Battery health

in one day of usage, the battery health (as shown by iStat Pro) has dropped from 100% to 99%.
Eddy Young wrote on :

Hi all,

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks), I was told by Apple that I should have the whole unit checked by a service provider. Since, I figured, it would cost me a minimum of =A350 just for the check, I bought a new battery instead.

I don't see the random shutdowns anymore, but in one day of usage, the battery health (as shown by iStat Pro) has dropped from 100% to 99%.

Is that usual?

(As for the old battery (replaced free-of-charge during the battery recall of last summer), the battery health was stuck at 12%.)

Thanks,

Eddy

zoara replied on :

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

Hi all,

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years. The warranty means nothing (you know that phrase "does not affect your statutory rights"? That's what it means). You could have told Apple to sort it... speak to Trading Standards.

However, if it was the battery, there may be different rules regarding those (they have an expected limited life).

I was told by Apple that I should have the whole unit checked by a service provider. Since, I figured, it would cost me a minimum of 50 just for the check, I bought a new battery instead.

Did you reset the power manager? Take out the battery and power lead, hold down the power button for ten seconds. You may find you've bought yourself a (useful) second battery...

I don't see the random shutdowns anymore, but in one day of usage, the battery health (as shown by iStat Pro) has dropped from 100% to 99%.

Is that usual?

Battery health? Is that the maximum charge it will hold? If so, that's normal; the technology used doesn't like frequent topping-off so the Mac will only replenish it after it goes a bit lower. There's an Apple Knowledgebase article on this somewhere.

(As for the old battery (replaced free-of-charge during the battery recall of last summer), the battery health was stuck at 12%.)

Yikes.

-z-
Chris Ridd replied on :

On 2007-04-12 13:21:47 +0100, zoara me17@redacted.invalid said:

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

Hi all,

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years. The warranty means nothing (you know that phrase "does not affect your statutory rights"? That's what it means).

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

Cheers,

Chris

Sara Kirk replied on :

In article 586mpjF2dmi61U1@redacted.invalid, Chris Ridd chrisridd@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-04-12 13:21:47 +0100, zoara me17@redacted.invalid said:

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

Hi all,

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years. The warranty means nothing (you know that phrase "does not affect your statutory rights"? That's what it means).

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

It puts a lot of people off from claiming after that time. After the trials and tribulations expounded here, we now all know that doesn't count. There are many out there who don't, including those manning call centres.

Eddy Young replied on :

On 12 Apr, 13:21, zoara m...@redacted.invalid wrote:

However, if it was the battery, there may be different rules regarding those (they have an expected limited life).

I am pretty sure the battery must still be under warranty, since it was replaced about six months ago under the Apple battery recall programme. But, their technical support wants me to have the whole unit checked to ensure that the fault is not with the laptop, and I have to pay at least the minimum charge for that!

I was told by Apple that I should have the whole unit checked by a service provider. Since, I figured, it would cost me a minimum of =A350 just for the check, I bought a new battery instead.

Did you reset the power manager? Take out the battery and power lead, hold down the power button for ten seconds. You may find you've bought yourself a (useful) second battery...

Done that, but problem still persisted.

I don't see the random shutdowns anymore, but in one day of usage, the battery health (as shown by iStat Pro) has dropped from 100% to 99%.

Is that usual?

Battery health? Is that the maximum charge it will hold? If so, that's normal; the technology used doesn't like frequent topping-off so the Mac will only replenish it after it goes a bit lower. There's an Apple Knowledgebase article on this somewhere.

I think the battery health is a measure of how much charge the battery can hold against how much it is designed to hold.

Eddy

Eddy Young replied on :

On 12 Apr, 14:41, Sara Kirk sarak...@redacted.invalid wrote:

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

It puts a lot of people off from claiming after that time. After the trials and tribulations expounded here, we now all know that doesn't count. There are many out there who don't, including those manning call centres.

-- Sara

Hmmm... Now, I'm curious. Who has/have successfully exercised their statutory rights in here? Is there a passphrase to get a reaction from the call centre droids?

Eddy

Andrew Stephenson replied on :

In article 586mpjF2dmi61U1@redacted.invalid chrisridd@redacted.invalid "Chris Ridd" writes:

On 2007-04-12 13:21:47 +0100, zoara me17@redacted.invalid said:

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years. The warranty means nothing (you know that phrase "does not affect your statutory rights"? That's what it means).

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

That's what legal slithey toves do. They can't help it.

zoara replied on :

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:25:22 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote:

On 2007-04-12 13:21:47 +0100, zoara me17@redacted.invalid said:

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

Hi all,

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years. The warranty means nothing (you know that phrase "does not affect your statutory rights"? That's what it means).

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

Because then people stop bothering them after a year, instead of after five?

Basically it makes them look good ("look how generous we are! A whole year of free repairs!") while a) fulfilling their legal obligation and b) encouraging the idea that if something breaks 370 days after you bought it, you're screwed.

What the warranty does do is make things easier. If things break within warranty you can usually get it sorted very easily; outside of warranty you tend to, er, have to write an email to the CEO of the company...

-z-
Sara Kirk replied on :

In article 1176386147.830028.190740@redacted.invalid, "Eddy Young" eddy.young@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 12 Apr, 14:41, Sara Kirk sarak...@redacted.invalid wrote:

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

It puts a lot of people off from claiming after that time. After the trials and tribulations expounded here, we now all know that doesn't count. There are many out there who don't, including those manning call centres.

-- Sara

Hmmm... Now, I'm curious. Who has/have successfully exercised their statutory rights in here? Is there a passphrase to get a reaction from the call centre droids?

umm... zoara.

Andrew Stephenson replied on :

In article 1176385356.064793.301240@redacted.invalid eddy.young@redacted.invalid "Eddy Young" writes:

I am pretty sure the battery must still be under warranty, since it was replaced about six months ago under the Apple battery recall programme. But, their technical support wants me to have the whole unit checked to ensure that the fault is not with the laptop, and I have to pay at least the minimum charge for that!

