Data Recovery Case File · Second Fixes & Trade Handoffs · A Question About Value
You Should Not Be Paying Again for What You Already Hold
His enquiry asks something people rarely put so plainly. A dropped laptop where a previous provider "tried to recover the data from the hard drive but with limited success", and then: what would it cost to retrieve all of it, and what would it cost if you only retrieved the same amount they did. The second half is the sharper question, and the honest answer is that the first attempt's results should be an input rather than something to be repeated.
| Media | 750GB laptop hard drive following an impact — machine not starting; partial recovery achieved by a previous provider |
| Reported situation | Laptop dropped and failing to start · drive examined by a previous provider · partial recovery achieved with limited success reported · owner holding the recovered material · quotation sought for full recovery and for an equivalent partial result |
| Fault class | Impact damage with partial readability demonstrated — prior results defining what remains outstanding; extent of previous powering determinative of current condition |
| Equipment used | Prior recovered material treated as an input defining outstanding scope · previous powering and write activity established before any new attempt · laminar flow bench inspection with head and platter assessment before any spin attempt · imaging prioritised to regions holding outstanding content under capped timeouts |
The decode: how a prior partial result should be used
Why the earlier attempt is worth more than its results: it proved the drive can be read, at least in part. Partial success establishes that the device powers, presents and returns data — which is a considerable amount of information obtained already.
What "limited success" most likely describes: some regions returned and others did not. On an impact-damaged drive that pattern is characteristic, and it means damage confined to particular areas rather than spread across the whole surface.
Why he should not pay for a repetition: he holds what was recovered. Comparing it against what he expects to be on the drive defines the outstanding set, and that set is what the work should be aimed at.
How that changes the job practically: the imaging is ordered so that regions holding outstanding content are captured first. Areas already recovered are not the priority for a drive with limited reads remaining, which is a real saving of the resource that matters most.
Why the honest answer to his second question is a qualified one: reaching the same material again would cost broadly the same as reaching it the first time, because the difficulty is in accessing the drive rather than in the quantity retrieved. That is precisely why repeating it is the wrong objective — the value is in what was missed.
What determines whether more is reachable: the condition of the drive now, which is not the condition it was in then. A drive that has been powered repeatedly during an unsuccessful attempt has degraded further, and the regions that failed before may be harder now.
Why establishing what was done matters more than what was concluded: how many times it was powered, whether the drive was opened, and whether anything was written. A read-only attempt leaves the position broadly as it was; a clone attempt or a repair does not, and a good-faith account costs nothing to obtain.
Why the impact history sets the expectation: a drive dropped while running has heads driven into contact with surfaces at speed. Where that has scored the recording, the affected bands are gone permanently — and it may be that the previous provider reached everything that survives.
Why that possibility should be stated rather than glossed: it is a real outcome. If the outstanding material sits in damaged regions, no second attempt returns it, and he is entitled to know that before committing rather than after.
What the assessment therefore establishes first: whether the regions holding what he still wants can be read at all. That question is answerable before any recovery is commissioned, and it is the one that decides whether this is worth doing.
On the bench
Prior recovered material was treated as an input defining outstanding scope — partial success establishing that the device powers, presents and returns data, with the pattern indicating damage confined to particular regions, so comparison against expected content defines what remains and imaging is ordered to prioritise those regions. Previous powering and write activity were established before any new attempt, read-only work leaving condition broadly unchanged whereas cloning or repair does not. Inspection ran under the laminar flow bench before any spin attempt.
The outcome
The prior results used to define outstanding scope, previous powering established, and imaging prioritised to regions holding outstanding content. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT, 50% of parts and labour upfront with the balance only on successful recovery. The decode: you should not be paying to repeat what you hold. The earlier attempt proved the drive can be read in part, and comparing what came back against what you expect defines the work — which is the material that was missed.
After a partial recovery by someone else
Bring what was recovered with you, because it defines the job rather than being merely history. Compare it against what you expect the drive held, and the difference is the outstanding set that imaging should be aimed at — which matters because a damaged drive has limited reads remaining and spending them on material you already hold is waste. Ask what was actually done, not just what was concluded: how many times it was powered, whether it was opened, and whether anything was written. And be prepared for the possibility that the earlier attempt reached everything that survives, if the rest sits in damaged regions.
Bring what you have — call Easy Data Recovery on 028 9002 0144; prior results used to define outstanding scope, previous powering established first, imaging prioritised to the regions that were missed.
Request a quote online →
Our case files are drawn from genuine enquiries received by our laboratory over the past ten years, anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Each one describes the diagnostic and recovery procedure our engineers apply to that fault, using the equipment listed.