“Too many USB devices connected to PS5” error - help/advice appreciated, thanks!

bruce-leroy

Distinguished Member
What did Sony say to your query? I know in Malaysia if you registered your PS5 they were giving an additional 3 months free of warranty.

I haven‘t been in contact with Sony - I don‘t think I got an additional 3 months warranty from them unfortunately.

Ok, I’ve been in work over new years so have only just had chance to look at this again. I have not sent off any further emails but have drafted another one that is less nice, and hopefully covers all the points (particularly relating to consumer law) that I should be emphasising (and see below for a time stamped screenshot of the known bug/error issue that can cause a PS5 malfunction in the worst case scenario):

———-

Dear Carrie,

Thanks for your reply. I have very reasonably requested for a repair under warranty given the circumstances whilst your response is extremely unreasonable.

I actually received the PS5 console (please see attached screenshots for emails to confirm this) from Currys via DPD courier on 8th December 2020. My warranty starts from the date of official receipt (under online/long distance selling regulations) not the date of purchase.

The PS5 malfunctioned on Friday 24th Dec 2021 (issue was reported Tues 28th December 2021 - please refer to time stamped screenshot of the malfunction).

This equates to console being 16 days past warranty, or technically 11 days past the standard warranty from the date of reporting issue when you factor 365 days in a year. Also considering that I would have 2 years standard warranty in the EU, which the UK was part of when the console was purchased. Therefore you are being very unreasonable to insist that I require a diagnostic report before you will consider repairing the console.

Based on The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Section 9 - Goods to be of satisfactory quality:

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of —

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant)


The quality of goods (PS5) has not been satisfactory taking into the account the price paid of £449.00 and developing a documented malfunction in just over 12 months


(3)The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;

(e)durability


I reiterate, considering the PS5 is a premium product costing £449.00, the goods supplied by Currys has not been fit for purpose nor has it been durable in developing an malfunction from a known error in just over 12 months.

I feel you have not considered my screenshot picture provided showing the known malfunction, nor the online evidence corroborating the screenshot evidence. From PlayStation Universe website:

No piece of technology on the planet is immune to having the odd hiccup, and the PS5 is no exception, with bugs and errors of its own, and this guide will show you how to fix the “Too Many USB Devices Connected To PS5″ error that can potentially pop up on your screen

(Source:Guide: How To Fix "Too Many USB Devices Connected To PS5" Error - PlayStation Universe)

This known error has resulted in the very worst case scenario of making my console currently unusable and requiring repair. I should not have to first incur expenses to obtain a qualified engineer’s diagnostic report to confirm this when I have already provided ample evidence of the issue. The screenshot picture evidence and PSU website article proves this is a PS5 console internal hardware technical issue and not something that is caused by neglect or wear and tear.

If you do not have the authority to deal with this, please escalate this matter to a senior agent. If Currys dismiss my valid claim I will seek assistance from my credit card provider under The Consumer Credit Act Section 75 and/or present my case to The Small Claims Court. I await your response.

Best regards,

170F368D-6573-4385-85A7-31E47B74D291.png
 
Last edited:

TheHighFlyingBirds

Distinguished Member
Looks good @bruce-leroy. However, I would remove the text "Therefore you are being very unreasonable to insist that I require a diagnostic report before you will consider repairing the console." Looking at the regs, it is up to you to prove a fault after 6 months, so would avoid making this statement.

Instead, I would emphasise the durability aspect, as I would expect a premium console to last for the duration of the console generation, i.e. approximately 6-7 years, as opposed to 13 months.
Edit: before making any changes I would wait for others input / suggestions.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
As I implied intially, the onus is indeed upon you to prove the issue isn't a result of anything you've done. The manufacturer's warranty would have been more ameanable towards you in this respect, but that has expired and would have nothing to do with your mandatopry consumer rights to which Currys are techinally obligated to abide by and trade under. THe law requires you to provide prroof so as suggested, I'd not make an issue ogf Currys actually suggesting you provide it.


I'd personally still be trying to get Sony to accept respomsiblity directly as opposed to trying to deal with Currys. Sony are far more likely to be sympathetic towards you and your predicament than Currys. If contacting Sony though, you would be appealling to their generousity so do not threaten them with anything because they are not liable in such cases. The retailer is the party responsible not the manufacturer.
 
