fried system !!!!!!!!

After reading the whole saga I have got to say, as have many others, that I'm massively impressed at how ocuk have bent over backwards to help gritt, even when they had no obligation to.
His opening post would have instantly got my back up, but that's just me lol. The fact that he couldn't be bothered to pack his system properly and then trying to blame you for the case damage and finally being man enough to say thanks for what you've done for him just adds salt to the wound.

Good job guys!

mick
 
So he still hasn't apologised to the shop either on here or via email? What an appalling thing he has done. Blamed the shop for something that is completely beyond their control (hardware failures can happen at any time), they take it back and diagnose it correctly, offer to fix it and he still blames them. Even worse he did it on a public forum where it could do most damage to OCUK's reputation. He should withdraw his allegations, apologise and make things right. I know other places where he would have been done for slander!!
 
So he still hasn't apologised to the shop either on here or via email? What an appalling thing he has done. Blamed the shop for something that is completely beyond their control (hardware failures can happen at any time), they take it back and diagnose it correctly, offer to fix it and he still blames them. Even worse he did it on a public forum where it could do most damage to OCUK's reputation. He should withdraw his allegations, apologise and make things right. I know other places where he would have been done for slander!!

Looks like gritts has not cooled down from his red mist I congratulate ocuk
on the way they conducted themselves good post there shaun :)
 
This might be opening a small can of worms, but in a case like this (well, not exactly like this, where the customer seems as out of order as the faulty item), does this not apply ?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/25/consumernews.howtocomplain

There are problems with any article like because the law is so very vague. It's reasonable, for example, to expect white goods to last 6 years but it's not reasonable for to expect electronics to last 6 years.

The only reason that 6 years is quoted so often is that was the result of one of the rare court cases to go to judgement & that was over a fridge. Trading standards use the same two words for everything..."reasonable time"...but when questioned about it they will not provide specifics.

Also, there is a clause in this legislation. Something that is rarely mentioned. If the product is customised or built for you rather than being mass produced then the same rules don't apply.

Either way, since OcUK haven't refused to help, this has no bearing in this case.
 
Talking of SoGA and Trading Standards, what does OCUK think is a "reasonable time" for replacement/repair on an RMA, on say, a five month old major PC component that has failed?
 
What does OCUK think is a "reasonable time" for replacement/repair on an RMA, on say, a five month old major PC component that has failed?
Again, it's all very vague, but the guidance I got from a contact in trading standards once was 4-6 weeks depending on product.

If you are having issues with a specific return, please leave a message in our customer service section of the forum.
 
Again, it's all very vague, but the guidance I got from a contact in trading standards once was 4-6 weeks depending on product.

If you are having issues with a specific return, please leave a message in our customer service section of the forum.

Okay, that's what Trading Standards vaguely said to you once, but what rule of thumb does OCUK actually work to? At what point do you offer a refund or alternative product?

As you say SoGA is vague and says things like a repair/replacement should be done within a "reasonable time" or "without significant inconvenience" to the customer.
 
I`ve advised a few of my customers who bought TVs from the "big sheds" to ask the "big shed" to repair the fault that occured after 2-3 years of use. At first, the retailer refused, but with a little "persuasion" (ie, the retailer was informed about their legal obligations), the faults were fixed free of charge.

The law is fairly clear, although retailers do seem to find it confusing for some reason.

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained

"Customers' rights last for six years

The law says that a customer can approach you with a claim about an item they purchased from you for up to six years from the date of sale (five years after discovery of the problem in Scotland).

This does not mean that everything you sell has to last six years from the date of purchase! It is the time limit for the customer to make a claim about an item. During this period, you are legally required to deal with a customer who claims that their item does not conform to contract (is faulty ) and you must decide what would be the reasonable amount of time to expect the goods to last. A customer cannot hold you responsible for fair wear and tear ."

"Your responsibilities for the goods you sell

You are responsible for the goods you sell and if a customer returns an item they purchased from you that is faulty (it does not conform to contract) because it
  • does not match the description
  • is not of satisfactory quality
  • is not fit for purpose .
you (not the manufacturer or supplier) are legally obliged to resolve the matter with the customer at any time for up to six years from the date of purchase, or in Scotland for up to five years from the discovery of the problem.

Any refund, repair or replacement you arrange with your customer relating to faulty goods must not cause them too much inconvenience and you will have to pay for other costs, for example, collection or delivery."
 
This does not mean that everything you sell has to last six years from the date of purchase! It is the time limit for the customer to make a claim about an item.
& this is the point that I was making.