If the laptop's okay, would Apple's tech support repay the fee?

If the laptop's faulty, maybe you need to know.

zoara replied on :

On 12 Apr 2007 06:55:47 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

On 12 Apr, 14:41, Sara Kirk sarak...@redacted.invalid wrote:

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

It puts a lot of people off from claiming after that time. After the trials and tribulations expounded here, we now all know that doesn't count. There are many out there who don't, including those manning call centres.

Hmmm... Now, I'm curious. Who has/have successfully exercised their statutory rights in here? Is there a passphrase to get a reaction from the call centre droids?

Ahem... waves

The passphrase is basically a letter; it both bypasses the call centres and there's a legal requirement for it to be acknowledged. Aside from my regular altercations with Apple, I've also "successfully exercised my statutory rights" (what a lovely phrase) with a second hand car dealer.

The routine works like this:

Customer: "Your [product] broke and it sucks" Company: "Tough, it's out of warranty" Customer: "Well, I know my rights you know. Please sort it out" Company: "Tough, it's out of warranty"

Customer: "This [product] from [company] broke and it sucks. They won't sort it, what should I do?" Trading Standards: "Well, they should repair or replace it. Write a letter saying this, this and this [quoting of sales acts]. Let me know how it goes."

Customer writes letter

Company (notably not a call centre droid): "We got a letter from you about [product]. Send it to us and we'll repair it" Customer: "Nice one."

Sometimes the last bit doesn't go quite to plan and can involve trading standards directly contacting the company, or threats of legal action, or reneging of agreements, or repeated attempts at repair resulting in a claim for a replacement (by law the company can choose whether to replace or repair, but if a 'reasonable number' of repairs fail - that seems to be about three - then the customer is entitled to a replacement).

The second-hand car dealer was a pushover; Apple was a right pain in the arse - as well as repeated attempts at repair, they refused several times to re-repair the previously failed repair, citing it as out of warranty.

Trading standards (or their fighurehead, Consumer Direct) are bloody fantastic, I'll say that. Friendly, helpful, useful, reliable... bloody brilliant.

-zoara-
Eddy Young replied on :

On 12 Apr, 15:19, zoara m...@redacted.invalid wrote:

Ahem... waves

The passphrase is basically a letter; it both bypasses the call centres and there's a legal requirement for it to be acknowledged. Aside from my regular altercations with Apple, I've also "successfully exercised my statutory rights" (what a lovely phrase) with a second hand car dealer.

The routine works like this:

Customer: "Your [product] broke and it sucks" Company: "Tough, it's out of warranty" Customer: "Well, I know my rights you know. Please sort it out" Company: "Tough, it's out of warranty"

Customer: "This [product] from [company] broke and it sucks. They won't sort it, what should I do?" Trading Standards: "Well, they should repair or replace it. Write a letter saying this, this and this [quoting of sales acts]. Let me know how it goes."

Customer writes letter

Company (notably not a call centre droid): "We got a letter from you about [product]. Send it to us and we'll repair it" Customer: "Nice one."

Sometimes the last bit doesn't go quite to plan and can involve trading standards directly contacting the company, or threats of legal action, or reneging of agreements, or repeated attempts at repair resulting in a claim for a replacement (by law the company can choose whether to replace or repair, but if a 'reasonable number' of repairs fail - that seems to be about three - then the customer is entitled to a replacement).

The second-hand car dealer was a pushover; Apple was a right pain in the arse - as well as repeated attempts at repair, they refused several times to re-repair the previously failed repair, citing it as out of warranty.

Trading standards (or their fighurehead, Consumer Direct) are bloody fantastic, I'll say that. Friendly, helpful, useful, reliable... bloody brilliant.

    -zoara-

Brilliant stuff, Zoara! Five-star rated on Google Groups for future reference.

Eddy

Rolly replied on :

On 2007-04-12 13:21:47 +0100, zoara me17@redacted.invalid said:

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

Hi all,

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years.

Interesting. Does that mean that AppleCare is not very good value for money?

R.

zoara replied on :

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:03:54 GMT, Andrew Stephenson wrote:

In article 586mpjF2dmi61U1@redacted.invalid chrisridd@redacted.invalid "Chris Ridd" writes:

On 2007-04-12 13:21:47 +0100, zoara me17@redacted.invalid said:

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years. The warranty means nothing (you know that phrase "does not affect your statutory rights"? That's what it means).

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

That's what legal slithey toves do. They can't help it.

Slithy Toves?

All of a sudden, I've realised what gyring and gimbling in the wabe really means. It's sort of like plotting and subterfuge in big piles of paper with very small writing, isn't it? And brillig is the period after the warranty expires....

-z-
zoara replied on :

On 12 Apr 2007 06:42:36 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

On 12 Apr, 13:21, zoara m...@redacted.invalid wrote:

However, if it was the battery, there may be different rules regarding those (they have an expected limited life).

I am pretty sure the battery must still be under warranty, since it was replaced about six months ago under the Apple battery recall programme. But, their technical support wants me to have the whole unit checked to ensure that the fault is not with the laptop, and I have to pay at least the minimum charge for that!

Well, the battery warranty is only three months (been there, too) and your consumer rights most likely won't cover things like batteries over and above the warranty as they'll be seen as 'consumables' (in the same way you couldn't get new ink carts for your printer or tyres for your car for five years following purchase).

It might be worth seeing if you can get it fixed for free (google Consumer Direct and give 'em a call), but you have to weigh up the cost of just buying a new battery (which you have already done) with the faff of dealing with Apple... and most likely having to lose your machine for a couple of weeks or more.

Personally I wouldn't bother, but it depends how much that fifty quid means to you. At the very least a quick phonecall to Consumer Direct will give you an idea of whether it's worth chasing.

Did you reset the power manager? Take out the battery and power lead, hold down the power button for ten seconds. You may find you've bought yourself a (useful) second battery...

Done that, but problem still persisted.

Damn.