Last edited:

nvingo

Distinguished Member
If contacting Sony though, you would be appealling to their generousity
:D :D
Whatever method of 'purchasing' software for the console, that is where Sony make their profit - the console purchase itself is a 'loss leader' (sold under price to get the customer on board for future purchases).
If the console ceases to be used (dead, not repaired or replaced), the user will cease to subscribe to the software service or make software purchases.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
:D :D
Whatever method of 'purchasing' software for the console, that is where Sony make their profit - the console purchase itself is a 'loss leader' (sold under price to get the customer on board for future purchases).
If the console ceases to be used (dead, not repaired or replaced), the user will cease to subscribe to the software service or make software purchases.


Regardless, it isn't Sony who sold the console to the customer. They are not legally obligated to do anything. If they agreed to look at the console, repair it or indeed preplace it at this point in time then it would be a gesture of goodwill.


The close proximity of the issue arising to the expiry date of their warranty may stand the OP in good stead if he contacts them directly though? He would be asking and not demanding Sony look at it though.
 

bruce-leroy

Distinguished Member
Thank you all. I’m trying to strike the right balance. Being nicey nice and appealing to Currys goodwill did not work.
 

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
Sorry I didn't read the bit about the draft.

So the start date is date of delivery and is still under the CRA.

Not sure there have been any test cases on the 2 year EU element as most EU law was merged into UK law but the Consumer Rights Act in theory gives you more protection.

As I implied intially, the onus is indeed upon you to prove the issue isn't a result of anything you've done.

Can you point to the section of the legislation that states that, please?
 

bruce-leroy

Distinguished Member
Looks good @bruce-leroy. However, I would remove the text "Therefore you are being very unreasonable to insist that I require a diagnostic report before you will consider repairing the console." Looking at the regs, it is up to you to prove a fault after 6 months, so would avoid making this statement.

Instead, I would emphasise the durability aspect, as I would expect a premium console to last for the duration of the console generation, i.e. approximately 6-7 years, as opposed to 13 months.
Edit: before making any changes I would wait for others input / suggestions.

Thanks for this, not had to deal with this before so any tips on what to add or remove is most appreciated.
 

TheHighFlyingBirds

Distinguished Member
Sorry I didn't read the bit about the draft.

So the start date is date of delivery and is still under the CRA.

Not sure there have been any test cases on the 2 year EU element as most EU law was merged into UK law but the Consumer Rights Act in theory gives you more protection.



Can you point to the section of the legislation that states that, please?
Cant find the exact section in the regs but looking at the gov website See Accepting returns and giving refunds: the law
It states
Repairs and replacements
If a customer has ‘accepted’ an item, but later discovers a fault, you may have to repair or replace it. The customer can still reject the item after it’s been repaired or replaced.

A customer has accepted an item if they’ve:

told you they’ve accepted it (having had enough opportunity to inspect the item before confirming they’ve received it)
altered the item
You must repair or replace an item if a customer returns it within 6 months - unless you can prove it was not faulty when they bought it.

You can ask a customer to prove an item was faulty when they bought it if they ask for a repair or replacement after 6 months.

Edit
I hadn't originally realised there was an onus of buyer to prove the fault. Hence I would be going for the durability angle as it should last longer than 13 months.
 

shoemaker666

Distinguished Member
I thought the standard 1 years warranty is a manufactures warranty so isnt that sonys job not currys.

I dont think you will get anywhere with currys
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Can you point to the section of the legislation that states that, please?


In the first six months from when a consumer buys something, the onus is on the seller to prove it was of satisfactory quality when the consumer received it. After this period has expired, the onus is on the buyer/consumer to prove otherwise.

It is why Currys are asking that evidence be provided to support what the OP is saying. They know their rights as a retailer. THey should do given the vast number of consumer complaints placed against them. Watchdog loves them, Matt Allwright would be unemployed without them

I thought the standard 1 years warranty is a manufactures warranty so isnt that sonys job not currys.

I dont think you will get anywhere with currys


The OP's issue start just ouside of his manufacturer's warranty expiring. Note that a manufacturer's warranty is not instead of your statutory rights as a consumer. It is a gesture of goodwill by a manufacturer the manufactuerer grants you on top of your rights as a consumer written into law. You'd not be dealing with the manufactuer if persueing your consaumer rights anyway. You bought the goods from the retailer and not the manufacturer so ythe retailer is the party subject to your consumer rights.
 

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
Edit I hadn't originally realised there was an onus of buyer to prove the fault. Hence I would be going for the durability angle as it should last longer than 13 months.

There are different ways to claim and it was more the specific part of dante01's post where afaik I know there is nothing that states in the legislation you must disprove misuse.

