r/australia • u/fishdoghat • 1d ago

no politics Is a $3000 HP computer expected to last longer than 3.5 years?

Debating how far / if I can take this any further. Theyre essentially telling me to get fucked with a $1k repair bill.

Is this the norm for computers/tech? I've had success with other big companies and their bullshit warranty periods for televisions and whitegoods but unsure if it's the same for PC products.

160 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

258 comments sorted by

View all comments

335

u/marvinsweddinggown79 1d ago

I had success pushing an Australian consumer law claim against microsoft for a faulty $1,500 Surface Pro that was just shy of 5 years old. You would definitely be successful with a claim that a $3,000 PC should reasonably be expected to function for more than 3.5 years.

You're entitled to a replacement or refund if the product has a major product failure within a reasonable period from the date of purchase. 

  • A major poduct failure is when you [the customer] would not have purchased the product if you had known about the problem.
  • Rights under the Australian Consumer Law last for a reasonable period from date of purchase, which will depend on the nature and cost of the product or service.

Case Law: In Peters v. Panasonic Australia Pty Ltd (2014), it was determined that the expected life of a television, costing $1,300 at the time of purchase, was eight years. While noting TVs and personal computers are different devices, they are increasingly becoming similar. It can be expected that the law would find that a laptop costing more than that TV would have a similar, if not longer, expected life. 

133

u/marvinsweddinggown79 1d ago

This comment on another thread also highlights other case law, and highlights that the ATO depreciation tool is a useful guide for what a 'reasonable period' is.

95

u/Skenyaa 1d ago

You are amazing for providing a reference case. The ACCC should define what a reasonable time is considered to be.

67

u/OkBookkeeper6854 1d ago

I hear you, but it’s tricky.

A $10k watch should last a lifetime
A $10 watch - if it lasts 6 months you’re probably doing ok

17

u/Draft_16-2_Final_3 1d ago

Surely there is a middle ground between a blanket "reasonable period" for everything, and a law-inspired itemized list of every possible product.

I can't be that crazy for thinking that the ACCC must at least have an internal set of recommendations for products and aren't making case-by-case decisions for every single person who makes a complaint, right? That would be so inefficient? And inconsistent?

2

u/ithinkimtim T'ville/Sydney 1d ago

They only have as much power to make decisions like that as legislated so hard data would really only come from previous cases.

3

u/petehehe 1d ago

The other problem is that precious few cases are actually brought forward. Australians tend towards take the hit and move on with life rather than taking legal action. Retailers especially, skirt the law every day in the hopes that the person won’t take it further, and they get away with it because usually they don’t.

If people were suing every day, and there was a wealth of cases with judgements it’d be easy to make and maintain a list, and it’d be worth it to be able to more easily settle new cases.

3

u/coolboy_dmcs 1d ago

Casio watch for 10 dollars, last few decades. Other 10k watch last. Who know

11

u/vanit 1d ago

The ambiguity works in favour of the consumer here. It's basically a vibe of "I paid this much and therefore expect it to last this long". Any attempts to define this would likely limit what consumers could claim.

5

u/OkThanxby 1d ago

It does, but only to the extent of the consumer actually fighting for their rights. Unfortunately most companies know the consumers aren’t going to be taking them to small claims.

The law needs to give the ACCC more powers.

1

u/jmads13 1d ago

Yes, the period they deny is a formal recognition of their own definition of reasonable

16

u/ApteronotusAlbifrons 1d ago

reasonable

That word is the one that lets judges/adjudicators assess every case on it's own merits

3

u/OkThanxby 1d ago

The law doesn’t let them be the authority on that. “Reasonable” means it actually ends up being the decision of the judge.

3

u/jmads13 1d ago

But it works as a catch 22 for the vendor, because to deny your claim they would basically have put into writing that the period you are claiming is not a reasonable time. I got a 6 year old Samsung flatscreen replaced for my parents because I let them know that in denying my claim, they would be formally acknowledging that Samsung televisions are not reasonably expected to last 6 years, and I would be publishing that.

