Thread: Invoked the SOGA to DABS.com ... next step?

Hi all.

I brought a television from dabs in january 2008, since then it has developed a fault that causes itself to power cycle mid viewing. This happens roughly 1/2 times a week.

I have contacted dabs directly and explained the issue. I also stated that I was aware that the SOGA and EU Product Warranty Directive (Article 5) states that I am entitled to at least 2 years warranty for purchased products. They subsequently replied -

As far as the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) is concerned, there is an implied term that the goods have to be of 'satisfactory quality'. A key part of determining whether the goods in question are of 'satisfactory quality' is the issue of 'durability' - which does not cover fair wear and tear; as many goods can simply develop a fault(s) through normal use. Every product supplied has an finite life duration, and in short no party can expect certain goods to remain fault free for six years, a fact well established in consumer law.
However, we need to be satisfied that the goods in question have develop a genuine fault(s), and not one through fair wear and tear and/or misuse. You will no doubt be aware that the burden is on yourself to prove that the goods are genuinely faulty.
I appreciate that this may not presently resolve the situation, but if you could please send any evidence to substantiate your claim, then we would be more than willing to reassess the position.

I have a couple of issues with this:

1) I don't see why they have commented on durability when the fault has arisen within 18 months of purchase.

2) Is it really my burden of proof to prove the fault. The fault that clearly isn't wear and tear related and hardly misuse.

Any help on the matter and how to proceed would be greatly appreicated.

Jamie

1) Yes, if they are claiming the lifespan of the goods is correct and they have already lasted a reasonable time, it's the shorter of the expected lifespan and six years.

2) Yes, the burden of proof is on the purchaser to prove it after the first six months.

Originally Posted by ForestChav

1) Yes, if they are claiming the lifespan of the goods is correct and they have already lasted a reasonable time, it's the shorter of the expected lifespan and six years.

2) Yes, the burden of proof is on the purchaser to prove it after the first six months.

Ok so this means I guess getting the device sent away for analysis to prove the fault. I was hoping I could get hold of the manufacturer, Samsung, over the phone - explain the fault - and get some definition as to whether this fault could be induced.

You could get someone to you to look at it - manufacturers "recommended" people are usually expensive. You could try an independant company but it is best to get a recommended one. See if your Trading Standards dept has a scheme going that recommends companies who have agreed to apply the spirit and letter of the law- it will be called something like fair or safe trader. You might also want to call Richer Sounds. My local one inspects electrical equipment even if not bought from them and they were half the cost of anywhere else.

As a final "cheap" option, you could use something like res ipsa which is reserved for neglience claims. It basically is a claim that you have done nothing to cause the fault, therefore it must the TV. However, it is a rather weak claim as it's basically saying "cos I said so".