The Laptop Hut

[Big Pete]

Dawg, I love your little synopsis at the end of threads like this

I must ask that Sift take a long hard look at this thread and the potentially libellous defamation of numerous companies contained in it. I am absolutely appalled at it, and the twisting of facts to make one particular reputable company look very bad for no other reason than a person has damaged their laptop and wants it completely fixed free of charge. we all, as small business owners, have come across this type of customer (we call them fondly our 'nightmare customers'), and we can all relate to the position of the company being slated.

All the rest is flannel and whinging like nothing I have ever heard, lots of innuendo and ambiguity, and lots of accusations which are definitely something I'd pursue through the courts.

What purpose does this thread serve on this business forum? If you agree none, then I vote it is removed in its entirety.

There are 2 people on this thread who should never send anything to me for repair, because it will be returned unopened.

Do you own this forum by any chance ??

What is it with you to slander the Poster by saying he is basicaly a Liar . if anything should be removed it should by you ..

This thread has been very beneficial and should stay as is..people will make there own minds up ..

Strange how you happen to be in the Computer `repair business

If i am one of the 2 who you suggest would send you a laptop for repair , then your dreaming nobody would look at my laptop without my watching, wouldnt fall for your "oh you spilt something" scams thanks ...

It would be while i watched or swapped under warranty or simply binned

 

Aye, and you are so good you can tell if a spillage on a laptop is coffee or not?

 

[Cornish Steve]

I've done a little more trimming and suggest that everyone gets a good night's sleep. Things will look different in the morning.

 

[Coupon master]

Is it still running in warranty period ? it is better to return it back for repair work .

 

[Mpg]

Ive jumped to the end of this thread as it appeared to be going around in circles.

As a former director of a brown goods repair center.
I can chirp in

With regards to the repair center. Repairing is what they do WHY would they try to get out of a repair its not their warranty its not their money they are spending to repair the laptop.

Out of warranty repairs pay waay more than in warranty repairs In warranty repairs are actually more of a pain as you have to do warranty claims and the manufacturer generally just credit your spares account.

As an ex GHL (part of john lewis group) Repair center i can say that they have never imposed a budget as such but they would require a estimate if the repair was to go above £125 (this was 8 yrs ago and was on brown goods) If we had any that went above that limit then GHL would either repair or replace.


As I have previously said as a repair center. This was our business. I am sure that if the original repairer had been unscruplulous then they could have repaired the Item and billed John lewis.

But they have a profesional courtesy to notify JL that there is a third party reason why the item is faulty.

Now we have had a few occasions where a new fault gave some very very strange symptoms and we have been caught out.

We had a JVC prtable that had several components literally blown off the board. The type of damage seen with a lightining strike. So we report our findings to GHL and told to deliver back to the store.
Only for another one to turn up with the same Lightning damage the next day.

We then send both tv off to JVC for a report and they found that a component was failing and causing massive damage all over the main PCB.

I assume the original repairer has not seen this before and has asked sony tech about it.
I dont know laptops but i do know sometimes boards are sprayed with a type of laquer that could run. But if we ever had a spillage job come in we would always try to identify said liquid.
Some liquids are much easier than others to identify.

The meaning of spillage is also a little ambiguous Its could mean water ingress or could infact be down to condensation.

I also have a problem with the statement that an independant repairer has stated that the original repairer has not re assemble correctly. I bet you cant get them to put that in writing stating that the Laptop hut has reassemble incorrectly. If you can I'm sure the laptop hut will buy you a new laptop. As he could afford it with winning a liable case.


I'm sure things have prob moved on somewhat. But that is my 2 p spent.

 

[Robert Wheeler]

Cornish Steve,

I am really not impressed with the way this thread is going. I know there are some seasoned posters on here, but is this the kind of forum where you get to say what you like just because you have over a thousand posts? It is ok to raise issues with me, and then when I try to address them they just ignore the reply on the basis that they think everything I say is dishonest? This is hardly cooperative discourse.

