Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Official Huawei Program (HiSuite) broke my Laptop.. what now?


user2021ms
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1116 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

 Short Version

tldr; 

I installed an official program from Huawei which was neccessary to transfer files from my Huawei tablet to my laptop. My (dell) laptop then crashed, which it had never done before and is now broken. Should Huawei reimburse me? I am 100% sure my laptop is broken because of this program. I sadly only have limited proof of this happening.  


Long Version

Hi Everyone,

I hope you're all well.

 

About a year ago, I purchased an SSD to upgrade my old/slow laptop. I took everything apart, fitted the Laptop (Dell Inspiron) with the SSD, put it back together, loaded Windows and since then enjoyed a seamless and (for my use) perfect laptop experience.

 

Then, in early November 2020, I purchased a Huawei tablet and by Christmas, I wanted to transfer some of my files from the tablet onto my Dell laptop via a USB cable. As most Android users will know, all you usually have to do is hook up the android device, grant access on your android, and then head over to file explorer on your windows PC/laptop  where you will now be able to see all the files on the andriod device (be it a tablet or phone).

 

In contrast, (and similarly to Apple if I'm not mistaken), Huawei users have to install a program called HiSuite, in order to view the files on their connected device. This can be installed from their official website, which I did.

 

The problem is that HiSuite is an absolute nightmare. It's full of bugs and quite simply doesn't work (I'm not the only one who thinks so, just go have a look around online.) I was having loads of trouble with the simple procedure of transferring files via a USB cable from my tablet to my laptop because HiSuite was going crazy, when all of a sudden my laptop crashed. It had never done so since I had installed the SSD and had never run into the slightest problems.

 

When I turned my laptop back on, an error message informed me  that it didn't recognise a hard drive (it no longer recognised the SSD). As the SSD was still under warranty, I contacted the company where I purchased it (crucial.com, a very reliable and trusted retailer in this field). After performing their recommended trouble shooting (power-cycling the SSD) , we concluded the SSD was dead. With all my files on it, I was rather annoyed.

 

I also concluded that this must've been 100% the fault of HiSuite, because my laptop had always performed excellently until I installed it. Taking the SSD out of the laptop resulted in me accidentally breaking the touchpad and because of Brexit-complications with shipping the SSD to Poland for warranty replacement, I still don't have a working laptop.

 

My question is whether Huawei have any liability in this instance, as effectively, their defunct program HiSuite has broken (parts of) my laptop.

Could they reimburse me to some degree?

 

Happy Easter and many thanks for your help!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

what you should have done was purchased a simple and cheap SSD to USB lead and tried the SSD on another PC, to see what gives.

then run diagnostics on it.

now the fact that we've all done it at one time or another forgetting to disconnect a ribbon cable? i suspect and snapped it which goes to the touch pad (easily replaced) it's sadly not Huawei's fault as much as we might like it to be..:pound:

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there! Thanks @dx100ukfor your swift response. I'm impressed by this forum!!

 I have tried the SSD on other computers and it doesn't work. I have also tried the old hard drive on my laptop and it works. So it's definitely the SSD that's broken.

 I also seem to have answered my own question: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/phone-internet-downloads-or-tv/problem-with-an-app-software-or-download/

here's the relevant quote:

If the fault’s caused a problem with your device

You’re legally entitled to compensation if the fault has caused a problem with your device - for example if you installed a new program on your PC and it’s making your PC crash.

The compensation should make up for the problem caused by the faulty digital product.

Take the following steps:

1. Find out how much it’ll cost to fix the problem - ask a repair shop or try to get a quote online. This will also help you prove it’s the fault that caused the problem.

2. Write to the company you bought the digital product from, with a copy of the quote and an explanation of the problem. Include screenshots and any other evidence you may have that the damage was caused by the faulty digital product. You can mention that you’re entitled to compensation under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

Yes, I do agree it is my fault that the touch pad doesn't work. It's not the ribbon, I had disconnected that but I think I may  have accidentally damaged the contacts when trying to reconnect the ribbon. oops...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be very cheap to replace it

have you still got the SSD?

 

dX

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

got one of those cheap SATA to USB leads that you can use ?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not their problem imho. Very rare for a simple prog to hurt a drive. Just co -incidence i expect.

 

Go get a sata<>usb lead off amazon or ebay they <£5.

I bet all it needs is a chkdsk or something running on it.

most ssd manu's have their diagnostic software online

Plug it on your pc and test it.

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but bad weather has caused me issues .........

 

popping the SSD directly in a PC does not give you the same kind of diagnostics access to that of an external SATA to USB interface gives you..

 

get yourself one of those cheap leads the does the job.

goto the SSD manufacturers website and download the diagnostic tools most have specifically for the job.

 

now i'm not saying you'll get any different result, but believe me i've serious experience in SSD's and have sorted numerous SSD's by using an external interface lead. and the manu's software.

 

the drive is outside of 6mts purchase so what you posted earlier is not necessarily applicable. sadly there are so many sites the gloss over important issues it's not really funny for them to do it just for clicks...

 

outside of 6mts the purchaser has to prove that the device failed because of an inherent failure that was present at the time of manufacture, it doesn't matter what caused that, the device failed. i would not ever be going anywhere near, as in your case, the 'fault' was latterly 'exposed' for want of a different word, by the use of xxx 'whatever',  your claim is against the retailer of the SSD, that it was not 'fit for purpose'. get it yet......?

 

i will suspect and this is where the interface comes in, when you plug the interface into your PC it will give the usual up scale tone 'hey a new USB device is connected - up tone bop-bep'. if you then plug the SSD onto the interface , pop the interface into a USB socket i bet it doesn't recognise anything. if it does, i'e a new drive letter. dont do anything, note the drive letter and run the manu diagnostics software and i bet it sorts the issue.

 

however if it just doesn't make any difference then the SSD is dead, neither you nor the retailer will be able to prove anything, nor the history of why it failed. most times i find the retailer delay a wee bit whilst they contact the manu and say hey your drive i sold to a customer failed etc etc and they get refunded then you get refunded, though most of the time i find retailers just cough up and refund without delay.

 

HTH 

 

dx

 

 

 

 

  

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...