Faulty Laptop Purchase Resolution

I understand your frustration. Since the laptops are under 6 months old, they're presumed faulty if not fit for purpose. While it's usually the seller's responsibility to prove otherwise, NewDay's request for an independent report is common. Would you like guidance on how to contest this or proceed with the report?

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) typically assesses if the lender, in this case, NewDay, has acted fairly and reasonably. Since the laptops are under 6 months old, FOS might expect the seller or lender to address the issue without requiring an independent report. However, obtaining the report could strengthen your case. Would you like to explore your options further?

Case Rating: *
To explore your options further:
- Challenge NewDay's Request: You can argue that under the Consumer Rights Act *, the items are presumed faulty if not fit for purpose within six months. Highlight this in your communication with both NewDay and FOS.
- Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS): Emphasize the age of the laptops and your expectation that the seller or lender should address the issue without an independent report.
Would you like to know more about any of these points?

Case Rating: *
To challenge NewDay's request further:
- Communicate Clearly: Write to NewDay, referencing the Consumer Rights Act *. State that the items are less than six months old, so they are presumed faulty unless proven otherwise.
- FOS Submission: Highlight NewDay's delay and your expectation for resolution without a report.
Would you like more detailed guidance on how to draft this communication?

Case Rating: *
Here's a draft for your response to NewDay:
---
Subject: Request for Immediate Resolution and Replacement of Faulty Laptops
Dear NewDay,
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the handling of my complaint regarding the two ASUS laptops purchased on BNPL. Under the Consumer Rights Act *, goods must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. Both laptops, being less than six months old, are presumed faulty as they are not functioning correctly. Your request for an independent report is unreasonable given this presumption.
I expect a resolution, specifically the replacement of both laptops, without further delay. Please address this issue promptly to avoid escalation.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
---
And here's a draft for the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS):
---
Subject: Complaint Against NewDay - Faulty Laptops
Dear Financial Ombudsman Service,
I am seeking your assistance regarding my unresolved complaint against NewDay. I purchased two ASUS laptops on BNPL, and both have become faulty within six months of purchase. Despite this, NewDay insists on an independent report, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act *, which presumes goods are faulty if not fit for purpose within six months.
I request your intervention to ensure NewDay fulfills their obligation to replace the faulty laptops without undue burden on me.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
---
Would you like any further assistance with this?

Case Rating: *
NewDay's response may focus on requesting additional evidence to support your claim that the laptops are faulty. They might reiterate their need for an independent report to validate the issue. They could also express their willingness to resolve the matter once the report is provided. Would you like any further guidance on how to proceed?

Case Rating: *
Refusing an independent report might weaken your case with FOS, as it could be seen as not providing sufficient evidence. However, since the laptops are under 6 months old, FOS might still consider your claim based on the presumption they are faulty. Would you like more detailed guidance on this?

Case Rating: *
If you decide not to provide the independent report, it's important to focus on the presumption of fault due to the age of the laptops. Highlight this aspect and the seller's responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act * in your communication with FOS. Would you like more guidance on how to present this to FOS or NewDay?

Case Rating: *
Here's a detailed draft response to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS):
---
Subject: Urgent Assistance Required - Faulty Laptops and Unreasonable Request for Independent Report
Dear Financial Ombudsman Service,
I am writing to seek your intervention in resolving my complaint against NewDay. On 24th November *, I purchased two ASUS laptops via buy now, pay later (BNPL) from AO, financed by NewDay. Within a few uses, both laptops exhibited faulty USB and charging ports, rendering them unusable.
Under the Consumer Rights Act *, goods must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. As both laptops are less than six months old, they are presumed faulty unless proven otherwise by the seller or lender. Despite this, NewDay insists on an independent report, placing an undue burden on me, the consumer.
The Consumer Credit Act further holds NewDay jointly liable for any breaches of contract. I have attempted to resolve this with AO and ASUS, but both have failed to address the issue satisfactorily. AO's offer of a *% retention was inadequate, and ASUS's refusal to cover the repair under warranty was unjust.
I request your assistance to ensure NewDay fulfills their obligation by replacing both laptops without requiring an independent report. This situation has caused significant inconvenience, and I believe a swift resolution is warranted.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
---
Would you like any further assistance or have any questions?