Thread: TV faulty after eleven weeks!!

Originally Posted by Chalkitup

Hello All,

A lady friend purchased TV in the last week of December 2008 from Currys.
Last week while she was watching it the screen went black and the words "No Signal" appeared.

Whatever we try to do it will not change. I tried the buttons on the side of TV and there is no reaction. Nothing happens when we try the remote.

So she went to local Currys and asked for refund and was told too late to get money back as over 28 days .... she must phone tech support.
This she did and after several phone calls they have now told her they will send a new remote in the post!!! But it can not be a faulty remote as when I bypass that and use the buttons on the TV there is still no response!

Because of the very poor attitude of Curry's staff and the fact the TV has gone wrong so quickly she wants her money back and buy a set elsewhere.

Please advise .....
We understand that Currys keep saying it is their terms that stress money back only in the first 28 days BUT Under the Sale Of Goods Act can she return TV and demand money back .... after all she only had the set eleven weeks!!

Thank you

Onwards and Upwards

Chalkitup

After a reasonable period of time (generaly assumed as 28 days for most goods) currys have the right to offer a repair, replacement or refund at the discression of the company in the event of a Breakdown or fault. It's economicaly sounder for them to offer you a repair because it's cheaper, which is what they will do once you've got this remote and it doesn't work. The only way around this is claiming that losing the TV for 28 days whist it's repaired would cause you undue inconvinence, which, with a TV being a luxury item, is going to be tough if not impossible.

A claim under the sale of goods act would require them to provide you with a remedy, which takes the form of (but is not limited to) a repair, replacement, or refund.

How exactly were the staff rude to you, maybe I can advise you how to best deal with them? I really dislike negative and rude staff, because they tend to end up tarring all us DSG employees with the same brush.

Anyway, I suspect this will have to be sent off for repair, but I wish you the best of luck getting this sorted. Also please bare in mind, they only have 28 days to repair your TV after which they must send you replacement vouchers or another TV.

Well what you do need to bare in mind, in currys more so than PCWorld, is that very few of the staff are technicians, therefor for some faults, it's better for the customer to go home, ring technical support and have them diognose the fault in the area the TV intends to be used. This is due to the number of TV's we get returned because people can't pick up a signal rather than faulty equipment.

I'm not saying they weren't rude to you, all I'm saying is that the act of them asking you to take the TV home and ring technical support isn't them being malicious or not wanting to deal with you. It's simply them putting you in the best position to find a fault with the TV and with the best people to help fix it.

As far as a refund goes, that's at the discression of the company, and company policy states that all TV's and large items must be sent away for repair if outside of a 28 day period, stores have no basis on which to challenge this unless an item is returned as missold. This 28 day policy in it's self is a loose and sometimes flawed interpretation of the SOGA, which does not state 28 days, but instead says a "Reasonable period". Although in this case your argument would not stand, as most people, would consider almost a month to be ample time within which to terminate and recend the contract. If it had been a matter of maybe a week or two over, you may have had a case in a court. Obviously I'm no solicitor but judging by what I've read around here, almost 3 months is way over a "reasonable period" for a TV.

As stated above, any claim under the SOGA, even if it's unfit for purpose, allows the retailer a chance to correct this with a number of remedies (aka: Repair, replace, refund.), so as long as they are making an attempt to correct the situation without causing you undue inconveniance, they aren't doing anything wrong.

sorry ray but thats incorrect

1.S.48B (1) Repair or replacement


S.48B provides that the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace the goods at the sellers expense. The seller is required to do so within a reasonable time. If the buyer makes this request they lose the right to reject the goods unless the seller does not comply within a reasonable time. The seller need not repair or replace the goods where this would be impossible or disproportionate to do so.

the seller has the chance to repair or replaced if they cannot do this in a reasonable length of time or it is impossible to do then the OP can request a refund

Originally Posted by labrat

sorry ray but thats incorrect

1.S.48B (1) Repair or replacement


S.48B provides that the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace the goods at the sellers expense. The seller is required to do so within a reasonable time. If the buyer makes this request they lose the right to reject the goods unless the seller does not comply within a reasonable time. The seller need not repair or replace the goods where this would be impossible or disproportionate to do so.

the seller has the chance to repair or replaced if they cannot do this in a reasonable length of time or it is impossible to do then the OP can request a refund

Cheers labrat.

Originally Posted by raydetinu

Ren you are so WRONG! this a major fault and OP is entitled to a full refunf and should insist on one under SOGA in the first six months it is up to the retailer to prove the fault was not in inherent. It is up to the op if they wish to accept a repair or refunf or replacement. Take it pack and ask for a refund or get them to send engineer around to pick it up. SOGA covers you for up to six years remember, pro rata for useage.

