Hp laptop return - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Hp laptop return

£0.00 @
Could i return my laptop that i bought from hp in november because the performance is bad for what i expected from it, also i dont need a laptop and instead i would like to start buying desktop compon… Read More
Muzzard Avatar
3m, 4w agoPosted 3 months, 4 weeks ago
Could i return my laptop that i bought from hp in november because the performance is bad for what i expected from it, also i dont need a laptop and instead i would like to start buying desktop components. Thanks
Muzzard Avatar
3m, 4w agoPosted 3 months, 4 weeks ago
Options

All Responses

(18) Jump to unreadPost an answer
Responses/page:
#1
If you can prove that the performance of the laptop is not matching the spec then in theory yes but trying to in reality will be more difficult.
#2
I think you'd find it difficult to prove it isn't fit for purpose or sold as described. Providing there aren't any hardware issues (which would be covered by warranty) then I would recommend selling it and buying a more powerful machine instead.
#3
they sold it saying it was a good 1080p screen with anti glare and its not dirty but its constantly blurry and ive got perfect vision and the fan is noisy as
#4
I'd suggest calling them and giving them an opportunity to fix it. Providing there is a genuine issue and you paid by credit card then your bank will be able to help if you don't get anywhere with HP.
#5
Muzzard
they sold it saying it was a good 1080p screen with anti glare and its not dirty but its constantly blurry and ive got perfect vision and the fan is noisy as


You'll struggle to find a believable reason as to why it's take you 2 months to report this fault
#6
Suggest you first ask for a repair or replacement on basis of screen and fan issues - press for replacement or refund. If repair/replacement doesn't resolve the problem, then you can ask for return and refund. A blurry screen is not fit for purpose. Yes, perhaps better if you had raised this sooner, but not everyone can take time to migrate to new laptop immediately. It would be good idea to look up your rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 .
#7
The short answer is NO. You can try to convince the seller that it is not as described, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one, the main reason being as already stated, that you have had the use of it for 2+ months and nobody takes that long.
#8
st8mike - 'the short answer is NO' ?? That is not what the Consumer Rights Act says. Suggest you read the relevant legislation rather than make unfounded assertions.
#9
You should be able to return it to HP for repair if you can qualify it has not working correct. They are very good at service, I return one after 11 months because the mouse pad paint had worn though. Didn't get a new one but they replace the body.
#10
For the blurry screen - have you got the resolution set right? If you have the wrong setting it will look blurred. Try adjusting it to find the optimal resolution.
#11
dannz
st8mike - 'the short answer is NO' ?? That is not what the Consumer Rights Act says. Suggest you read the relevant legislation rather than make unfounded assertions.
Good luck with that.
#12
dannz
st8mike - 'the short answer is NO' ?? That is not what the Consumer Rights Act says. Suggest you read the relevant legislation rather than make unfounded assertions.

Care to tell us what right the Consumer Rights Act gives someone to return a product under these circumstances?

This'll be fun.
#13
See s.9 and s.10, which concern the consumer right to goods being of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose (as defined therein), and s.19 to s.24 for remedies if those statutory requirements are not met. The relevant section which provides for the 'final right to reject' is s.24.

If requirements are not met, then there is a 'short term' right to reject. i.e. consumer can return and get refund. But the short term right to reject must be exercised within 30 days.

As I explained, in these circumstances, where the 30 day period has elapsed, the initial right is a right to a repair or replacement (unless impracticable): see s.23. A refurn cannot be required initially. However if the repair/replacement which is provided pursuant to s23 still continues to fail to meet statutory requirements, then there is a right to price reduction or final right to reject (s.24). That final right to reject means right to return (at sellers expense) and get refund.

Suggest you read it: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

(It's written in reasonably plain English)

Of course sellers will say no and give run around (Amazon though are very good). And unless you know CRA or contract law, then chances are you'll believe them (which is how many consumer's learn about what they think are their rights). If you know CRA, speak to manager / supervisor and stick to guns and cite relevant sections, they will generally concede. (even eBuyer, despite being one of the most obstinate). That's my experience, but I have benefit of an LLM and am sure of my ground.

A blurry screen is good reason to raise issue under CRA.

BTW, it is possible to agree to shortcut replacement and just get return. I did this once with eBuyer after the 30 day period had passed. This was for some cheapy TV. The screen was blurry - really bad. A repair wasn't going to do anything- it was just very bad cheap screen. A replacement would have been identical, and would have just been added cost to eBuyer. So rather than go through the steps, they agreed to just give full refund and arranged collection.

CRA is worth knowing. Keep in mind it only applies to transactions with business sellers - not to sales between individuals on HUKD etc.