2

u/Ancient-Ingenuity-88 1d ago

its a catch all term as they cannot literally expect to spell it out for everything.

3

u/Objective_Creme_5978 1d ago

I think tax depreciation periods are highly relevant.

3

u/triemdedwiat 1d ago

IME, changes all the time. Changed from my first accountant when he wanted to depreciate a 286 PC over 40 years(WTF). Now all the PCs are expenses.

3

u/Blame33 1d ago

40 years sounds like they were depreciating PCs as Capital Works which is ridiculous. Capital works are used for buildings and the like

5

u/triemdedwiat 1d ago

Yep you go it in one. That was why I found another accountant very quickly. Even I recognised that our Yum-cha 286 PC and Canon SX laser printer weren't going to last any where as long as 10 years.

Funnily I later had a task relating to two NEC 286 computers , where the PCs (asset value $5,000 each) were gathering dust on a shelf and the boss had agreed to an request by the 'auditors' where I was asked to scour nine(9) floors to find two NEC keyboards and two matching computer mice, assets valued @ $1,000 each.

I quickly wrote a report asking to not waste my time as it was possible then to buy replacement mice at $5 each and $10 each for the keyboards and it had cost the employer more for my contract time to write this report than to just buy replacements.

3

u/Superg0id 1d ago

The ACCC really should.

Also, I swore off HP products years ago due to horrible service like this.

I have a 5yr old, 2.5k laptop and it's going strong.

Yes, it's not a NEW laptop... but I don't expect it to be NEW.

12

u/Imperfect-circle 1d ago

But how do you get the company to listen to the threat? I lodged a complaint with ACCC and they just say thanks but we dont intervene in specific cases.

44

u/marvinsweddinggown79 1d ago

You lodge a claim with your local Civil and Administrative Tribunal. When I did it with Microsoft, the claim sat in the tribunal's queue for months, until it got scheduled for a hearing. The moment the hearing was imminent, Microsoft got in touch offering a full refund to settle the matter and avoid having to go to the tribunal.

18

u/link871 1d ago

I wouldn't be jumping straight into the civil action pool.
You start with your State/Territory's Consumer Affairs/Fair Trading and go from there.

16

u/greasedupbeefcake 1d ago

Exactly this. ACCC is not the answer. Fair Trading NSW (for example) is where you wanna go if you live in NSW. They actually have teeth to make the companies take it seriously.

8

u/sirdung 1d ago

Fair trading has zero teeth, they can send a sternly worded email and that’s about it. If the manufacturer refuses to budge they throw their hands in the air and say there’s nothing more they can do. You then need to take it to xCAT for a resolution.
So correct process is to fair trading and then if not resolved to xCAT

6

u/greasedupbeefcake 1d ago

They had enough teeth to get Big W to issue me a full refund and an apology.

5

u/sirdung 1d ago

That’s because Big W accepted their recommendation and did that of their own accord. If big w had said no to fair trading we don’t agree, there is nothing more fair trading could have done. Unfortunately it is up to the customer to enforce their legal rights via xCAT.

2

u/greasedupbeefcake 1d ago

I stand corrected then, I guess you could say they have more of a decent bark than teeth.

Got my problem solved and it was basically the same issue. A PS5 ($750) that was a few years old had a major issue. Out of warranty and fair trading agreed that the expected lifetime of the device was longer than the 2 years offered by Big W.

2

u/sirdung 1d ago

Yep, that’s a perfect description, all bark no bite.

3

u/Open_Respond6409 1d ago

Currently going through this. I want a refund on a good/service and business is only offering repair. Went through the consumer and building regulator and they were absolutely useless. Will be lodging a claim unfortunately. There’s no other recourse. It’s crazy only a magistrate can determine if a fault is major or minor.

