Currys wants me to goto manufactuer

[voodoo1102]

Just wanted to offer a Currys employee's view on this one.

If a customer has a problem with a TV, our first port of call is our help line - the same one we give out to customers. Depending on the make of the TV, this will then direct us to either the manufacturer, or their repair agent. Details of the fault are taken, and then either an engineer is booked, or an exchange authority number is given.

In the case of Samsung, we (as staff) have been told Samsung deal with their own products, though why this is, I'm not sure. It's possible we do not have access to specialist Samsung parts, or maybe Samsung prefer to use their own engineers on their products. Whatever the reason, when we advise the customer to contact the manufacturer, it is to speed up the repair or exchange process by removing us from the loop. Or that's the plan, anyways.

With regard to the "Whatever Happens" product support/extended warranty/whatever you want to call it, the repairs would still be carried out by the manufacturer if the item is within its manufacturer's warranty - the product support is supposed to entitle you to a priority service through the manufacturer, and binds them to our 21-day exchange policy. Some manufacturers won't exchange a product until 6 weeks or so have passed, which is why we try to sell our product support even though items are covered by manufacturer's warranty at the same time. It's meant to be a better level of service.

I'm not trying to defend Currys or anything. I hate the damn place and can't wait to get out of it. I'm just trying to explain why we refer people on to the manufacturer rather than direct them through us. They're not trying to shift responsibility - they're just directing you to the quickest and easiest route to resolve the problem.

My advice to the OP, if they haven't had their issue resolved yet, would be to contact Samsung as directed and see what Samsung will do. Cutting Currys out of the loop will save you a lot of time and effort, but by all means go back to the store if you can't get it sorted quickly. Don't forget to take your receipt and SERIAL NUMBER (it's on the back of the TV), coz we can't do anything without a serial number to give to Samsung.

[gyzmo]

The issue of simply referring the customer to the manufacturer has been addressed ad infinitum et ad nauseam. nice to get a view "from the inside" as it were. But where a store to do this, and the customer refused, the store would be held accountable. The buyer may be willing to do as the store says, but need not do if they so wish.

[clavileno]

Originally Posted by gyzmo

The issue of simply referring the customer to the manufacturer has been addressed ad infinitum et ad nauseam. nice to get a view "from the inside" as it were. But where a store to do this, and the customer refused, the store would be held accountable. The buyer may be willing to do as the store says, but need not do if they so wish.

If i may try to summarise things as they stand, since there are fimly entrenched viewpoints which aren't necessarily contradictory in anything but language!

If I buy a TV from ABC Ltd and a fault develops, I have statutory remedies available to me under the Sale of Goods Act (amongst other things). ABC Ltd must procure the remedy in that circumstance. The Courts have ruled that it is reasonable for ABC Ltd to refer to me to the manufacturer in order to have my TV repaired provided that ABC Ltd don't try to hide behind the warranty and deny that I have any other rights. This is not exactly the same as the advice on the Consumer Direct site, but it is fact that Courts have ruled this way.

In addition, if I have a manufacturer's warranty and (a) were ABC Ltd to go bust during the time the SOGA (etc) says they're liable, or (b) after that time but when the warranty is still valid, the manufacturer cannot decline to honour the warranty on the basis that I did not purchase anything directly from them and therefore have no contract with them.

However the Courts have also ruled that it is reasonable for the retailer to require me to provide proof that I purchased that specific TV from that specific retailer on a specific date. It is also reasonable for the manufacturer to require the same thing in order for me to prove I have a valid calim under the warranty. It is also reasonable for the manufacturer to require me to register a purchase using a warranty card in order for the warranty to be valid.

Finally, if ABC Ltd is a large company with many branches, the law does not specifically require a specific branch to resolve my problem, only the company as a legal entity. Therefore a customer support line is a reasonable substitute for an in-store service - I don't appear to have a legal right to any remedy in my local ABC Ltd branch, only from ABC Ltd as a whole.

