Hi

Short version is

i bought a tablet from PC world in Oct for a Christmas gift so it was not used until late Dec early Jan

Had to return it to PC world early March due to a charging issue

at first they demanded i sent it to Toshiba but i stood my ground and they took it and sent it away.

I was told after 2 weeks that they would not repair it as they deemed it my fault as the charging pins had bent

i argued my daughter had only ever used the charger supplied so that must have bent the pins which in my view was a faulty charger.

No joy with that and to rub it in i had to pay £50 to get my tablet back so

i took court action stating my case adding the fact PC world refused the charger when i first took the tablet back and gave it back to me.

Pc world have defend the claim on the grounds that i accepted the goods

and if it was faulty it would have been from the date i bought it.

So if i post up the defense can someone much wiser than me have a look PLEASE

When did you file the court claim? After 6 months, it is up to YOU to prove that you didnt cause the damage, which is why you should have got an independent engineer to take a look at it.

Please post up the claim and the defence

It was only 5 months from date of buying it but it was a gift so only had 2 months of use

1. The Defendant admits supplying the Claimant with a Toshiba

Excite Pure tablet (referred to below as 'the Tablet’) under a

contract of sale dated 9th October 2013. The purchase price was

£199.99.

2. The Tablet was provided with a 12 month guarantee (‘the

Guarantee’) covering parts and labour but which excludes damage

caused accident, misuse, neglect or fair wear and tear.

3. The Defendant admits that the Claimant returned the Tablet to

one of the Defendant’s stores in March 2014, alleging that the

Tablet was not charging properly.

4. The Defendant admits that the Claimant was told to return the

Tablet to the manufacturer (‘Toshiba’). The Defendant contends

that this is standard practice when dealing with items still under

their Guarantee:

Often repairs will be carried out by the manufacturer’s own

service teams with whom we have arrangements in place to ensure

your product is repaired by skilled and qualified engineers. If

we refer you to such a repair centre when you call us, please be

assured we are not fobbing you off. If you’re not happy with

their service we urge you to let us know.

Accordingly, the Defendant contends that the Tablet was sent to

Toshiba for inspection and, if necessary, repair.

5. The Defendant is unable to confirm or deny, and requires the

Claimant to prove, that he ‘was told at the time if the item was

not under warranty I would have to pay for the repair.’ In any

event, the Tablet was still under the manufacturer’s guarantee.

6. The Defendant contends that an inspection of the Tablet by

Toshiba revealed that the charging failure was caused by physical

damage (damaged USB port and bent pins). The Defendant contends

that this damage is not the result of any manufacturing defect,

but rather is classed as accidental damage which occurred after

the point of sale. Accordingly, the Defendant contends that they

are not liable for the cost of repair because the damage is not

covered under either the Guarantee or the Sale of Goods Act 1979

(as amended).

7. The Defendant contends that they contacted Toshiba on 6th June

2014, and it was confirmed to the Defendant that Toshiba had

denied the free of charge repair because the damaged USB port was

judged by Toshiba to be the result of accidental damage and not of

a manufacturing defect.

8. The Defendant admits that the Claimant was informed that as the

damage is not covered under the Guarantee, he would have to pay

for any repairs himself. The Claimant was quoted £124.97 for a

repair and £50.00 to have the item returned unrepaired.

9. The Defendant denies both that they ‘washed their hands of the

matter’ and that the Claimant was ‘given no details as to why they

would not repair the item.’ The Defendant contends that the

Claimant was told that the damage was not covered under the

Guarantee, meaning that they are not liable for the repairs.

10. The Defendant is unable to confirm or deny, and requires the

Claimant to prove, that it ‘was a faulty charger that was supplied

with the tablet that was the cause of the fault.’ The Defendant

further contends that any fault with the charger would likely have

resulted in problems with the Tablet from the date of purchase or

shortly after, whereas the Claimant used the Tablet without

complaint for 5 months.

11. The Defendant contends that the Tablet cost £199.99 at

purchase, and therefore requires the Claimant to fully quantify

the remaining £100.01.

12. The Defendant will contend that the Tablet was of satisfactory

quality and fit for their purpose at the time of sale, as required

by Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

13. Further, the Defendant will contend that the Claimant has in

any event accepted the Tablet by virtue of section 35 (1)(a) and

(b), (2)(a) and (4) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

14. Consequently, the Claimant has lost the right to reject the

Tablet for any defects that arise, there having been no total

failure of consideration.

15. Further, under section 11(4) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as

amended) a Claimant who has lost the right to reject the goods can

only treat any breach he may prove as a breach of warranty.

16. Accordingly, the Defendant denies being indebted to the

Claimant in the sum claimed as alleged or at all.

Can you post your POC's up in full please.

Particulars of Claim

On the 9/10/13 i bought a

Toshiba excite table from P.C WORLD for a

Christmas present for my daughter.I had cause

to return the item in March due to a non

charging issue at first P.C WORLD wanted me

to return the item to Toshiba and deal with

the matter i refused this as i bought it from

P.C WORLD i was told at the time if the item

was not under warranty i would have to pay

for the repair.After 2 weeks i had a message

asking me to go into store to pick my tablet

up however once there i was told Toshiba

would not repair it and i would need to

contact them direct to resolve the matter.I

was told i would have to pay £50 to get the

item back and given no details as to why they

would not repair the item.PC WORLD left it

uoto me to recover my goods and washed their

hands of the matter.I have since found out if

was a faulty charger that was supplied with

the tablet that was the cause of the fault

Do you have professional evidence that it was a faulty charger? And the charger was faulty from point of sale, or developed a fault that was known to the manufacturer?

Can you ell us more about the fault please.

I understand that it is because of bent pins - or a physically damaged USB port. Is that right?

I see PC World are choosing when to apply SOGA, they know they should be the first port of call for the OP, instead they refer the OP to deal directly with Toshibia. They use SOGA to defend the claim.

There are bent pins inside the port my daughter only used the charger that came with the tablet and that was always a tight fit but is a usb charger and only goes in one way.

There are bent pins inside the port my daughter only used the charger that came with the tablet and that was always a tight fit but is a usb charger and only goes in one way.

I don;t really understand. If you manage to charge it before, then surely that means that it was fine when you bought it and for the last 6 months. Does the supplied charger not work any more?

My understanding is that it was bought in October 2013.

It was given as a gift December 2013.

Wasn't used until late Dec/early Jan.

It was taken back to PC World in March 2014.

PC World passed the buck, the OP was told to contact Toshiba.

Toshiba are saying that it's not a manufacturing fault, the product has been damaged by the OP.

Although it might have worked for some time, could their be an inherent fault? could poor manufacturing cause the charging pin's to easily give way?

It might be worth getting the Toshiba report on their inspection of the product.

Might be worth posting a pic which might explain it better.

Yes it was fine when i bought it and charged ok, it was not opened until Xmas day and first used in Jan and taken back in march.

It came with a charger which is the only one that was used and only goes in one way, we have since tried the charger in a old phone and it done the same to the pins in the phone so clearly the charger is the problem.

I asked for a report and was told it was only a vision inspection and they could see the bent pins

If Toshiba has checked the product for damage then they should have supplied a report. Saying 'it was a visual inspection and they could see the pins were bent' is not satisfactory. The report documenting the damage is what you need to ask Toshiba/PC World to provide using CPR.

Have they sent you anything in writing to say it was a 'visual inspection'?

Yes it was fine when i bought it and charged ok, it was not opened until Xmas day and first used in Jan and taken back in march.

 

It came with a charger which is the only one that was used and only goes in one way, we have since tried the charger in a old phone and it done the same to the pins in the phone so clearly the charger is the problem.

 

I asked for a report and was told it was only a vision inspection and they could see the bent pins

The fact is both the charger and the tablet worked. The charger now has bent pins and doesn't work. When sold the charger was working and the pins were straight.. Clearly someone has bent the pins - it's not PC World! I would speculate that you would have a very hard time convincing a judge that this is a 'defect'. Your best option might be to pursue a not fit for purpose case, on the grounds that the charger is poorly designed to withstand the stresses/strains of normal use... otherwise PC World are going to say you have damaged/misappropriated it...

please dont resurect old threads

please dont resurect old threads

Please don't pretend to be a mod when you're not.

The thread is open and unresolved, furthermore it still appears towards the top of the section of the sub forum and is therefore very visible. My comments are constructive and may assist anyone researching a similar situation or the OP himself should he choose to review his thread.

Its not open and unresolved. Posters rarely come back to update us on the outcome. It's also against forum rules to necro post. You can ask the OP for an update, but dont treat the thread as if its a live one.

Well, I can't see it in the rules - can you show me where exactly? It's certainly not mentioned at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?9-Forum-rules.-Please-read-these-before-posting

By virtue of the fact it's not a closed thread it has to be live and clearly it is unresolved. If there were such a rule [daft] what would the timescale be for deciding when a thread should be considered dead - just so I'm better informed for next time?

As an aside I don't understand why you would ever seek to discourage constructive discusson on a forum - it exists for that very reason... what harm is being caused? Providing it's constructive the only risk is that you help somone at a later date or provide a different point of view that may be applicable to a similar situation in the future...

Lets not get into silly debates okay. Its pointless and isnt worth it.

Lets not get into silly debates okay. Its pointless and isnt worth it.

I'm afraid I don't agree.

1. I've tried to provide something helpful/constructive in a yet to be resolved thread.

2. Yourself and Labrat rats posts have not been constructive or helpful to anyone and have only served to undermine my willingness to contribute.

3. You allege that by posting I've broken the forum rules.

4. You are unable to state where the forum rule that I have broken is documented.

5. When the above is pointed out you declare the whole thing "silly, pointless and not worth it".

Ironically, the only thing I consider pointless and not worth it are the follow up posts from yourself and labrat. They are punitive and attempt to enforce a non-existent (or at best) undocumented rule. When I’ve only put forward a constructive point your follow-ups seem completely draconian and unnecessary.

If it is a rule I genuinely don't want to break it again, hence request for clarification. As you haven't clarified the rule and I can't find it any mention of it then I don't believe such a rule exists.

I don't want to appear unduly aggressive but no other forum (at least that I'm a member of) would seek to supress a constructive contribution to an open thread. Otherwise you have to ask yourself why have a forum?

Overzealous enforcement of undocumented rules is something that as a forum we should wholeheartedly oppose (PPCs, unfair T&C’s etc)…

the point of the rule is a general one

bringing older threads to the top may push newer ones lower preventing people waiting getting advice

now if no-one minds ill report this to the mods to lock/clean it up

As the OP hasn't returned to update us, I will close this thread. If the OP comes back with an update, this thread can be re opened.

At the OPs request this thread is now open again. Please keep to the topic at hand.