As I implied intially, the onus is indeed upon you to prove the issue isn't a result of anything you've done.

You don't have to get an expert opinion either as again the law doesn't state it.

Some other interpretation from here:


However, there are methods we can use to work out whether a fault was present at the time we bought the item:

  • Ask a local repair shop or independent expert to produce a report confirming the defect
  • Collect evidence from forums or social media about other people struggling with the same issues


There seems to be various guidance stating after 6 months then it is up to the consumer to prove the fault was present from day one. This seems to then make it ridiculously challenging to prove:

  • That after a given component was faulty on day one
  • Durability - how long something lasts isn't necessarily a function of a fault being present on day one - there was a case, which I can't find, involving a printer whereby it failed after 3(?) years but had only done a quarter of the expected print cycle. It was won on the basis of that it had not been fit for purpose even though it only had a 12 month warranty. This afaik was under the SoG act though.

Let's look at actual the legislation in (Consumer Rights Act 2015) as that's the law and not guidance from websites.

Section 9 Goods to be of satisfactory quality​

(1)Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

(3)The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;

(b)appearance and finish;

(c)freedom from minor defects;

(d)safety;

(e)durability.

So as pretty much everybody has agreed a PS5 should last considerably longer than 13 months.


Section 19 Consumer's rights to enforce terms about goods​

(1)In this section and sections 22 to 24 references to goods conforming to a contract are references to—

(a)the goods conforming to the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14,

(b)the goods not failing to conform to the contract under section 15 or 16, and

(c)the goods conforming to requirements that are stated in the contract.

(2)But, for the purposes of this section and sections 22 to 24, a failure to conform as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (c) is not a failure to conform to the contract if it has its origin in materials supplied by the consumer.

(3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer's rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);

(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

This is the first six-month section so basically any failure in the first 6 months is treated as if failed on day one. However, it does not state you have to prove the opposite i.e. the fault was there on day one.
(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

The right to repair

Section 23 Right to repair or replacement​

(1)This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

(3)The consumer cannot require the trader to repair or replace the goods if that remedy (the repair or the replacement)—

(a)is impossible, or

(b)is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

(4)Either of those remedies is disproportionate compared to the other if it imposes costs on the trader which, compared to those imposed by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract,

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined taking account of—

(a)the nature of the goods, and

(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

(6)A consumer who requires or agrees to the repair of goods cannot require the trader to replace them, or exercise the short-term right to reject, without giving the trader a reasonable time to repair them (unless giving the trader that time would cause significant inconvenience to the consumer).

(7)A consumer who requires or agrees to the replacement of goods cannot require the trader to repair them, or exercise the short-term right to reject, without giving the trader a reasonable time to replace them (unless giving the trader that time would cause significant inconvenience to the consumer).

(8)In this Chapter, “repair” in relation to goods that do not conform to a contract, means making them conform.


It might be there somewhere in the legislation but somebody please help me out on this one.
 

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
I dont think you will get anywhere with currys

You will be as they are liable.

In the first six months from when a consumer buys something, the onus is on the seller to prove it was of satisfactory quality when the consumer received it. After this period has expired, the onus is on the buyer/consumer to prove otherwise.

Please don't keep quoting recirculated posts even gov.uk looks a bit ropey.

Here is a relevant section

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or


The last bit might give some retailers protection against somebody deliberately damaging it but in this case, you couldn't prove something in a sealed box is working as expected (which I appreciate isn't relevant in this case).
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Again, you keep talking as though Currys are not accustomed to this. They know exactly what they are doing when asking the OP to go get proof as to what he has sufggested to them.

They are utter bastards and have a well deserved reputation for being a right royal PITA as far as returns are concerbed.

They are not being difficult because they don't know the law or because they are not aware of your's or their rights, they are being difficult because they are fully versed and aware of those rights.
 
Last edited:

nvingo

Distinguished Member
It's lucky for Sony that they've only supplied (in this instance) a £450 games console and not a £40K motor vehicle, as for a fault of this magnitude (rendering a used-as-anticipated article unusable), they would have to, for maybe ten years from last sale, trace all the current owners and request the articles back for correction, whether they had already become unusable or not. And likely compensate people who had lost out by giving up articles that had been disposed of as being unusable.
 

Spacemen12

Active Member
I use to fix stuff like this years ago, 9 times of to 10 the USB port had being damaged some how and the pins inside would be touching and causing a short.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Maverick UK Premiere IMAX Review + Top Gun, Tom Cruise, Tony Scott and 4K + Movie/TV News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom