Small claims court

I have to ask in relation to this (not to "hijack" the OP), cause the situation I'm in is so similar.

I bought a 1500 euro laptop off Curry's last July.

At the end of July this year, it also stopped working.

The warranty was just for 12 months, so I was literally days outside it.

Would I have been eligible to dispute this?

I just assumed that, given it was outside of warranty, I wouldn't have been?

.......

But as with the OP, perhaps that only applies to small repairs, not the entire thing basically stopping working entirely?

I could have taken that to the SCC?

I actually didn't even know there was consumer law on this.

Don't know if this is the official consumer law website?

When a good has a fault, you can decide if you want a repair or replacement. It should be provided by the business:

• within a reasonable time
• without significant inconvenience to you
• free of charge

You should act quickly and tell a business when you find a problem. Under the Statute of Limitations, you have 6 years to take a case against a business. During the first year if you have a dispute with a business they have to show that the product was not faulty when you received it.

.........

By that rationale, could anyone who experienced an issue with their product 6 years following its purchase, not simply bring it back in store and expect a refund or repair, without charge? (even if it's outside the 12 month warranty).

Curry's sell "tech insurance"; if this statute is in place, would they not be obliged to tend to a faulty product, regardless of whether a buyer has bought this?

currys.ie/terms-conditions.html

Under "Faulty Goods".

?

Yes.

That does sound familiar, lol.

Jebus.

Wow, that's awesome.

But the "playing dumb" part is still unscrupulous on behalf of the store staff.

And most consumers (as I wasn't up until now), are not going to be well informed on their statutory rights.

......

Basically in my case recently, I took out "tech insurance" on my 1500 euro purchase, but discontinued it in May (having made the purchase the previous July), cause I figured if something were to go wrong, it would do so in that first time period.

I cancelled the direct debt, but their system didn't register the cancellation, so they think I'm still paying - and when I went in 1 year + two weeks beyond the conventional warranty period, they saw my insurance was still good (even though I stopped paying it), and repaired it (which involved replacing the screen).

So........ I did get a repair, but through a misunderstanding or admin error with insurance on their behalf, basically.

.........

I had intended to reinstate my insurance when I go to collect the machine (next week it comes back from repair), but having read this information, now intend to simply use my consumer right moving forward.

I've paid 100 euro in tech insurance fees already which, according to consumer rights, I would not have needed.

No big deal, and ultimately they did a fairly costly repair in good time (2 weeks mandatory repair under tech insurance).

But definitely not shelling out 200 euro for 24 months insurance cover moving forward - knowing these consumer rights are in place (and I will be following to the letter your outline of how to enforce those consumer rights).