(Was that fun?)








dxx
dannz
st8mike - 'the short answer is NO' ?? That is not what the Consumer Rights Act says. Suggest you read the relevant legislation rather than make unfounded assertions.
Care to tell us what right the Consumer Rights Act gives someone to return a product under these circumstances?
This'll be fun.

dxx
dannz
st8mike - 'the short answer is NO' ?? That is not what the Consumer Rights Act says. Suggest you read the relevant legislation rather than make unfounded assertions.
Care to tell us what right the Consumer Rights Act gives someone to return a product under these circumstances?
This'll be fun.
#14
All those comments above in relation to the Consumer Rights Act are true and should be used in this or any scenario.
The rest of the people who are saying 'oh can't be returned','it's been used for 2 months', doesn't matter, it's your rights, exercise them!
Remember, the onus is on the retailer, in the first 6 months, to prove that the product wasn't faulty when they sold it to you, not you.
I was recently in a war with Argos because they wouldn't take my faulty PS4 which I bought from them in Feb 2015. After tussling with operational staff for a month, I escalated the issue to their CEO's office, within hours I received a call. They gave me full refund as well as refund for the inspection report which I had paid from my pocket. It's not as they were kind to me, I used Consumer Rights Act heavily in each correspondence I had with them.
#15
Or perhaps you take responsibility for your actions and YOU take the hit rather than the retailer? If it's not what you require anymore then sell it on ebay as a second hand item and buy a desktop. Why should the retailer be out of pocket for your indecisiveness?
#16
@joshp - the OP asked "Could i return my laptop that i bought from hp in november because the performance is bad for what i expected from it,.."

Responses to this saying 'no' misinform and mislead not only the OP but others. The OP asked a question. If people don't want to help, that's ok. But giving false, incorrect, inaccurate or misinformed answers based on opinion of the OP Is something else.

Is it 'obvious' this is exaggerated? If the issue is fabricated, then of course the return won't be accepted. HP will just send it back to him (if he pays for cost of sending it).. If it is not fabricated, then there is an issue. If so then consumer rights are legitimately engaged. The Act doesn't specify that the right of final return only applies if the consumer has no other reason to want to return the item - Parliament didn't take the view that some here take, and the legislature's view is what counts.

As for abusing rights, if the statutory requirements are not met, there is nothing improper about exercising the relevant rights given in the Act. Misleading someone on their statutory rights or making out that exercising these would be somehow wrong seems far more questionable to me.

The OP asked a question, the answer to the question asked is in the 2015 Act. That's so regardless of what anyone thinks of the rights and wrongs of thie situation.
#17
dannz
@joshp - the OP asked "Could i return my laptop that i bought from hp in november because the performance is bad for what i expected from it,.."
Responses to this saying 'no' misinform and mislead not only the OP but others. The OP asked a question. If people don't want to help, that's ok. But giving false, incorrect, inaccurate or misinformed answers based on opinion of the OP Is something else.
Is it 'obvious' this is exaggerated? If the issue is fabricated, then of course the return won't be accepted. HP will just send it back to him (if he pays for cost of sending it).. If it is not fabricated, then there is an issue. If so then consumer rights are legitimately engaged. The Act doesn't specify that the right of final return only applies if the consumer has no other reason to want to return the item - Parliament didn't take the view that some here take, and the legislature's view is what counts.
As for abusing rights, if the statutory requirements are not met, there is nothing improper about exercising the relevant rights given in the Act. Misleading someone on their statutory rights or making out that exercising these would be somehow wrong seems far more questionable to me.
The OP asked a question, the answer to the question asked is in the 2015 Act. That's so regardless of what anyone thinks of the rights and wrongs of thie situation.

Here is an interesting concept:

If a customer attempts to enforce their consumer rights on the ground that a product is of unsatisfactory quality, would that uphold. Ultimately that does not constitute the item being unfit for purpose and whilst it perhaps maybe of unsatisfactory quality to the consumer, that surely cannot perpetually enable a customer to return an item for a refund, otherwise that would be barbaric and enable any customer to return almost any item.

Thoughts? (_;)

Although I do take note that it would be situation based, I am asking merely as a vague idea.



Edited By: joshp on Jan 24, 2017 00:16: .
#18
Joshp - you raise an important point concerning what constitutes an items being 'not od satisfactory quality' or 'unfit for purpose'. I only touched on that briefly in my long post on CRA ('as defined therein'), but understanding that is important - otherwise there may be unrealistic notion of these rights, either supposing them to be greater or lesser than they are.

As you say, the law would be unfair and unworkable if 'satisfactory quality' was determined by the particluar consumer's subjective notions of this, however unreasonable.