Now it seems that there are people that are deliberately trying to drive the tone of the thread into the ground and engage me in a flame war in an effort to have the whole thing deleted. Is that acceptable? Should you really have to be continually trimming their posts to make it appear that they and maintaining civility? Should you really have to keep on trimming my replies to make it not look like I have been telling people I do not want to discuss further with them because they have been uncivil? Because at the end of the day, what you are going to most likely have is a thread kept for posterity that has a load of accusations made at me, and then me not replying for no obvious reason. Is that really fair?

In this thread they have even gone as far as accusing me of faking pictures provided by the 'The Laptop Hut' and having a fabricated conversation with Sony. I mean, doesn't that seem odd? I am not even being afforded the most basic hypothetical assumption of honesty. I am trying to answer their questions/accusations, but they just ignore them, ridicule my replies, and keep on replying with more and more accusations and insults. Is that acceptable in this forum?

 

[Deleted member 61074]

Surely part of the issue here is that we have a public naming and shaming.

I know the other party voluntarily engaged in dialog - very misguidedly in my view.

But this forum is not the place for this type of dispute. If i were a moderator (and i am not) i would be tempted to pull the whole thing.

 

[Mpg]

When i get 10 mins I will read the thread but a quick glance.

The laptop hut attempts a repair but stops as it finds liquid damage which isnt covered under manufacturers warranty. Then reports findings to their customer (JL) Then the laptop hut has done all it needs to. Its not down to the laptop hut to investigate any further as the contract of sale is with JL

As for the Slagging off Ive not read it yet, But am well aware that as a repair center we only see the bad side.

 

[Robert Wheeler]

Ive jumped to the end of this thread as it appeared to be going around in circles...

Hi Mpg,

Thank you for your post. As it happened, the third party did put their report into writing (I quoted it earlier in the thread). There is some doubt in my mind over the practical expertise and competence of 'The Laptop Hut'. One of the questions I asked Mike from 'The Laptop Hut' which he chose not to answer was how many machines do they receive do they eventually end up sub-contracting to other companies to repair. I think it is a real shame he did not answer this question. If he does return to this thread, it will be the first question I will ask him.

 

[Mpg]

Hi Mpg,

Thank you for your post. As it happened, the third party did put their report into writing (I quoted it earlier in the thread). There is some doubt in my mind over the practical expertise and competence of 'The Laptop Hut'. One of the questions I asked Mike from 'The Laptop Hut' which he chose not to answer was how many machines do they receive do they eventually end up sub-contracting to other companies to repair. I think it is a real shame he did not answer this question. If he does return to this thread, it will be the first question I will ask him.

I cant find that quote but i have only had a quick flick through

I am trying to be impartial but have been on the recieving end of some tosh from customers. (dont take that as a bashing from me it wasnt meant like that)

Has anyone though actually stated the obvious in that the laptop worked for a few months So NO spillage from pre sale.

Then its started playing up (poss around time of a spilage)

And that it went in for repair with spillage symptoms


Laptop dvd players are notorious for getting a very small amount of dust on the Laser lens causing them to stop functioning as the lens is visible when ejected. But can normally be cleaned off with a Q-tip

 

[Robert Wheeler]

Surely part of the issue here is that we have a public naming and shaming.

I know the other party voluntarily engaged in dialog - very misguidedly in my view.

But this forum is not the place for this type of dispute. If i were a moderator (and i am not) i would be tempted to pull the whole thing.

It was not actually intended as a name and shame and I do not think it is a name and shame, I was just asking for opinions on the matter. All I have stated is facts. There is a long running thread on this site which mentions several public tender companies by name and describes the conduct of the businesses. This has been beneficial to the thread, and I think mentioning the business by name has been beneficial here as person from that company came to interact.