Battery health? Is that the maximum charge it will hold? If so, that's normal; the technology used doesn't like frequent topping-off so the Mac will only replenish it after it goes a bit lower. There's an Apple Knowledgebase article on this somewhere.

I think the battery health is a measure of how much charge the battery can hold against how much it is designed to hold.

Oh, righto. Well, it doesn't sound the best but I also wouldn't panic just yet. If it carries on dropping that quickly, then you can start worrying.

zoara replied on :

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:19:21 +0100, zoara wrote:

The passphrase is basically a letter; it both bypasses the call centres and there's a legal requirement for it to be acknowledged.

I forgot; one of the nice things about writing a letter is you get the opportunity to hold a company to a deadline. Basically you say "if you don't respond in ten days I'll presume you've ignored this and will take you to court". Which is kind of satisfying :)

-z-
Jaimie Vandenbergh replied on :

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:41:21 +0100, Rolly none@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-04-12 13:21:47 +0100, zoara me17@redacted.invalid said:

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

Hi all,

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years.

Interesting. Does that mean that AppleCare is not very good value for money?

Depends on how you value your personal time and headaches and stress beating Apple into submission.

Cheers - Jaimie
Eddy Young replied on :

On 12 Apr, 15:41, zoara m...@redacted.invalid wrote:

It might be worth seeing if you can get it fixed for free (google Consumer Direct and give 'em a call), but you have to weigh up the cost of just buying a new battery (which you have already done) with the faff of dealing with Apple... and most likely having to lose your machine for a couple of weeks or more.

Personally I wouldn't bother, but it depends how much that fifty quid means to you. At the very least a quick phonecall to Consumer Direct will give you an idea of whether it's worth chasing.

Same feeling here. I will not bother unless the machine displays the same symptoms as before, but touch wood, everything seems OK at the moment.

Thanks for your re-assurance, guys.

Eddy

Gwynne Harper replied on :

Eddy Young eddy.young@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 12 Apr, 14:41, Sara Kirk sarak...@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hmmm... Now, I'm curious. Who has/have successfully exercised their statutory rights in here? Is there a passphrase to get a reaction from the call centre droids?

Me, yesterday. I had a real problem with John Lewis and Nescafe arguing as to who was responsible for a 4 month old coffee machine that had broken down after only making a few dozen cups of coffee: Nescafe wanted to repair, I declined and wanted replacement. I won (JL appeared to understand my statutory rights, but Nescafe gave them the runaround too).

This is a nice summary:

http://www.clsdirect.org.uk/legalhelp/leaflet13.jsp?section=4&lang=en

or:

http://money.guardian.co.uk/howtocomplain/story/0,,1738830,00.html

Gwynne

Andrew Stephenson replied on :

In article 12043sy15j18m.mou20sj5ok2r.dlg@redacted.invalid nettid1@redacted.invalid "zoara" writes:

Trading standards (or their fighurehead, Consumer Direct) are bloody fantastic, I'll say that. Friendly, helpful, useful, reliable... bloody brilliant.

AOL. During my recent run-in with Dabs, having the moral support of TS was powerfully reassuring, even when I knew the company was 100% wrong.

Snag is, if you're dealing with idiots, even being right and such usually still leads to fights -- as with me taking Dabs to the SC court and winning and the judgement against them ending up in the register (with damage to their credit rating they could/should've avoided).

zoara replied on :

Jaimie Vandenbergh jaimie@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:41:21 +0100, Rolly none@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-04-12 13:21:47 +0100, zoara me17@redacted.invalid said:

On 12 Apr 2007 03:33:57 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

Hi all,

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years.

Interesting. Does that mean that AppleCare is not very good value for money?

Depends on how you value your personal time and headaches and stress beating Apple into submission.

Indeed.

    -z-
Andrew Stephenson replied on :

In article 1i5m23r1rppkl$.1emhk4imlh022$.dlg@redacted.invalid nettid1@redacted.invalid "zoara" writes:

[...] And brillig is the period after the warranty expires....

:-)

Daniel Cohen replied on :

zoara me17@redacted.invalid wrote:

Customer: "This [product] from [company] broke and it sucks. They won't sort it, what should I do?" Trading Standards: "Well, they should repair or replace it. Write a letter saying this, this and this [quoting of sales acts]. Let me know how it goes."

Customer writes letter

Company (notably not a call centre droid): "We got a letter from you about [product]. Send it to us and we'll repair it" Customer: "Nice one."

Sometimes the last bit doesn't go quite to plan and can involve trading standards directly contacting the company, or threats of legal action, or reneging of agreements, or repeated attempts at repair resulting in a claim for a replacement (by law the company can choose whether to replace or repair, but if a 'reasonable number' of repairs fail - that seems to be about three - then the customer is entitled to a replacement).

Trading standards (or their fighurehead, Consumer Direct) are bloody fantastic, I'll say that. Friendly, helpful, useful, reliable... bloody brilliant.

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery. It was a one 0ff piece, so replacment isn't possible. Five letters, beginning with a firendly one and ending with quoting the Sale of Goods Act have just been ignored. No response at all. They are defending the claim so we will see what their defence is. As far as I can see there are three possibilities: a technical error in my claim, an argument over the amount (which is an estimate, at present) or downright lies on their part. The third one would not at all surprise me.

Sara Kirk replied on :

In article 1hwh775.12wlc256d19r0N%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

zoara me17@redacted.invalid wrote:

Customer: "This [product] from [company] broke and it sucks. They won't sort it, what should I do?" Trading Standards: "Well, they should repair or replace it. Write a letter saying this, this and this [quoting of sales acts]. Let me know how it goes."

Customer writes letter

Company (notably not a call centre droid): "We got a letter from you about [product]. Send it to us and we'll repair it" Customer: "Nice one."

Sometimes the last bit doesn't go quite to plan and can involve trading standards directly contacting the company, or threats of legal action, or reneging of agreements, or repeated attempts at repair resulting in a claim for a replacement (by law the company can choose whether to replace or repair, but if a 'reasonable number' of repairs fail - that seems to be about three - then the customer is entitled to a replacement).

