PCDIGA - Pcdiga ignores Lenovo's technical report and tries to charge unduly: violation of consumer rights

filed the complaint

May 13, 2025 (No response…)

Summary of the Situation:

I purchased a Lenovo laptop from PCDIGA in April 2025 mainly for work, as I am a software developer. After a defect, I contacted Lenovo technical support, who recommended that the equipment be completely replaced. However, PCDIGA refused to follow this recommendation, initiated the warranty process without my consent and even tried to charge 10% of the value claiming a "broken seal", despite all technical evidence to the contrary. This conduct violates my rights as a consumer and constitutes abusive practice.

1. Illegal Initiation of RMA without Consent (Art. 8, DL 84/2021)

Facts:

PCDIGA initiated RMA no. 4100118354 on 04/28/2025 without my signature on the consent form (Annex 1), violating the right to prior information (Art. 4, DL 24/2014).

2. Abusive Charge of 10% (Art. 18, Law 24/96)

Facts:

On 04/30/2025, PCDIGA attempted to withhold 10% of the value of the product (€899.90) under the allegation of a "broken seal" (Appendix 2), ignoring:

Lenovo's technical report (Case No. 2024871948), which concluded the repair service on 04/26/2025 (Appendix 3), recommending the replacement of the equipment after a technical evaluation.

As recorded in a call to Lenovo's technical support on 04/26/2025 (transcript available upon court order), I was suggested to immediately replace the equipment, a right that PCDIGA obstructed.

Lenovo, the manufacturer of the equipment, concluded the repair service by recommending replacement, as per Annex 3. Article 9 of DL 84/2021, which prohibits abusive charges under warranties. 3. Refusal to Comply with the Right to Adequate Repair (Art. 9 of DL 24/2014) Facts: Lenovo, the manufacturer of the equipment (NB IP Slim 5, S/N: MP2RCZZG), concluded that the product required total replacement after technical analysis (Annex 3). PCDIGA, however, decided to return the equipment to me claiming "there was no anomaly" (Annex 4), without presenting a detailed report or technical criteria, constituting objective bad faith (Art. 227 of the CPC). This conduct is not isolated. According to several public reports, PCDIGA adopts recurring practices of irresponsibility, evasive communication and undue refusal of guarantees, harming several consumers.

I am demanding full compensation for the damages and compliance with my rights as a consumer, under Law 24/96, DL 84/2021 and other applicable legislation.

PS: Portal da Queixa site screenshot. 75% Great 🤔