I have stated several times, I think this is a very valuable thread as it is a perfect example of how a business can forget that there are honest people and allow it to affect the way they handle a case. The way some people have responded to the thread is further of this kind of quick-draw persecution.

 

[Robert Wheeler]

I cant find that quote but i have only had a quick flick through

I am trying to be impartial but have been on the recieving end of some tosh from customers. (dont take that as a bashing from me it wasnt meant like that)

Has anyone though actually stated the obvious in that the laptop worked for a few months So NO spillage from pre sale.

Then its started playing up (poss around time of a spilage)

And that it went in for repair with spillage symptoms


Laptop dvd players are notorious for getting a very small amount of dust on the Laser lens causing them to stop functioning as the lens is visible when ejected. But can normally be cleaned off with a Q-tip

I'll let you catch up with the thread, but in short, the drive started playing up, and that was the reason the machine was sent in for repair. From what I can gather, that particular series machine has a lot of problems with DVD failures.

We had noticed one or two little things since we first had the machine, like a couple of keys sticking a bit, which seemed like a slight mechanical issue, and we asked if they could have a check of them while the machine was in. The machine had exhibited no previous instability, even when I had put it through some heavy load software such as HD video rendering in Sony Vegas 8 (which is notoriously unstable even on my own tailor made desktop machine at the best of times).

When the machine was sent in for repair, 'The Laptop Hut' said that the drive damage was not caused by the spill, but there was also spill damage which was causing problems with the mouse buttons that required a £195+VAT mainboard replacement.

 

[Mpg]

I'll let you catch up with the thread, but in short, the drive started playing up, and that was the reason the machine was sent in for repair. From what I can gather, that particular series machine has a lot of problems with DVD failures.

We had noticed one or two little things since we first had the machine, like a couple of keys sticking a bit, which seemed like a slight mechanical issue, and we asked if they could have a check of them while the machine was in. The machine had exhibited no previous instability, even when I had put it through some heavy load software such as HD video rendering in Sony Vegas 8 (which is notoriously unstable even on my own tailor made desktop machine at the best of times).

When the machine was sent in for repair, 'The Laptop Hut' said that the drive damage was not caused by the spill, but there was also spill damage which was causing problems with the mouse buttons that required a £195+VAT mainboard replacement.

Thanks for the clarification.

You may not be aware that you are obliged under the terms of most warranties to inform them immediatly of any defaults or faults or you may invalidate warranty.

I'm aware that you feel that you have not been dealt with properly and you MAY not have. I cant really comment.

If the Laptop had ben damaged whilst in the care of the Laptop hut chances are rightly or wrongly they would have just repaired the unit and billed JL for the repair. The fact that they didnt cash in on the repair gives them some credit in my view.

 

[Gillie]

You have just stated in #133 Robert that you noticed certain keys were sticking - this to me as a mere user of a laptop and not the techy geeky type - would suggest spillage, so I guess you have just answered your own question and wiped out your argument that someone at the Laptop place spilled something on your laptop!

 

[Mpg]

You have just stated in #133 Robert that you noticed certain keys were sticking - this to me as a mere user of a laptop and not the techy geeky type - would suggest spillage, so I guess you have just answered your own question and wiped out your argument that someone at the Laptop place spilled something on your laptop!

covered that in post#130

 

[Gillie]

covered that in post#130

Yes I know, but the answer you got back didnt seem to cover it ...

 

[Robert Wheeler]

You have just stated in #133 Robert that you noticed certain keys were sticking - this to me as a mere user of a laptop and not the techy geeky type - would suggest spillage, so I guess you have just answered your own question and wiped out your argument that someone at the Laptop place spilled something on your laptop!

The actually quote is:

"We had noticed one or two little things since we first had the machine, like a couple of keys sticking a bit..."