Trading standards (or their fighurehead, Consumer Direct) are bloody fantastic, I'll say that. Friendly, helpful, useful, reliable... bloody brilliant.

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery. It was a one 0ff piece, so replacment isn't possible. Five letters, beginning with a firendly one and ending with quoting the Sale of Goods Act have just been ignored. No response at all. They are defending the claim so we will see what their defence is. As far as I can see there are three possibilities: a technical error in my claim, an argument over the amount (which is an estimate, at present) or downright lies on their part. The third one would not at all surprise me.

Sounds like a bit of a nightmare - good luck! How much is it worth, if you don't mind me asking?

Rexx Magnus replied on :

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:33:57 GMT, Eddy Young wrote:

I don't see the random shutdowns anymore, but in one day of usage, the battery health (as shown by iStat Pro) has dropped from 100% to 99%.

Is that usual?

What's the health? Anything to do with current charge?

Normally the battery will lose about 1% charge per day through normal use. That's because the computer isn't constantly feeding power into it (as with older windows laptops) and thereby putting strain on the battery.

It will wait until it goes below 95% and then charge it back up to 100%. It rarely ever stays on 100% for more than a few minutes though.

Annie Seedballs replied on :

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:41:56 +0100, zoara wrote (in article 1i5m23r1rppkl$.1emhk4imlh022$.dlg@redacted.invalid):

All of a sudden, I've realised what gyring and gimbling in the wabe really means. It's sort of like plotting and subterfuge in big piles of paper with very small writing, isn't it? And brillig is the period after the warranty expires....

And I bet ol' Charlie never had the SoGA in mind when he wrote it...

Sarah

Eddy Young replied on :

In article Xns99116244E512Drexxdeansaund@redacted.invalid, Rexx Magnus says...

What's the health? Anything to do with current charge?

Normally the battery will lose about 1% charge per day through normal use. That's because the computer isn't constantly feeding power into it (as with older windows laptops) and thereby putting strain on the battery.

It will wait until it goes below 95% and then charge it back up to 100%. It rarely ever stays on 100% for more than a few minutes though.

I could not find a single authoritative source that clearly defines what "battery health" is, and the World Wide Web is, er, wide. So, I made up my own definition for it: the measure of how much charge the battery can hold compared to the maximum charge it was designed to hold.

Obviously, that definition is proven to be flawed now that the battery health has jumped back to 100%.

Incidentally, with the "old" battery, I was down to about 1.5 hours of usage when it was not shutting down randomly; with this new battery, I get just over 3 hours (quite impressive in my book, given I could never get past 2.5 hours even when the laptop and battery were new).

Eddy

Eddy Young replied on :

In article d5e6zifrci2t$.xily677h47b2.dlg@redacted.invalid, zoara says...

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years. The warranty means nothing (you know that phrase "does not affect your statutory rights"? That's what it means). You could have told Apple to sort it... speak to Trading Standards.

When you wrote, "I'm an expert...," I took it in the figurative sense, but after reading about your troubles with Apple computers in the other threads, I have changed my opinion. You ARE an expert.

Out of curiosity, have you tried a PeeSee?

Eddy

Jaimie Vandenbergh replied on :

On 13 Apr 2007 03:18:34 -0700, Eddy Young eddy.young@redacted.invalid wrote:

I could not find a single authoritative source that clearly defines what "battery health" is, and the World Wide Web is, er, wide. So, I made up my own definition for it: the measure of how much charge the battery can hold compared to the maximum charge it was designed to hold.

Measuring the charge of a LiIon battery is not an exact science - the circuitry is calibrated against the charge/discharge cycle, rather than being empirically set, and the whole thing is temperature dependent too. The software that displays the %age is probably clever enough not to go over 100%...

Incidentally, with the "old" battery, I was down to about 1.5 hours of usage when it was not shutting down randomly; with this new battery, I get just over 3 hours (quite impressive in my book, given I could never get past 2.5 hours even when the laptop and battery were new).

Power saving in the OS may have improved in the interim - and battery technology also.

With turning off one core and reducing the clock speed, I can get over five hours out of my MacBook while using a wifi network. Fancy!

Cheers - Jaimie
Eddy Young replied on :

In article tvou135gmascin0v2u4lsnd11m1bg5npk4@redacted.invalid, Jaimie Vandenbergh says...

Power saving in the OS may have improved in the interim - and battery technology also.

With turning off one core and reducing the clock speed, I can get over five hours out of my MacBook while using a wifi network. Fancy!

According to a bright light on the World Wide Web, turning off one core actually increases energy consumption, go figure!

Five hours of battery on the first-gen MacBook Pro is pure utopia, I'm afraid.

Eddy

zoara replied on :

On 13 Apr 2007 03:31:22 -0700, Eddy Young wrote:

In article d5e6zifrci2t$.xily677h47b2.dlg@redacted.invalid, zoara says...

After experiencing the random shutdowns (without low battery warning) manifesting itself on my 13-month old MacBook Pro (yep, out of warranty by two weeks),

For future reference (I'm an expert in these things, heh) your consumer rights cover you for five years. The warranty means nothing (you know that phrase "does not affect your statutory rights"? That's what it means). You could have told Apple to sort it... speak to Trading Standards.

When you wrote, "I'm an expert...," I took it in the figurative sense, but after reading about your troubles with Apple computers in the other threads, I have changed my opinion. You ARE an expert.

Hur.

Out of curiosity, have you tried a PeeSee?

Yes, daily, at work. That's the one thing that keeps me hammering away at Apple to get a working Mac.

Oh, and over the easter weekend I stayed at a friend's place, and used his XP laptop to quickly look up the address for something. It took five (five!) minutes from pressing the power button to being able to visit a website. I don't want that kind of crap.

-z-
zoara replied on :

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:53:26 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:

The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!

Yay!

-z-
Sara Kirk replied on :

In article 1rxxpwosqwgjq$.jdxecs4cqhc0.dlg@redacted.invalid, zoara me17@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:53:26 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:

The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!

Yay!

