Christmas
>> 2 weeks later its starts to act up (slow, responsive)
>> Therefore sent it back to Argos (DJ Henry - Argos repair contact)
>> for repair DJ Henry turn round and say it's water damaged and
>> outwith any warranty
>> That It will cost £185 to repair - Which I refused
>> Because I didn't damage it with any liquid
>
>If a fault appears within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed to be
>inherent unless the vendor can prove otherwise.

If the laptop has "liquid detectors" they may well be able to do that.
--
Roland Perry

[GB]

Would that give the date? The OP is not denying there's liquid damage,
just that he didn't do it.

[Roland Perry]

In message <na9qsd$h8n$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:51:59 on Sat, 20 Feb
2016, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:

>> If the laptop has "liquid detectors" they may well be able to do that.
>
>Would that give the date? The OP is not denying there's liquid damage,
>just that he didn't do it.

And thus the prior liquid damage was non-fatal and not evident when the
item was originally shipped to him, and subsequently 'something else'
has failed?
--
Roland Perry

[David L. Martel]

Roland,

Does "manufacturer refurbishing" involve cleaning the machine? I bet it
does. If so then it's not surprising that "residue" may affect the warranty.
I purchased a refurbished desktop about a decade ago. It looked quite
clean in the interior.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Peter Parry]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:51:59 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>On 20/02/2016 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <memo.2016022...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 12:55:00
>> on Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>

>>> If a fault appears within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed to be
>>> inherent unless the vendor can prove otherwise.
>>
>> If the laptop has "liquid detectors" they may well be able to do that.
>>
>
>Would that give the date? The OP is not denying there's liquid damage,
>just that he didn't do it.

As Mandy Rice-Davies said “Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?” .
The company will have a refurbishment procedure which almost certainly
cleans any returned machine and checks for liquid damage as it is so
common.

They don't have to prove that that particular machine was checked if
they can show they have a quality control system and it is a standard
check for all machines. (Although they probably still have the
refurbishment checklist for it).

If the above is true then there is reasonable evidence that the
machine, when delivered to the present owner, was free of liquid
contamination.

The machine now has liquid damage. The owner is saying he didn't do
it. This may be so, it could have been any one of a number of people
who may have passed or used the machine when it was open and
unattended. "I didn't do it" isn't compelling evidence when set
against a reasonable body of evidence that the damage wasn't there
when the machine was sold.

[TTman]

SNIP

>
> The machine now has liquid damage. The owner is saying he didn't do
> it. This may be so, it could have been any one of a number of people
> who may have passed or used the machine when it was open and
> unattended. "I didn't do it" isn't compelling evidence when set
> against a reasonable body of evidence that the damage wasn't there
> when the machine was sold.
>

Either way, that's an expensive keyboard. They're freely available on
the web for <£20 and manufacturers costs are likely to be <£5
Try using that as a lever maybe ?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:31:58 -0500
"David L. Martel" <mart...@frontier.com> wrote:

> I purchased a refurbished desktop about a decade ago. It looked
> quite clean in the interior.

I bought one just before Christmas, also fresh and shiny inside and out.
I doubt they do much more than blowing the dust out and wiping the case
down.

[Peter Parry]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:24:29 +0000, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>Either way, that's an expensive keyboard. They're freely available on
>the web for <£20 and manufacturers costs are likely to be <£5
>Try using that as a lever maybe ?

It isn't just the cost of the keyboard but the initial dismantling
plus inspection, time for someone to inform the purchaser, replacement
of the contaminated items, functional test and return to the
purchaser. Garages charge about £75-200 per hour so £185 isn't
unreasonable.

[GB]

On 20/02/2016 16:33, Peter Parry wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:51:59 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 20/02/2016 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <memo.2016022...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 12:55:00
>>> on Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
>
>>>> If a fault appears within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed to be
>>>> inherent unless the vendor can prove otherwise.
>>>
>>> If the laptop has "liquid detectors" they may well be able to do that.
>>>
>>
>> Would that give the date? The OP is not denying there's liquid damage,
>> just that he didn't do it.
>
> As Mandy Rice-Davies said “Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?” .

I think her words were actually different. :) Besides, we ought to give
the OP the benefit of the doubt, although it's clear that the vendor
isn't doing so.