This suggests the problem was present from when the machine was purchased. I will clarify, this was by no means a critical problem. We had just noticed it, and as the machine was going in for repair, we thought we would list a few of the minor irritations and get them sorted out at the same time. And by "sticky" I mean that the keys did not move quite as freely as the others, as if there was some slight mechanical resistance, rather than a sticky residue hindering operation.

It is worth mentioning that when the machine was returned from 'The Laptop Hut' and we refused to accept it back into our possession, the case was so poorly reassembled that some of the keys were not moving freely at all.

I am beginning to feel like Perry Mason in this thread.

 

[Gillie]

The actually quote is:

"We had noticed one or two little things since we first had the machine, like a couple of keys sticking a bit..."

This suggests the problem was present from when the machine was purchased. I will clarify, this was by no means a critical problem. We had just noticed it, and as the machine was going in for repair, we thought we would list a few of the minor irritations and get them sorted out at the same time. And by "sticky" I mean that the keys did not move quite as freely as the others, as if there was some slight mechanical resistance, rather than a sticky residue hindering operation.

It is worth mentioning that when the machine was returned from 'The Laptop Hut' and we refused to accept it back into our possession, the case was so poorly reassembled that some of the keys were not moving freely at all.

I am beginning to feel like Perry Mason in this thread.

Ok so you are now absolving the Laptop people of spilling something in your machine then?

 

[Mpg]

Perry mason is a bit before my time.


But If you have a report from a third party stating that "the laptop hut" has damaged the goods then you have proof and an expert witness and should sue.

If the third party are so competant that they can say "the laptop hut has damaged the goods" Then surely they could have told you how the liquid got there. And all this would have been sorted a while back

 

[Robert Wheeler]

Ok so you are now absolving the Laptop people of spilling something in your machine then?

No, I am clearly not doing that. What I am saying is that we noticed minor problems, some of which had been present from the moment we had the machine, and we asked them to be checked as well, just like you might ask for minor things to be checked if you get your car serviced. These minor problems could have been down to any number of minor issues and are not necessarily linked to a liquid spillage.

The fundamental reason the machine went for repair was the faulty DVD drive. If it was not for that, the machine would never have been sent out for repair. We certainly did not see the usual operational issues you would associate with a liquid spillage, such as continuous system instability. As I said, I was running very fussy heavy duty software on the laptop without problem very shortly before it was sent in for repair.

 

[Gillie]

No, I am clearly not doing that. What I am saying is that we noticed minor problems, some of which had been present from the moment we had the machine, and we asked them to be checked as well, just like you might ask for minor things to be checked if you get your car serviced. These minor problems could have been down to any number of minor issues and are not necessarily linked to a liquid spillage.

The fundamental reason the machine went for repair was the faulty DVD drive. If it was not for that, the machine would never have been sent out for repair. We certainly did not see the usual operational issues you would associate with a liquid spillage, such as continuous system instability. As I said, I was running very fussy heavy duty software on the laptop without problem very shortly before it was sent in for repair.

Oh my machine ran for quite a while with coffee inside it doing some pretty hefty things and yes some keys needed for of a thump - but it was only when I eventually couldnt access certain things that I realised I had damaged it - and I did spill quite a lot of coffee on it - so perhaps with a lesser spill it worked for far longer without you knowing about it.

But again, as someone has stated, if the Laptop people had damaged it then they would just claim it from JL and take it from there, therefore being logical about it, there really would appear to be some spillage on your part or prior to it being received for repairs.

It does point more and more that any issues with spills were done before it was received for repair ... but I am merely looking at this from a non techy point of view!

 

[Robert Wheeler]

Perry mason is a bit before my time.


But If you have a report from a third party stating that "the laptop hut" has damaged the goods then you have proof and an expert witness and should sue.

This was part of our approach when we gave them a final opportunity to reach an amicable agreement before we were going to go to litigation. As I have previously said, at this point John Lewis decided to cover the full cost of repair.

