On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 08:52:39 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Not me, but they do surely have a duty under law at such a short time of
ownership.

As has already been mentioned, in consumer contracts there is a 6
month "reverse burden of proof" in the Consumer Rights Act. If
something fails during this time the onus is upon the seller to show
the damage was caused by the user. The user does not have to prove
the cause of the fault existed at the point of sale.

If Argos have said the faulty is not covered by the Warranty that is
correct. However the warranty is in addition to your rights under the
Consumer Rights Act, not in place of them. It will be worth reminding
Argos that you are claiming under the Consumer Rights Act, not any
warranty. Remind them that the goods are under 6 months old and the
onus is upon them to prove the damage was caused by mishandling and
ask them to show you what their proof is.

Note that if you have already told the seller the item was given to
someone else as a gift then you have no Consumer Rights Act rights as
you no longer own the goods.

It is likely the shop managers will only know the "not under warranty"
mantra so having gone through them you will need to escalate the
complaint to the head office.

It should be just a walk in and swap job.

The seller is entitled to an opportunity to inspect the item before
agreeing to do anything. Given that most cases of cracked screens are
caused by users it would be a foolhardy seller who simply swapped the
item without inspection by a technician.

Obviously they would look for
signs of misuse but as there would be none, I think any sane small claims
court would award in our favour with costs paid by Argos.

The vast majority of cracked screens are the result of mistreatment.
Lenovo would not have inspected the tablet, almost certainly it would
have been a specialist repair company under contract to Lenovo or
Argos. They would usually photograph the item to show the reason they
believe the damage is user inflicted and will have produced a brief
written statement. Their reason for rejecting the claim could be
things like marks on the bezel or some Lenovo tablets incorporate
accelerometers which may have a log. In the absence of any such
evidence and photographs your case is much stronger.

In my experience (which is primarily dealing with damage to mobile
phones) not many of cracked screen cases get to a small claims court
and of those that do the supplier who photographs the items and shows
why they think it is user damage wins the great majority of them.
(Although the idiocy of some buyers was remarkable. One took a case
to small claims saying it wasn't liquid which had damaged his phone
but beer).

It is also the case that some major sellers seem to have a policy of
making life difficult for claimants in the hope they will go away. In
these cases persistence at the right level often pays off.

If all else fails the OP might have house contents insurance. If so
claiming on that might be the best bet.