I clicked Guruaid and was pestered for months

I would like to echo your advice about avoiding Guruaid (‘What you must never search for on Google’, page 60, Issue 519). Years ago, when I was more naive about PC security and took more risks online, I always assumed the top result in Google searches was the best one to click. I didn’t realise they were adverts. Maybe it’s better known these days that Google makes most of its many through adverts.

I phoned Guruaid because I was having endless problems installing Windows updates. I was expecting a friendly service, like a computing equivalent of a local plumbing firm. But instead I was subjected to a ‘hard sell’ that the most shameless double-glazing salesman would be embarrassed by.

I may have been fairly ignorant about how to fix computer problems, but it was obvious that this ‘guru’ wanted to charge me a ridiculous amount of money. His tactic was to exploit my lack of knowledge, using loads of jargon that went right over my head. Every time I asked a question, he dismissed it saying it wasn’t important.

I was so stunned by how pushy he was that I handed the phone to my more tech-savvy son, who spent less than 30 seconds realising it was a waste of time. But foolishly I had given them my phone number at the beginning of the conversation. This led to many pestering phone calls over several months. I don’t want others to suffer like this, so I applaud Computeractive for bringing it to the attention of readers.

AThis is one of those difficult cases where the fault can look like the customer caused the damage. When the decision lies with a sales assistant without the requisite technical knowledge, retailers are far too eager to leave it at that.

But they shouldn’t. The Consumer Rights Act says that within the first six months of purchase retailers have to prove a fault was caused by the customer. A cursory once-over by a shop assistant as isn’t sufficient. su Retailers must mu thoroughly examineam exam an item, and then en show the results to the cucustomer if they ask for ththemthem. Our r investigation into Chris’s case shows why this is importaimportant.orta It’s been reported since 2014 that screens on some Galaxy Tab S2s were propronero to warping. Suggested exexplanations include an overheatioverheatingting processor. We’vwe’ve nott rereceived any response from Samsung, but Argos told us it’s still investigating Chris’s complaint. If it insists that Chris has damaged the tablet he can get it examined by an independent repairer. If it finds an inherent fault he should show this evidence to Argos. Should it reach this stage, we hope Argos would be persuaded by the evidence and then replace or repair the tablet, or refund Chris. It must also refund him what he paid to get the tablet examined.