If the third party are so competant that they can say "the laptop hut has damaged the goods" Then surely they could have told you how the liquid got there. And all this would have been sorted a while back

This is described earlier in the thread, but the third party confirmed the spillage, but also confirmed the incorrectly assembled case. Realistically do you think the third party could have explained how liquid damage could have got there? I think it would be unreasonable to expect them to be able to point to the exact person that had done it. I do not see how they could deduce how it happened and who had done it by looking at the machine.

 

[Robert Wheeler]

Oh my machine ran for quite a while with coffee inside it doing some pretty hefty things and yes some keys needed for of a thump - but it was only when I eventually couldnt access certain things that I realised I had damaged it - and I did spill quite a lot of coffee on it - so perhaps with a lesser spill it worked for far longer without you knowing about it.

Ok, that is ok, in your case,when you know that you have spilled something inside your machine, yes it may have run for some time. That is a basic technical fact. Most of the time, the system will run ok, but over time the damage starts to show and the machine exhibits problems like becomeing increasingly unstable and so on. But like I said, we did not spill anything on this machine, and I was using it to render a fairly complicated HD video project days before it went in for repair, and the machine had exhibited rock solid stability since the first day we had it.

But again, as someone has stated, if the Laptop people had damaged it then they would just claim it from JL and take it from there, therefore being logical about it, there really would appear to be some spillage on your part or prior to it being received for repairs.

Can you just clarify the logic for me here, because I do not understand. If we look at what you have said hypothetically and divorce it from the matter at hand, lets say a repair company (for this case we shall call them Company A) accidentally damages a laptop while it is in their possesion, and their client (Company B) asked for a quote on all damage over £125. The damage done to the laptop is £150, so Company A quotes it to Company B. Company B asks what kind of damage it is and Company A says it is liquid damage. Company B goes back to their customer and says "There is £150 of damage done to your laptop, and it is liquid damage which is not covered by your warranty, so you will have to cover the cost of the repair". So if you look at it that way, I do not see how what you are suggesting could have happened.

It does point more and more that any issues with spills were done before it was received for repair ... but I am merely looking at this from a non techy point of view!

Obviously, I can not agree with this. I do not see how you can think that it is pointing more and more to me being dishonest. Did you guys actually read what Mike from 'The Laptop Hut' said? Did you visit his website, the one he said was due to be replaced within "4 weeks", yet is still exactly the same? The one which makes hard to quantify claims about their enviromental achievements, the pages that says "coming in 2007", the "News" page which is completely blank? Go and visit it http://www.thelaptophut.com

 

[Mpg]

This was part of our approach when we gave them a final opportunity to reach an amicable agreement before we were going to go to litigation. As I have previously said, at this point John Lewis decided to cover the full cost of repair.



This is described earlier in the thread, but the third party confirmed the spillage, but also confirmed the incorrectly assembled case. Realistically do you think the third party could have explained how liquid damage could have got there? I think it would be unreasonable to expect them to be able to point to the exact person that had done it. I do not see how they could deduce how it happened and who had done it by looking at the machine.

That was my point regarding the reassembly How could the third party say it was the Laptop hut that reassembled incorrectly.

I say this because we had a customer once who damaged his own goods after refusing our estimate. An tried to sue us but luckily his own evidence went against him.

Not that I'm saying you damaged it but that a third party could not say whether another party had or had not without seeing the actual deed take place

 

[Mpg]

Can you just clarify the logic for me here, because I do not understand. If we look at what you have said hypothetically and divorce it from the matter at hand, lets say a repair company (for this case we shall call them Company A) accidentally damages a laptop while it is in their possesion, and their client (Company B) asked for a quote on all damage over £125. The damage done to the laptop is £150, so Company A quotes it to Company B. Company B asks what kind of damage it is and Company A says it is liquid damage. Company B goes back to their customer and says "There is £150 of damage done to your laptop, and it is liquid damage which is not covered by your warranty, so you will have to cover the cost of the repair". So if you look at it that way, I do not see how what you are suggesting could have happened.