-z-

Ta!. They still have the back-wires on, but as you predicted I don't notice them at all.

A small pic of my new (expensive) grin can be seen at:

http://www.sarlet.com/teeth.gif

I love it, love it, love it more.

zoara replied on :

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:29:06 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:

In article 1rxxpwosqwgjq$.jdxecs4cqhc0.dlg@redacted.invalid, zoara me17@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:53:26 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:

The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!

Yay!

-z-

Ta!. They still have the back-wires on, but as you predicted I don't notice them at all.

Good to hear. They were worth it for me; it was obvious my bottom teeth were still jostling for position a bit, and the back wire just kept things in check.

A small pic of my new (expensive) grin can be seen at:

http://www.sarlet.com/teeth.gif

I love it, love it, love it more.

Heh. Good!

-zoara-
Rexx Magnus replied on :

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:16:58 GMT, Eddy Young wrote:

According to a bright light on the World Wide Web, turning off one core actually increases energy consumption, go figure!

Five hours of battery on the first-gen MacBook Pro is pure utopia, I'm afraid.

Eddy

It does make it hotter in my experience. It shunts the load from two cores onto one, making it run faster than one core normally would run under moderate load.

As mine's no longer very noisy, I don't bother shutting cores off. Only time I have to do it is to run audacity.

Andrew Stephenson replied on :

In article 1hwh775.12wlc256d19r0N%danspam@redacted.invalid d.e.cohen@redacted.invalid "Daniel Cohen" writes:

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery. [...]

Best of luck. BTW/FWIW, I find it helps to accomplish each stage of the suing process, then put it out of your mind for the next N weeks, or however long it takes for a response. And, if it comes to Small Claims, be very particular about filling in the forms.

Andrew Stephenson replied on :

In article sarakirk-C2FFB1.12290113042007@redacted.invalid sarakirk@redacted.invalid "Sara Kirk" writes:

Ta!. They still have the back-wires on, but as you predicted I don't notice them at all.

A small pic of my new (expensive) grin can be seen at:

http://www.sarlet.com/teeth.gif

I love it, love it, love it more.

Cue theme from "Jaws"...

Sara Kirk replied on :

In article 1176472990snz@redacted.invalid, ames@redacted.invalid (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:

In article sarakirk-C2FFB1.12290113042007@redacted.invalid sarakirk@redacted.invalid "Sara Kirk" writes:

Ta!. They still have the back-wires on, but as you predicted I don't notice them at all.

A small pic of my new (expensive) grin can be seen at:

http://www.sarlet.com/teeth.gif

I love it, love it, love it more.

Cue theme from "Jaws"...

ohyes!

Tim Streater replied on :

In article 1hwh775.12wlc256d19r0N%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

zoara me17@redacted.invalid wrote:

Customer: "This [product] from [company] broke and it sucks. They won't sort it, what should I do?" Trading Standards: "Well, they should repair or replace it. Write a letter saying this, this and this [quoting of sales acts]. Let me know how it goes."

Customer writes letter

Company (notably not a call centre droid): "We got a letter from you about [product]. Send it to us and we'll repair it" Customer: "Nice one."

Sometimes the last bit doesn't go quite to plan and can involve trading standards directly contacting the company, or threats of legal action, or reneging of agreements, or repeated attempts at repair resulting in a claim for a replacement (by law the company can choose whether to replace or repair, but if a 'reasonable number' of repairs fail - that seems to be about three - then the customer is entitled to a replacement).

Trading standards (or their fighurehead, Consumer Direct) are bloody fantastic, I'll say that. Friendly, helpful, useful, reliable... bloody brilliant.

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery.

Piano, was it?

-- tim

Eddy Young replied on :

In article tim.streater-CD2D53.15221113042007@redacted.invalid, Tim Streater says...

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery.

Piano, was it?

LOL!

Jaimie Vandenbergh replied on :

On 13 Apr 2007 13:06:48 GMT, Rexx Magnus trashcan@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:16:58 GMT, Eddy Young wrote:

According to a bright light on the World Wide Web, turning off one core actually increases energy consumption, go figure!

Five hours of battery on the first-gen MacBook Pro is pure utopia, I'm afraid.

It does make it hotter in my experience. It shunts the load from two cores onto one, making it run faster than one core normally would run under moderate load.

Well, well - I just used a mains plug-through wattmeter to check, and doing nothing much with two cores the MB (c2d@redacted.invalid, 2gig, screen on full) bimbles along at 23-24W. Turning off one core it immediately shoots up to 27W. 2nd Core enabled, 23W again, repeatable.

CoolBook tells me that the c2d is still running at 1GHz and 0.95~1.05V either way. What a curious effect.

I wonder if it does something different when on battery power? I definitely got an extra half hour when I turned one core off, but it's perfectly possible that that was not a consequence of the core count but usage.

Cheers - Jaimie
Peter Ceresole replied on :

Sara Kirk sarakirk@redacted.invalid wrote:

http://www.sarlet.com/teeth.gif

I love it, love it, love it more.

Cue theme from "Jaws"...

Just when you thought it was safe to go into Bushy Park...

Peter Ceresole replied on :

Eddy Young eddy.young@redacted.invalid wrote:

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery.

Piano, was it?

LOL!

There was a lovely piece of German aviation slang- probably their equivalent od 'Wizard prang!'- which said of landing a plane that handled heavy, that it came down 'like a piano from the fourth floor'.

For all I know they still use it...

Daniel Cohen replied on :

Sara Kirk sarakirk@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1hwh775.12wlc256d19r0N%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery. It was a one 0ff piece, so replacment isn't possible. Five letters, beginning with a firendly one and ending with quoting the Sale of Goods Act have just been ignored. No response at all. They are defending the claim so we will see what their defence is. As far as I can see there are three possibilities: a technical error in my claim, an argument over the amount (which is an estimate, at present) or downright lies on their part. The third one would not at all surprise me.

Sounds like a bit of a nightmare - good luck! How much is it worth, if you don't mind me asking?

Cost 750 pounds. It was a set of drawers in a very unusal arrangment. Damage consisted of some sever scrapes to the wood - probably repairable, but quite likely one would still be aware the damage had occurred, and a missing handle - not one I could just pick up in a shop, and part of a pair (which in turn form part of a set of eight, but probably not necessary to replace all eight). I'm asking 150 pounds to cover a new pair of handles, cost of handyman's time and labour, and damages because the item delivered is not as sold to me. If he had responded properly at the start it would probably one have cost 20 pounds or so for one new handle (he would have had to order from Indonesia) and his repair costs for material. I might still have wanted damages but would not have pursued it as far as court had he been helpful.

By contrast I ordered a set of shelves from another firm (Shelfstore). somehow there was an error in what was put down on the invoice, which I hadn't noticed before delivery. So after delivery they took back the wrong items, provided the right ones at no extra cost, and as there was also an item I ordered that hadn't been included on the invoice, they threw that in also at no extra cost because of the mix-up. That one left me with a good feeling for the firm.

Daniel Cohen replied on :

Andrew Stephenson ames@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1hwh775.12wlc256d19r0N%danspam@redacted.invalid d.e.cohen@redacted.invalid "Daniel Cohen" writes:

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery. [...]

Best of luck. BTW/FWIW, I find it helps to accomplish each stage of the suing process, then put it out of your mind for the next N weeks, or however long it takes for a response.

Yes, I'm bad at that, but I do agree with you.

And, if it comes to Small Claims, be very particular about filling in the forms.

I think everything is ok, we'll see what their defence is.

Sara Kirk replied on :

In article 1hwivwr.8s786c1kg3fj6N%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

Andrew Stephenson ames@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1hwh775.12wlc256d19r0N%danspam@redacted.invalid d.e.cohen@redacted.invalid "Daniel Cohen" writes:

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery. [...]

Best of luck. BTW/FWIW, I find it helps to accomplish each stage of the suing process, then put it out of your mind for the next N weeks, or however long it takes for a response.

Yes, I'm bad at that, but I do agree with you.

And, if it comes to Small Claims, be very particular about filling in the forms.

I think everything is ok, we'll see what their defence is.

Hard to see what kind of defence they can come up with to cover that kind of damage. They'll come up with something though.

Daniel Cohen replied on :

Daniel Cohen danspam@redacted.invalid wrote:

Sara Kirk sarakirk@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1hwh775.12wlc256d19r0N%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

Currnetly I am suing a firm who damaged a piece of furniture in their delivery. It was a one 0ff piece, so replacment isn't possible. Five letters, beginning with a firendly one and ending with quoting the Sale of Goods Act have just been ignored. No response at all. They are defending the claim so we will see what their defence is. As far as I can see there are three possibilities: a technical error in my claim, an argument over the amount (which is an estimate, at present) or downright lies on their part. The third one would not at all surprise me.

Sounds like a bit of a nightmare - good luck! How much is it worth, if you don't mind me asking?

Cost 750 pounds. It was a set of drawers in a very unusal arrangment. Damage consisted of some sever scrapes to the wood - probably repairable, but quite likely one would still be aware the damage had occurred, and a missing handle - not one I could just pick up in a shop, and part of a pair (which in turn form part of a set of eight, but probably not necessary to replace all eight). I'm asking 150 pounds to cover a new pair of handles, cost of handyman's time and labour, and damages because the item delivered is not as sold to me. If he had responded properly at the start it would probably one have cost 20 pounds or so for one new handle (he would have had to order from Indonesia) and his repair costs for material. I might still have wanted damages but would not have pursued it as far as court had he been helpful.

By contrast I ordered a set of shelves from another firm (Shelfstore). somehow there was an error in what was put down on the invoice, which I hadn't noticed before delivery. So after delivery they took back the wrong items, provided the right ones at no extra cost, and as there was also an item I ordered that hadn't been included on the invoice, they threw that in also at no extra cost because of the mix-up. That one left me with a good feeling for the firm.

Update on this, and I would be interested in people's views.

I've just had his defence.

  1. He says he tried to phone me several times, but failed to reach me. I can't believe this as I have both an answering machine and BT 1571 in case I forget to turn the machine on. And also he could have written.

  2. He says he has the handle in the shop. I'm not sure how to respond to that, whether to ask the court to require him to bring it (if I proceed), or whether to try to get it from him in return for reducing the claim.

  3. He claims the scratches were there when I bought it. I am sure they weren't.

  4. Some of his defence is true but, in my opinion, irrelevant. Specifically, that he gave me a large discount (in view of special circumstances) when I bought it.

At the moment I feel I've spent so much time on this (and a small amount of court fees) that I might as well continue the claim for the experience.

Sara Kirk replied on :

In article 1hx2u0g.xch66g1r3fdweN%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

[snip furniture delivery woes]

Update on this, and I would be interested in people's views.

I've just had his defence.

  1. He says he tried to phone me several times, but failed to reach me. I can't believe this as I have both an answering machine and BT 1571 in case I forget to turn the machine on. And also he could have written.

  2. He says he has the handle in the shop. I'm not sure how to respond to that, whether to ask the court to require him to bring it (if I proceed), or whether to try to get it from him in return for reducing the claim.

Ask them to post it?

  1. He claims the scratches were there when I bought it. I am sure they weren't.

  2. Some of his defence is true but, in my opinion, irrelevant. Specifically, that he gave me a large discount (in view of special circumstances) when I bought it.

What were the 'special circumstances'? It's starting to sound like there may be more to this than meets the eye. It would be very easy for the shop to say the discount was to cover the damage.

At the moment I feel I've spent so much time on this (and a small amount of court fees) that I might as well continue the claim for the experience.

Not my idea of fun!

Andrew Stephenson replied on :

In article 1hx2u0g.xch66g1r3fdweN%danspam@redacted.invalid d.e.cohen@redacted.invalid "Daniel Cohen" writes:

Update on this, and I would be interested in people's views.

NB: I am not a lawyer. I don't even know anybody who plays one on TV or anywhere else, let alone in Real Life. These are just my reactions...

I've just had his defence.

Okay, he wants to argue. They often do, once the jig's up.

  1. He says he tried to phone me several times, but failed to reach me. I can't believe this as I have both an answering machine and BT 1571 in case I forget to turn the machine on. And also he could have written.

Agreed. He's wheedling. If your original plaint detailed his failure to communicate usefully, this defence is desperate hot air. There is an element of You vs Him -- see my answer to #3. It would have been good if one of your attempts to contact him had been by a Registered Delivery letter.

  1. He says he has the handle in the shop. I'm not sure how to respond to that, whether to ask the court to require him to bring it (if I proceed), or whether to try to get it from him in return for reducing the claim.

The handle was part of the goods but he failed to supply it. If he does indeed now have it, require that any settlement (leaving you with the Goods) include him sending the right handle to you, in good order.

  1. He claims the scratches were there when I bought it. I am sure they weren't.

Okay, that's basically You vs Him. But his failure to respond to your earlier approaches will count heavily against him. My guess is that the Court sees way too much BS of that sort from traders, as in my case vs Dabs.com: once the pressure is applied, suddenly they want to talk. You could respond that he had a chance to say that but failed to do so.

  1. Some of his defence is true but, in my opinion, irrelevant. Specifically, that he gave me a large discount (in view of special circumstances) when I bought it.

Yes, irrelevant. He was obliged to supply goods of merchantable quality and fit for their purpose -- unless you agreed to accept goods you explicitly knew were flawed, which seems not to be so.

At the moment I feel I've spent so much time on this (and a small amount of court fees) that I might as well continue the claim for the experience.

Right on. Assuming you still feel your case is trustworthy.

Daniel Cohen replied on :

Sara Kirk sarakirk@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1hx2u0g.xch66g1r3fdweN%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

[snip furniture delivery woes]

  1. He says he has the handle in the shop. I'm not sure how to respond to that, whether to ask the court to require him to bring it (if I proceed), or whether to try to get it from him in return for reducing the claim.

Ask them to post it?

He's local and I can easily collect now I know he has it. I think I will say that I intend to continue with the claim but will reduce it.

  1. He claims the scratches were there when I bought it. I am sure they weren't.

Actually, looking very closely at what he said, he says the scratches "must have been" there when I bought, because he says the damage could not have been caused by the delivery. As it was in the shop (an antiquey place) for a week, we could both be right, the damage could have been caused then.

  1. Some of his defence is true but, in my opinion, irrelevant. Specifically, that he gave me a large discount (in view of special circumstances) when I bought it.

What were the 'special circumstances'? It's starting to sound like there may be more to this than meets the eye. It would be very easy for the shop to say the discount was to cover the damage.

Yes, I can understand why you might feel that. The special circumstances, which I don't want to discuss in detail, is that there was a nasty and upsetting incident between my friend and another customer on the visit when we first looked at the item. He gave an ordinary reduction as most such shops do, and then an extra discount in view of that (and this is what he says in his defence).

Basically, as regards the scratches, there are two questions. Were they there when I purchased it? If not, how serious is the damage? Of course I think it is quite significant and he thinks it is trivial.

Daniel Cohen replied on :

Andrew Stephenson ames@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1hx2u0g.xch66g1r3fdweN%danspam@redacted.invalid d.e.cohen@redacted.invalid "Daniel Cohen" writes:

Update on this, and I would be interested in people's views.

NB: I am not a lawyer. I don't even know anybody who plays one on TV or anywhere else, let alone in Real Life. These are just my reactions...

Thanks a lot. This is helpful.

It would have been good if one of your attempts to contact him had been by a Registered Delivery letter.

Fortunately the final letter I sent him, quoting his responsibilities under the Sale of Goods Act, was sent as a Signed For letter.

At the moment I feel I've spent so much time on this (and a small amount of court fees) that I might as well continue the claim for the experience.

Right on. Assuming you still feel your case is trustworthy.

Thanks again.

Sara Kirk replied on :

In article 1hx3tuq.e0o0ps9avlxdN%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

Sara Kirk sarakirk@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1hx2u0g.xch66g1r3fdweN%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

[snip furniture delivery woes]

  1. He says he has the handle in the shop. I'm not sure how to respond to that, whether to ask the court to require him to bring it (if I proceed), or whether to try to get it from him in return for reducing the claim.

Ask them to post it?

He's local and I can easily collect now I know he has it. I think I will say that I intend to continue with the claim but will reduce it.

It still needs fitting though doesn't it?

  1. He claims the scratches were there when I bought it. I am sure they weren't.

Actually, looking very closely at what he said, he says the scratches "must have been" there when I bought, because he says the damage could not have been caused by the delivery. As it was in the shop (an antiquey place) for a week, we could both be right, the damage could have been caused then.

If it happened in his shop, after you had bought it but before delivery, then surely his insurance should cover it?

  1. Some of his defence is true but, in my opinion, irrelevant. Specifically, that he gave me a large discount (in view of special circumstances) when I bought it.

What were the 'special circumstances'? It's starting to sound like there may be more to this than meets the eye. It would be very easy for the shop to say the discount was to cover the damage.

Yes, I can understand why you might feel that. The special circumstances, which I don't want to discuss in detail, is that there was a nasty and upsetting incident between my friend and another customer on the visit when we first looked at the item. He gave an ordinary reduction as most such shops do, and then an extra discount in view of that (and this is what he says in his defence).

Heavens.

Basically, as regards the scratches, there are two questions. Were they there when I purchased it? If not, how serious is the damage? Of course I think it is quite significant and he thinks it is trivial.

Chris Ridd replied on :

On 2007-04-25 08:26:34 +0100, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) said:

Basically, as regards the scratches, there are two questions. Were they there when I purchased it? If not, how serious is the damage? Of course I think it is quite significant and he thinks it is trivial.

Have you got a quote to get it repaired to your satisfaction? Having a hard number is probably going to be useful here.

Cheers,

Chris

Stephen replied on :

On 12 Apr, 14:55, "Eddy Young" eddy.yo...@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 12 Apr, 14:41, Sara Kirk sarak...@redacted.invalid wrote:

Why do they bother printing a period in the warranty then?

It puts a lot of people off from claiming after that time. After the trials and tribulations expounded here, we now all know that doesn't count. There are many out there who don't, including those manning call centres.

-- Sara

Hmmm... Now, I'm curious. Who has/have successfully exercised their statutory rights in here? Is there a passphrase to get a reaction from the call centre droids?

Eddy

Me a couple of times:

(1) Buying the very versions of Apple Airport. I had found a bundle deal on an online retailer for something like =A3230 for the base station and an Airport card for my iMac. The order was confirmed by email, and then payment was confirmed by email. I was tracking the order that was out of stock, and showed the number of days to the next restock. The number went up a couple of times, then went to discontinued. I rang and said "What's going on?" or words to that affect, and they said they weren't doing the bundle deal any more, but I could buy the base and card separately at =A3200 for the base and =A390 for the card. I said that the order had been placed and accepted and therefore a contract to supply was implied, they said sorry, nothing they can do, would I like to cancel the order. I said no, but I would contact them again after seeking some consumer advice. I rang a trading standards office in Kingston, and told them. They said I was right about the contract, but at the time no cases had been tested at court based on fax or email communication, only by letter. They told me certain Consumer Act numbers I could quote. Having been a Friday afternoon, I didn't ring until Monday. "About my order for the bundle deal" I said, "Its OK, its in the post" they said! I still use it today.

(2) Sky : I got a Sky Digital installation put in about 3 years ago. Last summer the box gave out. I rang them up and asked them to fix it. "OK but because its out of warranty, it'll cost you a =A389 call out fee, and everything will be fixed within that price". "No it won't, you'll do it for nothing", said I. "No we won't" they said. "You will because firstly its not yet 6 years old, and secondly, if you don't you'll lose a =A349 a month customer, because I'd rather put =A390 towards having Freeview installed instead". "OK we'll do it for free, as a good will gesture, and just this once". It was fixed the next day.

Most companies nowadays can't afford bad press, never mind any legal obligations. Sky for instance thrives on word-of-mouth recommendation, and it's all too easy to spread bad reviews, with our world of online blogging and journalism.

zoara replied on :

On 25 Apr 2007 03:41:21 -0700, Stephen wrote:

(2) Sky : I got a Sky Digital installation put in about 3 years ago. Last summer the box gave out. I rang them up and asked them to fix it. "OK but because its out of warranty, it'll cost you a 89 call out fee, and everything will be fixed within that price". "No it won't, you'll do it for nothing", said I. "No we won't" they said. "You will because firstly its not yet 6 years old, and secondly, if you don't you'll lose a 49 a month customer, because I'd rather put 90 towards having Freeview installed instead". "OK we'll do it for free, as a good will gesture, and just this once". It was fixed the next day.

I love the phrase "good will gesture". I've even had to use it myself at a previous workplace. It basically means "Oh crap, you're right, we're wrong, but we don't want to admit it". Lovely stuff.

-z-
TheMekon replied on :

Daniel Cohen wrote:

  1. He claims the scratches were there when I bought it. I am sure they weren't.

If this were true, it would have been very foolish of him to have not recorded it on the invoice.

Daniel Cohen replied on :

Sara Kirk sarakirk@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1hx3tuq.e0o0ps9avlxdN%danspam@redacted.invalid, danspam@redacted.invalid (Daniel Cohen) wrote:

He's local and I can easily collect now I know he has it. I think I will say that I intend to continue with the claim but will reduce it.

It still needs fitting though doesn't it?

Should be easy enough to screw in to the hole where the original was. The other similar handles seem to screw in and out easily enough, though I have only turned them a little.

  1. He claims the scratches were there when I bought it. I am sure they weren't.

Actually, looking very closely at what he said, he says the scratches "must have been" there when I bought, because he says the damage could not have been caused by the delivery. As it was in the shop (an antiquey place) for a week, we could both be right, the damage could have been caused then.

If it happened in his shop, after you had bought it but before delivery, then surely his insurance should cover it?

Maybe, I guess that's his affair.

Daniel Cohen replied on :

TheMekon No.Mail@redacted.invalid wrote:

Daniel Cohen wrote:

  1. He claims the scratches were there when I bought it. I am sure they weren't.

If this were true, it would have been very foolish of him to have not recorded it on the invoice.

Very nice point! I shall use it as part of my statement.

Andrew Stephenson replied on :

In article k5jrgy97zxr5.z0v5v2xongce.dlg@redacted.invalid nettid1@redacted.invalid "zoara" writes:

I love the phrase "good will gesture". I've even had to use it myself at a previous workplace. It basically means "Oh crap, you're right, we're wrong, but we don't want to admit it". Lovely stuff.

Very useful to an offender when he/she/it fears establishing any kind of legal precedent, such as by inadvertently losing a court case. ;-)

Daniel Cohen replied on :

Andrew Stephenson ames@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article k5jrgy97zxr5.z0v5v2xongce.dlg@redacted.invalid nettid1@redacted.invalid "zoara" writes:

I love the phrase "good will gesture". I've even had to use it myself at a previous workplace. It basically means "Oh crap, you're right, we're wrong, but we don't want to admit it". Lovely stuff.

Very useful to an offender when he/she/it fears establishing any kind of legal precedent, such as by inadvertently losing a court case. ;-)

Yes, I am wondering about that in a case I have bought under small claims.

Basically, I say that there is a significant amount of damage to an item of furniture that was not present at the time of purchase.

he says the damage was present at the time of purchase, is small, and easily dealt with.

I am wondering whether to suggest to him that, since he considers it would be easy to deal with, he should come and do it (the shop is only a few minutes walk from me) as a goodwill gesture. That is, without his accepting that the damage was not present when I bought it.

But I probably won't suggest it to him, though I would accept if he offered. I doubt if his idea of dealing with it would in fact be good enough.