As it was explained to me by our local trading standards office, the customer has six years to make a claim, obviously for miss-described items or a product with a known issue (non-B3 P67 Motherboards for example) that's easy to do, but for faulty items they have to prove that it became faulty within a "reasonable" period for the product in question. The "burden of proof" is firmly with the customer after 6 months.

Lord knows why someone would wait so long to let us know about an issue but in case it happens we are aware of our responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
& this is the point that I was making.

As it was explained to me by our local trading standards office, the customer has six years to make a claim, obviously for miss-described items that's easy to do, but for faulty items they have to prove that it became faulty within a "reasonable" period for the product in question. The "burden of proof" is firmly with the customer after 6 months.

Lord knows why someone would wait so long to let us know about an issue but in case it happens we are aware of our responsibilities.

Although I, like many other, think that the OP has approach this in the wrong way, and it appears that OcUK have "done the right thing", your response seems very defensive (and I can't blame you for that).

bought the Titan 8200i Spinosaur" Intel Core i5 2500K 3.40GHz @ 4.40GHz DDR3 Quad Core in april 2012 and now its fried non operational,contacted overclockers about this and & they are taking no blame over this

If gritts contacted OcUK as soon as he experienced a problem, then OcUK do have a legal obligation to try and resolve the problem. I'm not sure if gritts did contact OcUK about the issue before he took his PC to a third party for inspection, but if he did approach OcUK (politely, and in the correct manner), then it appears that he would have had good reason to expect his 18 month old PC to be repaired.

This is obviously where the law does seem a little "grey". However, it does seem to clearly state that if an item develops a fault, and it is reasonable to expect the item to not have developed a fault in that time, then the retailer is legally obliged to correct the fault.

For example, take a graphics card. How long is it reasonable to expect it to last, without developing a fault ? Is 18 months long enough, or should it last 15 years ? Assuming it has not been mistreated, or run under load 24/7, then I'd say that it is reasonable to expect it to last more than 18 months.

That's where the people I know got their equipment repaired. In one case, the retailer claimed that the 40" LCD that developed a problem with the display panel after a couple of years was not covered by an extended warranty, and therefore the customer was going to have to pay for a repair or buy a new one. When it was pointed out to the retailer (no longer in business) that it would be reasonable to expect an £800 TV to last for more than 2 years before developing a fault, he had the display panel replaced free of charge. The repair cost at the time would have been in excess of £400.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that warranty with the manufacturer is nothing to do with the retailer's legal obligations to it's customer. The manufacturer's warranty is an addition to the customer's rights, or is between the retailer and manufacturer (some manufacturers will not even deal with end users). The manufacturer's warranty is not a substitute or replacement for the retailer to get out of his obligations to the customer.
 
Any computer that doesn't last at least 4 years is not fit for purpose imho. Even if the '1 year warranty' was gone, I'd be expecting a free repair.

This sounds reasonable to me.

The law is a bit ambiguous, as there is room for "debate".

However, the law is quite clear in that the retailer is often responsible if an item they sold fails, and it reasonable to expect that item to have lasted longer.

If you buy a £25 toaster or DVD player, and it fails after 14 months. I think it would be reasonable for the retailer to not have to repair or replace it- a cheap item is more likely to fail after a short time period.

If a £200 PC motherboard fails after 3 years, I reckon the purchaser has a case for it to be repaired.

If a £40 PC motherboard fails after 3 years, there's a case for the retailer to claim that it is a budget board, and therefore they shouldn't have to repair or replace it.

I think that this is an interesting subject. Retailers often seem to either ignore the law, or try to suggest that "it doesn't apply in this case". And I can understand why retailers adopt that stance. It's not that they're being "nasty" or "greedy". It's simply a case that they`ve sold items at a certain margin, on the assumption that once 12 months has passed it's not their responsibility to repair or replace a faulty item. Retailers know that most consumers either don't know about the sale of goods act, or are unwilling to use it. If the law was more widely publicised and used, extended warranties would not be sold so easily, and prices of a lot of goods would probably increase. Maybe the quality would also improve !
 
Last edited:
by that logic a £300 PC is OK to die after 2 years whereas a super overclocked £5000 PC should last 6 years?

Sorry to correct you but price has nothing to do with how long something should last, that is one of TS's mantras and just one reason why the law is so awfully vague.

A £25 toaster is a very simple device that's only used for a few minutes a day, personally, I'd expect a LOT less problems from that than a high end PC made up of high end, complex parts that's probably in use 500x more than the toaster.

