[Foster]

Originally Posted by Flip77

Here is the judges findings and reasons:

"the goods were purchased on 23rd November 2007, and failed to operate on 15 May 2011 with a fault which was repairable (but possibly requiring further repair at a later time) at a cost of £60. I do not find that this indicates a lack of desirability to repair the goods nor of satisfactory quality within the meaning of the Act"

:| :| yeah it is repairable for a week then you have to repair it again :| I would if the judge knew what a PS3 was and what the YLOD was.

[Flip77]

I know. Let's face it 99% of things are repairable. Is it satisfactory that a fault has occurred due to a design floor. No. Is it satisfactory that I have to pay £60 every 3 months to keep my console in working order. No.

I believe I have grounds for appeal in that the judge has mis-interpreted the law and believes that a repairable item is classed as satisfactory in accordance with the act.

However I am not about to pay more money to the court, and from what I read it is advised to seek legal advice in order to appeal.

I will however keep all my documents in case Sony eventually cave like Microsoft did and I'll claim from Sony or Game retrospectively. Not holding my breath though!

[Futaura]

"Repairable" isn't really an accurate way of describing it, I guess - any repairs are of course only a short-term band aid because there is no way to restore a PS3 to full working order. My original engineer report, from the company that attempted to repair my console, essentially says my PS3 is beyond repair - the fix only lasted 2 weeks, and you'd be lucky for it to last 3 months.

It's certainly a very tricky situation that you are in. The trouble is, it is hard to get any concrete evidence on where the faulty lies, which isn't open for some kind of mis-interpretation not in the consumers favour. If I went to court, I fear that although I have a report stating it is not repairable, some other reason will be found to not find in my favour .

I'm still waiting on the Ombudsman again, but I'm not holding my breath either. Have you considered firing off a copy of your documents to SCEE's office in London with a covering letter? It'll probably be a waste of time, but you'll never know unless you try. I've been thinking of doing this, but I'm currently in dispute with Sony regarding 3 dodgy 320Gb Slim refurbs they've supplied me with, so I don't want to jeopardise that case. I really do not want to have to by a 3rd PS3 in 4 years .

[Futaura]

Today I received the final decision from the Financial Ombudsman. It concludes "Having considered carefully the evidence of Mr X and his engineer, I am not persuaded, on balance, that the console failed, two years and ten months after purchase, because of any defect inherent when it was bought". Not a surprise, but disappointing nonetheless. As part of the final decision was "Sony says that only a tiny percentage of the consoles it has sold have experienced such a problem, and it does not consider that they suffered from any inherent defect in design or manufacture".

Don't think I can be bother to take it to court, and will most likely now cut my losses. Just have to decide whether to sell it on ebay or not. Or maybe send the console to SCEE's London office and see what they do, if anything .