> The company will have a refurbishment procedure which almost certainly
> cleans any returned machine and checks for liquid damage as it is so
> common.

I have my doubts about "almost certainly". The OP did not say that his
machine was manufacturer refurbished.

Argos get returns under their 30 day no-quibble policy. If the returning
customer does not mention a fault, the returned laptop may just get a
general clean-up and get passed on to the ebay outlet for resale as
refurbished.

"Refurbished" can mean anything from a complete strip-down to just a
quick polish, and we have no way of knowing what Argos do generally,
whether they do the same for all machines, and what was done to this
machine in particular.

>
> They don't have to prove that that particular machine was checked if
> they can show they have a quality control system and it is a standard
> check for all machines. (Although they probably still have the
> refurbishment checklist for it).
>

The OP needs to get Argos to produce their refurbishment records showing
what level of service was carried out for this particular machine.
Is there a pre-action protocol that applies to small claims like this?

[Peter Parry]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:00:00 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>On 20/02/2016 16:33, Peter Parry wrote:

>> As Mandy Rice-Davies said “Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?” .
>
>I think her words were actually different. :)

>> The company will have a refurbishment procedure which almost certainly
>> cleans any returned machine and checks for liquid damage as it is so
>> common.
>
>I have my doubts about "almost certainly". The OP did not say that his
>machine was manufacturer refurbished.

I have no specific information about this case, hence"almost
certainly". However, I have had experience of the companies which
supply such services. Manufacturers generally do not do repairs,
inspections or refurbishment. It is usually third party repair
organisations which do so under contract with the seller or
manufacturer.

>Argos get returns under their 30 day no-quibble policy. If the returning
>customer does not mention a fault, the returned laptop may just get a
>general clean-up and get passed on to the ebay outlet for resale as
>refurbished.

No, they go to a repair organisation where they are inspected (which
in the case of laptops includes specific checks for liquid damage
because it is so common). They will be cleaned inspected, go through
a functional check and be repackaged before being resold. Many
returns have some degree of user induced fault and seller in their
right mind would put any credence in the customer not mentioning a
fault. Returns are sent for checking whatever the customer says and
all go through the same procedure.

>"Refurbished" can mean anything from a complete strip-down to just a
>quick polish, and we have no way of knowing what Argos do generally,
>whether they do the same for all machines, and what was done to this
>machine in particular.

They will be able to produce their inspection procedures and
checklists. All go through the same procedure.

>> They don't have to prove that that particular machine was checked if
>> they can show they have a quality control system and it is a standard
>> check for all machines. (Although they probably still have the
>> refurbishment checklist for it).
>
>The OP needs to get Argos to produce their refurbishment records showing
>what level of service was carried out for this particular machine.

He can ask, he may not get any more than he can get the records which
"prove" his computer was originally manufactured with no liquid in
it.

If the repairer can show (as they probably can) that they have a
quality control system to recognised standards and procedures which
includes checks for liquid damage before goods are offered for resale
that will be enough. They do not have to prove that specific machine
was inspected.

[David L. Martel]

Rob,

>
> I bought one just before Christmas, also fresh and shiny inside and out.
> I doubt they do much more than blowing the dust out and wiping the case
> down.

Perhaps but "wiping the case down" certainly sounds like it would remove
fluid residue. The presence of fluid residue in the OP's machine strikes me
as odd and he fails to address this.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Graham Murray]

"David L. Martel" <mart...@frontier.com> writes:

> Perhaps but "wiping the case down" certainly sounds like it would remove
> fluid residue. The presence of fluid residue in the OP's machine strikes me
> as odd and he fails to address this.

It could be condensation. For example, if the machine had been in the
back of a van in sub-zero temperatures and brought into a domestic or
office environment at normal temperature and humidity then condensation
could form, especially on internal metal parts.

[David L. Martel]

Graham,

Condensation? You mean fairly pure water? Where does the "liquid residue"
come from?
Are you hypothesizing or have you seen this residue? I do believew that
atmospheric water may enter computer cases (and other electronics) and may
condense. I've never seen any residue from this.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:11:56 -0500

"David L. Martel" <mart...@frontier.com> wrote:

If there's something water soluble present the condensate could
dissolve it and move it around, leaving characteristic marks.