But if the repairer was trying it on they wouldnt tel JL the whole truth they could say a capacitor has failed and flashed across the main board causing multiple untraceable component failure so board needs replacing.

 

[Robert Wheeler]

That was my point regarding the reassembly How could the third party say it was the Laptop hut that reassembled incorrectly.

I say this because we had a customer once who damaged his own goods after refusing our estimate. An tried to sue us but luckily his own evidence went against him.

Not that I'm saying you damaged it but that a third party could not say whether another party had or had not without seeing the actual deed take place

When the laptop was returned from 'The Laptop Hut' to John Lewis, we refused to accept receipt of the laptop, and insisted on a third party opinion. We saw it for a matter of seconds, during which time we noted that some of the keys did not seem to be moving freely any more, and that there were dried blobs of liquid on the screen. John Lewis's member of staff was present when we looked at it. We literally opened it and shut it and then gave it back to them, never leaving their service department. John Lewis retained possession and couriered it directly to the third party asking for their assessment. It was precisely because of the concerns that you raise that we refused to accept the return of the laptop.

When the third party report came in, I actually said to John Lewis's representative that if we had accepted the machine, and the machine had developed further faults due to the faulty reassembly, and we had returned the machine, they probably would have pointed their finger at us saying we had been opening it up and messing around with it. And guy said "yes, we probably would have".

 

[Robert Wheeler]

But if the repairer was trying it on they wouldnt tel JL the whole truth they could say a capacitor has failed and flashed across the main board causing multiple untraceable component failure so board needs replacing.

I do not know. If you read earlier in the thread, we actually had the images before John Lewis so in a hypothetical situation it would be hard for a company to change their tune after they have already told us it was liquid damage.

At the end of the day, John Lewis have eventually come back and told us that some things were not done the right way in this matter and have agreed to cover the full cost of the repair. When it came down to it, they did not appear to have the confidence in their standing to take the matter to litigation, where we were confident that we would have no problem winning the case, and we refused to even pay £50 for the repair on a matter of principle. They have not been forthcoming in providing the reasons why they were not ready to take it to litigation whereas we have been completely open as to why we were ready to take such measures.

 

[Big Pete]

When the laptop was returned from 'The Laptop Hut' to John Lewis, we refused to accept receipt of the laptop, and insisted on a third party opinion. We saw it for a matter of seconds, during which time we noted that some of the keys did not seem to be moving freely any more, and that there were dried blobs of liquid on the screen. John Lewis's member of staff was present when we looked at it. We literally opened it and shut it and then gave it back to them, never leaving their service department. John Lewis retained possession and couriered it directly to the third party asking for their assessment. It was precisely because of the concerns that you raise that we refused to accept the return of the laptop.

When the third party report came in, I actually said to John Lewis's representative that if we had accepted the machine, and the machine had developed further faults due to the faulty reassembly, and we had returned the machine, they probably would have pointed their finger at us saying we had been opening it up and messing around with it. And guy said "yes, we probably would have".

I can tell your honest ,, but no doubt all the Prosecuters will say you splashed it with your Coffee Mug as you was looking at it ..

I think this just about clarifies the situation and all the people who have questioned your integrity should hang there head in shame and apologys !!!

I wish you good luck and hope you get it sorted , i also feel as you had indeed had to go to this ammount of stress in just getting a DVD drive fixed should also make both John Lewis and Laptop Hut hide in shame as i for one would never ever buy a Laptop from them as long as i live, with the way they have made you suffer ..

Merry Xmas Robert and good luck .. and if Laptop Hut or John Lewis people see this thread . send the Guy a new Laptop and a sincere apology..For you have indeed slandered him with your accusations , and i say shame on you

 

[Cornish Steve]

At this point, all the facts are on the table, the two parties have explained their case, and there's no value in continuing the thread. It's locked.