I'm sorry if this doesn't agree with everybody's PoV, but I believe it to be a fair summary of the situation as it stands.

[gyzmo]

Could you please provide the citation for these court cases? Specifically the one allowing the seller to refer the consumer to the manufacturer.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by clavileno

It is also reasonable for the manufacturer to require me to register a purchase using a warranty card in order for the warranty to be valid.

Whilst I am not in a position to cite the relevant court cases, this is absolutely not true. There is no requirement to register in order to access a manufacturer's warranty - proof of purchase at the point of claiming is all that is required.

[clavileno]

Originally Posted by patdavies

Whilst I am not in a position to cite the relevant court cases, this is absolutely not true. There is no requirement to register in order to access a manufacturer's warranty - proof of purchase at the point of claiming is all that is required.

The Office of Fair Trading at their Consumer Direct site disagrees with you (link):

With some goods you may have a manufacturer's guarantee. If there is a registration card that needs to be returned to the manufacturer, make sure that the seller has filled in details of the purchase – otherwise the card might not be valid.

For the guarantee to be effective, you might need to ensure that you return the registration card to a stated address. Make sure you keep the documentation supplied with the goods that tells you how to make a claim under the guarantee.

So does the Trading Standards Institute (link):

A trader or manufacturer is under no obligation to provide a guarantee, and if they do, they can specify any time span, for example six months, twelve months or three years. They can also specify what is to be covered by the guarantee, and exclude certain parts, or wear and tear. They cannot, however, take away any rights you would have under the Sale of Goods Act.

A guarantee is whatever the provider of that guarantee wants it to be. Unless the terms of it are unfair (in law, according to the relevant acts) then they can specify whatever they like.

[clavileno]

Originally Posted by gyzmo

Could you please provide the citation for these court cases? Specifically the one allowing the seller to refer the consumer to the manufacturer.

I'm researching that point further and will get back to you. I know of cases in the lower courts, but I need to find specific (preferably online) cases I can cite for reference. I'll report back either way.

In the mean time, the SOGA of course says only that:

48B Repair or replacement of the goods



...


(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

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

I chose my language carefully in my original post. The effect of this clause is to force the seller to "procure" the remedy. There is no specific requirement for, say, a seller to have a repair department of their own.

So, extending this further, what does "repair" mean? It means, to coin a phrase, to "make it so". So let's consider this by examples.

1. I buy a TV, I call up the branch of ABC Ltd (the seller) I bought it from and say "it is broken". They tell me they don't have a repair facility there, but that I should call a head office number. Is this unreasonable? Generally, no. My contract is with ABC Ltd, and, whilst I'd prefer it if they transferred me, it isn't unreasonable to ask me to call the right department.

2. I buy a TV, I call up the branch of ABC Ltd (the seller) I bought it from and say "it is broken". They tell me they don't have a repair facility there, but that I should call a number for their appointed repairers. Is this unreasonable? Again, no, as they are providing me with the repair, only by paying a contractor to do it.

3. I buy a TV, I call up the branch of ABC Ltd (the seller) I bought it from and say "it is broken". They tell me they've appointed the manufacturer as their appointed repairer for this brand of TV, and that I should call a number for their appointed repairers (the manufacturer). Is this unreasonable? Again, no, as it differs not one iota in substance from example 2.

All of this is a long way from "seller says can't help, insists only manufacturer's warranty is a valid redress".

Anyhow, I will dig out the citations that I can find and post the results here.

[Darren]

clavileno

what people are trying to point out here is that, whilst using the manufacturer to repair products is ok, it is the stores/companies responsibility to arrange this, not the consumer.

here are details of a court case PC World - Are there being legal?

[gyzmo]

This point has been argued to death. i cannot believe that there is anything more to say on the matter. It seems that some people are possibilities, like the word "may" as definites ("must"). In law, that is a fatal mistake, and a very good reason why I see no need to post further on this subject.