Faults being inherent only open the door to a free remedy - repair or replacement.

The six months thing only shifts the burden of proof. The remedy (once fault has been established) is identical.

Originally Posted by labrat

sorry ray but thats incorrect

1.S.48B (1) Repair or replacement


S.48B provides that the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace the goods at the sellers expense. The seller is required to do so within a reasonable time. If the buyer makes this request they lose the right to reject the goods unless the seller does not comply within a reasonable time. The seller need not repair or replace the goods where this would be impossible or disproportionate to do so.

the seller has the chance to repair or replaced if they cannot do this in a reasonable length of time or it is impossible to do then the OP can request a refund

Ooh now we are getting complicated. This is under part 5A which is headed "additional rights" - emphasis of additional. There is nothing in the Act which gives a loss of right to a refund if a repair is requested. Indeed, the House of Lords have confirmed this on several occasions. However, the goods have been accepted, so recission under s. 14 would be very unlikely. Part 5A allows for reduced price or recission if proportionate and reasonable time for replacement or repair is refused or impossible.

Originally Posted by Chalkitup

Hello All and thank you for your help,

Wow ..... read all the posts ..... had a cup of tea ...... read them again ....

Confused!!!!!:grin:

What should she do??? ..... take it on the chin and have Currys repair it in their own time frame or go in shop and demand cash back?

Onwards and Upwards

Chalkitup

Personaly, I would have them repair it. By the time you've argued with them, been stonewalled then raised a small claim, they could have had it repaired.

Write in quoting 48b of SOGA, but ask for a "remedy" instead of a repair or replacement (if you say a repair for example. they may do that when they would have otherwise replaced it, so don't limit yourself).

Originally Posted by raydetinu

If it a major fault, the goods are not fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality and a refund or replacement is your right. The buyer has the right to a replacement! if anything goes seriaosly wrong in the first six months ( reasonable time for a television/fridge/car etc ) not so for say shoes. The 28m days limit applied by such stores infringes on your statutory rights and is wrong. Insist they replace the TV or you will take them to court. Argos replced mine after 4 months, they said bring it back and pick up a new one. Also just got the cost for most of the repairs ( engine went ) for my new ( 9 year old car) paid for by the dealer after 11 months after purchase, after threatening to take him to court: by the way barclaycard paid the rest as I paid by credit card.
know your rights and stick to them; dot let them fob you of.

Ahah.. The exact peice of legislation has been quoted yet you still insist that he can have a replacement/refund. Your advice is misleading, you've been informed of this, yet still you continue.

Quite simply, it's up to currys if they want to repair, replace or refund. And the policy of the store is to repair, therefor, unless they cannot repair it, or cannot repair it in a reasonable amount of time or somehow the OP convinces them to change their minds/policy. The OP will not recieve a refund or exchange.

This is perfectly legal because roughly 28 days is considered a reasonable time to recend the contract of sale, meaning he would be entitled to an automatic refund or exchange. almost 3 months is way, way over this period.

You can insist on a refund or exchange all you like, but currys are well aware that they have the right to repair. Take it to court, and all they'll say is "we offered a repair to remedy the situation and the customer refused". And you'll get nothing but court fees.

Originally Posted by raydetinu

The buyer has the right to a replacement! if anything goes seriaosly wrong in the first six months

[citation needed]

There is little point in arguing over whether 28 days is reasonable or not. As we know, the law prescribes the undefinable "reasonable length of time". 10 days may be reasonable, but then again, 2 months may be reasonable depending on the circumstances. In that sense, it can be seen as a restriction of rights and really such signs should not be put up.

Originally Posted by ForestChav

[citation needed]

If the costs of repair outstrip the cost of replacement, then a replacement would be the sellers prefered choice.

Originally Posted by gyzmo

There is little point in arguing over whether 28 days is reasonable or not. As we know, the law prescribes the undefinable "reasonable length of time". 10 days may be reasonable, but then again, 2 months may be reasonable depending on the circumstances. In that sense, it can be seen as a restriction of rights and really such signs should not be put up.

In an appeal case over what constitutes a resonable time, the appeal judge said - "What is a reasonable time in relation to a bicycle would hardly suffice for a nuclear submarine."

So it would depend on the merits of the purchased product and the price paid.

Oh I remember seeing that somewhere - gonna dig my cases out!

Originally Posted by gyzmo

Oh I remember seeing that somewhere - gonna dig my cases out!

Clegg v Olle Andersson

Centered on if time had run out to reject. But this was for something new that wasn't exectly to description and if it had been accepted.