Faulty television

[BillyS]

I'm looking for a little advice before I try and take this any further and would be extremely grateful for any opinions.

Background
I purchased a new £800 television from 'The Sony Centre' online in January this year. I put the new television up on the wall and very quickly found there was a fault (a loud intermittent buzzing noise). I immediately contacted the retailer, within 12 days but had no response, i kept sending chases and followups until finally nearly a month after my first attempt i threatened to take the case further I had a response. They were very apologetic and offered to send an engineer to reapir the TV. Another month went by before the engineer finally turned up and replaced the power supply. That evening we found the fault had not been rectified. I again asked for a reply but was again kept waiting for days before after more chasing i was told they would need to take the television away for repair.

The television has hardly been used since we purchased it (the buzzing is louder than the volume!!), so I asked that they replace it as the television was 'not fit for purpose'. I was told that as they had repaired it once LG would not accept the TV back and the only thing they could offer was another repair back at the engineers.

I originally paid for the television by credit card so sent the credit card company a fairly standard request rejecting the goods (supplying them copies of my communications with the Sony centre) and pointing out that i had not had a satisfactory response from the retailer. They spoke to the retailer and apparently are happy that they retailer have offered a repair and will not take the matter any further.



The television is clearly not working, having accepted a repair initially from the retailer can they now refuse to replace the unit on these grounds. If this is the case at what point can they give up trying to repair it or can i insist they replace the unit?

Who should i take the matter further with, the credit card company or the retailer or both. And what would you recommend as my next step.

TIA
Billy

[blitz]

Tell them you are rejecting the TV under the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), section 35. Due to the product not being of a satisfactory quality from purchase. Also under section 35 just because you have accepted a repair on the product does not mean you have accepted the goods, as such the product being rejected by their wholesaler cannot withdraw your right to reject the goods with the retailer. (I.e they cannot override your statutory rights).


(6) The buyer is not by virtue of this section deemed to have accepted the goods merely because—

(a) he asks for, or agrees to, their repair by or under an arrangement with the seller, or

(b) the goods are delivered to another under a sub-sale or other disposition.


Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended up to date to 1/10/2003
(section 35 is the one you want on this case, section 14 will outline faulty goods)

[gyzmo]

And don't forget if you paid for it on credit (and teh creditor is not Sony) they creditor is also liable!

[BillyS]

An update on the story so far, can anyone give any further pointers -

I sent in the suggested letter to the Sony Centre quoting the relevant section of the Sale of Goods act (thanks blitz), and received a response from them stating that they believed that offering the repair is good enough. I have also taken this up with the credit card company using a standard template and showing the breach of contract. They requested copies of the letters I sent to Sony and the responses which have been duly sent. I have today heard that Lloyds believe that a repair is all that is required of Sony and therefore they will take the matter no further.

Question - Who should I take this up with now. I have issued a letter before Action to Sony and also included a similar statement in my final communication with Lloyds. Which of the two should I take to court, and does anyone know the process I should take to progress this, any pointers to templates would also be appreciated.?

TIA

Billy

[barracad]

You can name both parties as joint defendants on the claim. If you've issued a letter before action to both of them, then do as you've promised and sue them.

[BillyS]

Can anyone give me any pointers on how i go about this, can i do this through MCOL, should I engage legal advice (being this is likely to go through small claims then i'd guess not as wouldn't get the cost back), and idea where i might get help on the wording, are there templates or similar i could look at?

TIA
Billy