HP retailer

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[Stuart2007]

Indeed, there is no specific time limit on sale of goods act etc... the word being 'reasonable'.

So the problem is to argue what is reasonable...

If your computer fails in 8 days- that is clearly not reasonable. However, they say you have 12 months warranty and that is all that is reasonable to expect.

But if I spend £1000 on a laptop- isn't it reasonable to expect it to last more than a year? I would expect a MINIMUM of 2-4 years. Of course, taking a laptop back 4 years after purchase and expecting a replacement would not be reasonable, but for them to wash their hands of it after 12 months???

Stu

[[RWP]DJM]

I agree Stu

From what I hear, most retailers see 'reasonable' as 6 months or less, this to me is wrong.  If an item with that kind of value fails, this time limit should be extended imho.

UK law can be a real pain when it comes down to arguing the finer points, but most retailers will offer some kind of 'middle ground' to their customers if it maintains good customer relations.  I usually ask to speak to the manager, if I get the usual response "He's in a meeting", I go with this:

"Well, someone must have been left in charge, I'll speak to them please"

That usually gets the response I'm after

[Orinoco]

This is a useful summary/brief guide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/271493.stm

[[RWP]DJM]

Nice link, thanks

[Stuart2007]

Good summary.

But advising going straight to trading standards without discussing with the retailer first is barking. 2 reasons

1. Trading standards probably too busy to help anyway
2. why NOT give the retailer a chance to remedy the situation.

Trading standards will only be interested if A) its serious B)The retailer has avoided every chance to put it right.

Stu

[Orinoco]

Good summary.

But advising going straight to trading standards without discussing with the retailer first is barking. 2 reasons

1. Trading standards probably too busy to help anyway
2. why NOT give the retailer a chance to remedy the situation.

Trading standards will only be interested if A) its serious B)The retailer has avoided every chance to put it right.

Stu

Agreed Stu, that is some pretty silly advice. Most stores will happily correct mistakes, only if they refuse/treat you unfairly (or do it repeatedly) should TS become involved.

[[RWP]DJM]

The problem I find with Trading Standards is that they WILL NOT tell you if a company has a bad reputation when you call them.  I think this should be changed to allow consumers more options when choosing a service etc.

If consumers are informed about bad traders etc. it allows for less contact with 'the rogues'

Just my own opinion there

Regards.

DJM.

[greyhill]

Don't have a clue Stu, sorry. I'd agree with you about clock speeds on every Intel processor except the Core 2 Duo - it literally is the best on the market.

i just bought a quad core, it wipes the floor with my old dual core. i knew it was good when the guy in the shop was jealous  

[Stuart2007]

Yes. That is annoying. Even TS admit it is unhelpful when they know a company is bad but can't do anything about it.

Stu

[[RWP]DJM]

i just bought a quad core, it wipes the floor with my old dual core. i knew it was good when the guy in the shop was jealous  

LOL

* [RWP]DJM feels that jealous streak also rising

[Stuart2007]

i just bought a quad core, it wipes the floor with my old dual core. i knew it was good when the guy in the shop was jealous  

Thankyou.

SEE Orinoco? dual core is NOT the best

[Orinoco]

Thankyou.

SEE Orinoco? dual core is NOT the best

It's debatable whether you'll actually get better performance from a Quad Core. Considering that most processes aren't even optimised for dual-core, let alone quad-core processors. A quad core may give you a slight performance boost over a Core 2, but until there's true multi-threading present in applications, any gain will be minimal at best.