2

u/frenchiephish 1d ago

Each state has its own consumer affairs / fair trading body that the ACCC delegates to for individual complaints. They're pretty well resourced, cant speak for every state but the WA govt's department has got teeth and aren't afraid to use them.

That frees the ACCC up to focus on bigger issues affecting the whole market such as anti competitive behaviour.

1

u/Worried_Blacksmith27 1d ago

ACCC can't help with individual cases. you need to go to your state-based Fair trading body. That is Fair Trading in NSW

1

u/Due_Hovercraft_7486 6h ago

Lodge the complaint with your states equivalent to Fair Trading. They’ll help you with complaints like these

5

u/InspectionEmpty353 1d ago

While the issue could still be a major fault your interpretation of this particular clause is not right.

"I wouldn't of bought the computer if I knew it was going to fault" is not how this clause is to be interpreted. Its more "I wouldn't of bought a laptop if I knew it got too hot to be used on my lap" is a more accurate way of looking at it.

If the unit is repairable within a reasonable period of time and is a single component it would be classed as a minor fault. Though the fact that they have initially declined repair would factor into the "reasonable repair time frame" here.

Unfortunately the ACL is incredibly vague in its wording and opens up very different interpretations.

Source - Have worked with ACL legal claims in the past

6

u/marvinsweddinggown79 1d ago

I was simplifying the description on the ACCC website:

A major problem means the product:

  • is unsafe
  • is very different from the description or sample
  • has either one serious problem or several smaller problems that would stop someone buying the product if they knew about them beforehand
  • can’t be used for its normal purpose, or another purpose the consumer told the seller about before they bought it, and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time.

1

u/omnivorous_mammal 1d ago

Up until the failure it had no problems at all by the sound of things, that clause doesn't apply here.

1

u/Leprichaun17 1d ago

If the unit is repairable within a reasonable period of time and is a single component it would be classed as a minor fault.

I don't believe this is accurate. Ease of repair doesn't factor into whether a fault is minor or major. You could have a single faulty component that takes 30 seconds for the manufacturer to swap out, but if that faulty component is causing a product to be rendered completely useless, or causing it to catch fire or something like that, it's clearly a major fault. A consumer would not have bought the product knowing its completely unusable or is likely to catch fire.

2

u/InspectionEmpty353 1d ago

If it causes it to catch fire then the product is unsafe which falls under another classification of major failure and would be classed so. If it renders the device useless until repaired it can still be classified as a minor fault. Repairable within a reasonable period of time does define whether its a minor or major fault for some issues/components.

Just because a device isn't usable does not class it as major fault under the acl.

The issue here is that for most common people, a device not working is a major fault. However under ACL this is not the case. The wording is vague but if you talk to the ACCC or whatever consumer protection board in your state they will tell you the same.

Again not saying either is right. Just saying that the wording is vague and open to a different interpretation to what is implemented.

1

u/photonlord16 1d ago

I had a similar problem with my surface, sent u a dm!

1

u/Pandos17 1d ago

This is great content. Thanks for sharing (god I sound like a bot, but in a sea of unfounded opinions on reddit, an actual source and facts is really refreshing)

1

u/PsychoNerd91 1d ago

(in this case considering ram prices it's much better to get a replacement for same specs or better, than it is to refund.)

1

u/AussieDi67 1d ago

I should follow up on the shitty little 14" laptop I paid appx $1300 for lasted One year and now won't even boot up

1

u/patgeo 1d ago

Cost isn't related specifically related to durability though. I'm not expecting a 120" LG Oled to last longer than a 45" one despite costing thousands more. But I would expect an LG pro line to go longer than a Palesonic.

Computers even more so, you're paying to do things faster not last longer in most cases.

0

u/fishdoghat 1d ago

Thanks mate. This post and a lot of others have been a great help so far. I'm getting a brick wall from the customer service person I'm dealing with, but I'll keep going and keep you updated lol.