Section 9 of the Act (Headed 'Goods to be of satisfactory quality') states:

(1)Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—
(a)any description of the goods,
(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and
(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

......

(5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

This sets what is often referred to as the 'reasonable person' standard. The item should meet the expectations that a reasonable person would have of such an item. There is a question here on the reasonableness of the OP's unmet expectations. But the short answer to the OP's question is that there is a final right to return if those expectations were reasonable and there has been repair/replacement which still fails to meet the statutory requirements.

What is reasonable is all about context. One should be able to have 'confidence in a trusted name like HP' (as HP put it). They market their consumer laptops as a 'premium consumer product'. It would be a different matter if it was a cheap Chinese knock off.

Now maybe the fan issue is a matter that can be addressed in bios settings. But if not, a constantly noisy fan is no good e.g. when using multimedia features or even when working on basic non-CPU intensive productivity tasks which a fanless Atom can perform. I once very nearly bought an HP laptop, but was put off by review that noted constant noisy fan - there was design issue with heatsinks and airflow with the AMD cpu used that ran very hot. I certainly would have returned it for that reason - and I wouldn't think that reasonable. One should be able to have 'confidence that a trusted name like HP' gets these basics right. To me it seems very reasonable to expect a 'premium' consumer or business laptop to not be excessively noisy. Now in this case it may be fault in this particular machine (or batch) which might be repaired. But if an inherent design flaw, then that won't address the issue, so will lead to choosing return or agreeing a price reduction.

A blurry screen is also an issue. One doesn't expect a standard screen to deliver 'retina screen' quality - that would clearly be unreasonable expectation. But I can understand how a poor 'anti-glare' coating might seriously effect image quality, with very poor 'user experience' e.g. with text, images and video - again basics. And it is reasonable to expect better from a premium consumer laptop from a trusted name like HP that one should be able to have confidence in (as they say).

It certainly would have been much better if these issues had been identified earlier and a return made within 30 days under the short term right to return. But the consumer doesn't have to justify or explain failing to do so. However as NomiKaay notes, after 6 months the onus is on consumer to prove fault was present when purchased, and that becomes much harder. This is within that 6 month period, so it's not an issue at the moment.

As another illustration, I got replacement charger for Macbook Pro from Apple 4 years after purchase because of deterioration of cable exposing bare wires. I explained it had not been mistreated in any way and that as could be seen on Internet, this was widespread issue. It is reasonable to expect better quality from very expensive item (£65 when sold separately). The manager I spoke to accepted that it is reasonable to expect that plastic shouldn't flake off exposing wires within that time. Having established that, he very reasonably offered replacement, which I accepted. (If you sound hysterical, wild and/or aggressive, that doesn't help give impression of being a reasonable customer with reasonable expectations who is behaving reasonably). (BTW, there is a 6 year time limit consistent with application of Limitations Act to contracts).

Some people would grumble, but not take this up with the seller - often because not know the rights they can enforce. Of course there are people who are unreasonably fussy and who can never be satisfied. And some might try to pick fault, unreasonably making an issue where there is none.

The best thing is when assessing is to take honest look at it, and ask others what they think - is it unreasonable to expect xyz. As noted, if it is returned and inspection shows that there is not the issue the customer claims, then item can be retained until customer pays for cost of collecting from the customer and sending it back again. As a very senior judge said, in contract law, "the reasonable expectations of reasonable people must be protected". Of course its easy to delude oneself about being reasonable, which is why it's a good idea ask for the candidly honest view of others.

A great deal has been written on the 'reasonable expectation rule' in common law (which CRA adopts). Ultimately it woukd be for a judge to decide based on what is presented to them. If you can ckearly explain why you think it is reasonable to have that expectation which was not met and act reasonably, then seller will generally agree to the CRA remedy being sought (repair, replacement or ultimately reurn if those fail) - but you will almost certainly have to escalate to a manager.

@joshp - it wasn't my intention to direct criticism at you - or anyone in particular- sorry if seemed that way. The concern is that such rights can be easily misunderstood. Whether OP has other reason to want to return is not relevant and does not make it obvious that the expectation was unreasonable. To start to assess whether the expectations were reasonable one should instead consider the kinds of matters touched on above, as well as e.g. price, the model and how the item was marketed, how loud (db), how this effects usability (e.g. the audio delivered by a laptop sold e.g. as having 'high quality speakers for outstanding music reproduction') etc. Perhaps also consider whether you think it would have been reasonable to return within the 30 days and whether you might justifiably feel discontent if you had bought that laptop.

Post an Answer

You don't need an account to leave a response. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!