Unfortunately, even the government employed experts are unable to give clear guidance on most aspects of the regulations which is why it is left to OcUK to offer the high level of service that we do. :D

We'll be the first to admit that in the past we've sat at the lower end of the scale, offering only what Trading Standards themselves said was our responsibility but that all changed with the change of management on 2012.
 
Last edited:
All I kniow for sure is that a few of my customers did get their TVs repaired after the initial rejection by the retailer. I think the retailers either didn't want to be faced with small claims court action, or didn't fancy their chances of winning their case.

I'm not saying that the law is "fair" (I happen to think it's often a bit unfair on retailers), but I think that if a £250 graphics card fails after a couple of years normal use, then it seems that the law does suggest that the retailer is responsible for it's repair.

If a case went as far as the small claims court, I doubt the judge would accept the fact that the item is a high tech bit of kit, and therefore is almost expected to fail after a fairly short period of use. I think the cost of the item and the cost of repair would come into the equation. It certainly did when someone I know got an LCD panel replaced in his 40" Samsung TV a few years ago.
 
by that logic a £300 PC is OK to die after 2 years whereas a super overclocked £5000 PC should last 6 years?

Sorry to correct you but price has nothing to do with how long something should last, that is one of TS's mantras and just one reason why the law is so awfully vague.

As far as the £300 PC is concerned, I suspect it depends on which component fails, and the cost of repair.

If I spent £5000 on a PC (overclocked or not), I'd expect it to last 6 years. Of course, if I overclocked it myself, then I have less of a case. But if I bought one from a retailer, then I'd expect the law to cover me. A £5K overclocked PC should have high quality components that should last quite a long time. It's down to the retailer to make sure that whatever the overclock, it is going to provide reliability for a reasonable amount of time. Having said that, I can see the point you are making, and if the retailer makes it absolutely clear to the purchaser that the life expectancy of the PC is likely to be significantly reduced, they might have a better case if something does go wrong. I'm not sure how a judge would see it though.

I suggest that price does often have a lot to do with how long something should last. A car tyre, for example, will usually last longer than a cheaper similar tyre. Yes, that's more of a wear and tear situation, but illustrates the point I'm making. A cheap PC PSU will usually not last as long as an expensive one. In fact, that's a very good example of where the price of a product often does affect reliability.

Do higher end motherboards not have higher quality components (certainly capacitors) than cheaper ones ? Does that not increase the life expectancy of the more expensive motherboard ? I`ve seen a few "cheap" motherboards with bulging electrolytics, and have had a couple fail because those cheap capacitors have failed.
 
Just finished reading the whole thread, what an ungrateful waste of space, the way he was typing just instanly clicked that this guy has no intelligence and manners what so ever. Excellent job for OCUK to offer the support to help this customer but you can't always please everyone. That really gets my back up those kind of ungrateful people when you try your best to help them and they throw it back in your face like you're a peice of **** on the bottom of their shoe makes you sick with anger, I know next year i'll be getting my PC from OCUK as i'm due an upgrade.
 
I suggest that price does often have a lot to do with how long something should last. A car tyre, for example, will usually last longer than a cheaper similar tyre. Yes, that's more of a wear and tear situation, but illustrates the point I'm making. A cheap PC PSU will usually not last as long as an expensive one. In fact, that's a very good example of where the price of a product often does affect reliability.

Do higher end motherboards not have higher quality components (certainly capacitors) than cheaper ones ? Does that not increase the life expectancy of the more expensive motherboard ? I`ve seen a few "cheap" motherboards with bulging electrolytics, and have had a couple fail because those cheap capacitors have failed.

I disagree. This is the problem with electronics, anything can go wrong at any time. I've still got a sub £400 home server that I've been running for 4 years 24/7 and it hasn't failed once. On the flip side I've spent over £400 on a single piece of hardware that failed me after 6 months. That's just the way these things go.

Personally I would say the more you spend on something, obviously the longer you would expect it to last. There is nothing wrong with that logic, however buying electronics you need to prepare yourself for that chance that things can go boom at any time. It would be ignorant to expect otherwise.

The law you are discussing seems quite unfair. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'm more than happy to be covered by Warranty for it's duration and have faith that it's the retailers responsibility to take care of any issues. Once that period is over, you are on your own.

People like gritts really wind me up. They have such a false sense of entitlement that is without basis and consequently makes them act devoid of respect or responsibility. Props to OCUK for dealing with this in the best way possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom