I purchased this PC on 25 November 2025…
I purchased this PC on 25 November 2025 as a Christmas present for my 12-year-old son. It was first unwrapped and switched on on the evening of 20 December 2025 before we travelled for Christmas. It failed on first proper use with a loud pop and burning smell. I contacted the seller the following day, 21 December 2025.
What followed was a two-month cycle of repeated failure, collections and shifting explanations.
The PC was collected on 29 December 2025. On 5 January 2026 I was informed by Travis that the system had been “stress tested for 30 minutes” and was working correctly. It was returned to us on 8 January 2026. My son resumed using it properly from 17 January. On 25 January 2026 it failed again with the exact same loud pop and complete loss of power. At that stage I requested a refund. It was collected again on 30 January 2026.
On 3 February 2026 I was told my plug socket could be “contributing to the problem.” The PC was returned again on 4 February despite my request for a full refund. On 9 February 2026 it failed for a third time, again with the same loud pop, this time in a different room and different wall socket. On 10 February I was told it “must be a power related issue at the property your end.”
Only after escalation through Amazon A-to-Z did the seller provide a written explanation stating that a “24-hour stress test” had been conducted and that “the PSU was burned due to a power issue on the customer’s end.”
There is a documented inconsistency between being told on 5 January that the system had been stress tested for 30 minutes and later asserting that a 24-hour stress test had been carried out following that same repair. The explanation evolved from repair, to suggestion of socket contribution, to definitive blame of my home electrics. No independent electrical evidence was provided. No other electrical items in my property have been affected.
A refund was eventually processed only after formal escalation. £138 was deducted on the basis that the PSU was allegedly damaged by a “power overload or electrical issue” and that such damage was “not covered under warranty.” The seller has framed this as a refund “outside the standard return window,” despite the issue first being reported on 21 December 2025 — the day after first use.
Having now reviewed other recent reviews for this company, I note a strikingly similar description from another customer (below) who reported plugging in their unit only to hear a “loud noise,” followed by disputes over fault and a partial refund after escalation. The similarity in failure description and the subsequent attribution of blame is difficult to ignore.
The practical reality is this: a Christmas present failed three times within seven weeks of initial use, including after PSU replacement and claimed stress testing. My 12-year-old has been left without it for months. The only resolution has come through initiating a chargeback with my credit card provider and submitting a formal complaint to Amazon.
I fully expect a standard response asserting that the unit was “fully tested,” that the issue was “customer-related,” and that they have been “transparent from the start.” The dated correspondence demonstrates how the position shifted over time and how responsibility was progressively redirected toward the customer after repeated identical failures.
Based on the documented timeline, the inconsistencies in testing claims, the retention of £138 while alleging unproven customer fault, and the pattern reflected in other reviews, I would strongly urge prospective buyers to exercise extreme caution. Do not assume that Amazon intervention will automatically result in a fair or complete resolution if something goes wrong.
I have lodged a further complaint with trading standards and encourage anyone else who had such difficult dealings with this business to do the same.