Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I'm new to the forum, although i've been reading the threads for a few months, great site by the way.
I need some advice regarding my Samsung camcorder, i bought it 2 years ago from Currys with the standard 12 month warranty, it's been used no more than 20 times in that whole period.My wife and i are expecting our first child in February so got the camcorder out to start videoing the changes to wife etc, anyway the camcorder now dosent work, i've checked online and it seems to be the CCD image failure that a lot of cameras have.I took the camera back to Currys who said that as its not in warranty anymore it will cost me £109 to diagnose the problem, if i dont go ahead with the fix then the £109 is non refundable! if i go ahead with the fix then it comes of the final repair bill (nice of them)!
Anyway my question is, with the amount of times the device has been used over the 2 year period, do i have a case to get them to repair the camera? is there something under the sale of goods act that i can state to them?
No - it would be so difficult to prove, you really have to start using the item fully and if it fails there's not a problem as the warranty will pick it up. Following your (not unreasonable) suggestion, why shouldn't Sony fix my 20 year old Betamax machine that I've only used for about 12 hours in total?
The good-ish news, is that the £109 fee you were quoted should also include the cost of a standard repair, there should be nothing more to pay if it's just a CCD swap. However it is worth checking that it's not Mastercare (Curry's own in-house repair outfit) as nothing would surprise me about them. Email Samsung UK, or check their website for non-warranty returns. I know Sony charge £110 for a basic repair of a camcorder, so there in the ballpark. At least after the arrival of your new family member, you'll have no excuse not to thrash it fulltime! Congeatulations on your soon-to-be-extended family!
The manufacturer's warranty is in addition to your statutory rights, it does not replace them.
The SOGA states that the item should be fit for the purpose, and of reasonable quality. Clearly if it is only 2 years old then this is not the case.
Go back to Currys and tell them this.
Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.
"Some people say The Stig chews on spark plugs and drifts while walking. Some say he is terrified of ducks, and that there is an airport in Russia named after him. All we know is that he is really barracad from The Consumer Action Group" - Jeremy Clarkson (allegedly)
We do have to be realists here - how would the OP prove or indeed enforce any action. For all Curry's knew it was being used daily for a wedding video-hire business. What is right, and proving same are more complex that you're letting on!
Well I don't know how much the camcorder cost, but I am guessing it would have been at least a few hundred pounds. If I am spending that amount of money on a piece of equipment, I would expect it to last longer than 2 years regardless of what I am using it for - there is nothing complex about that.
Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.
"Some people say The Stig chews on spark plugs and drifts while walking. Some say he is terrified of ducks, and that there is an airport in Russia named after him. All we know is that he is really barracad from The Consumer Action Group" - Jeremy Clarkson (allegedly)
However your expectations have to be taken into consideration by the retailer in that if it was working well and without complaint for over a year (or two years whever this EU change comes in) then a rebuff along the lines of 'fair wear and tear' is hard to disprove, unless there is an internal 'usage meter' than can be accessed. With the countdown to February already underway I think the OP has a better chance of having a working camcorder with another yea''s guarantee for £100 - or nothing to record the new arrival....
If the camera doesn't work, that's not "wear and tear", that is a faulty item.
Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.
"Some people say The Stig chews on spark plugs and drifts while walking. Some say he is terrified of ducks, and that there is an airport in Russia named after him. All we know is that he is really barracad from The Consumer Action Group" - Jeremy Clarkson (allegedly)
Sorry, I disagree - after 2 years, 'wear and tear' is very much a consideration, as one leafd on to the other. A camera that is 1 day old and just out of its box can have its CCD wrecked by pointing it at the sun. No warranty will cover for this - and is the equivalent of dropping it in a bucket of water. Assuming you agree this latter case is a non-starter of a successful claim, you appear to suggest that the first might not be (it causes the CCD to stop working). So - after 2 years, not even the retailer is going to move on this.
So you're saying if he tried to return the camera the day after he bought it they still wouldn't do anything about it? That's nonsense.
Maybe you're right and the retailer would do nothing about it, but when it went to court they would have to do something about it.
I suggest you read up on the SOGA to understand consumer rights. There are some quite useful summaries on the Trading Standards website to save you reading through the whole thing.
Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.
"Some people say The Stig chews on spark plugs and drifts while walking. Some say he is terrified of ducks, and that there is an airport in Russia named after him. All we know is that he is really barracad from The Consumer Action Group" - Jeremy Clarkson (allegedly)
Oh dear - it's NOT nonsense, it's a FACT! Misuse is one of the primary exclusions of any Warranty, and SOGA, and notwithstanding your standing within the CAG, I remain incredulous that you think that manufacturers or dealers are remotely liable to a consumer if an item is not used correctly. A digital camera or camcorder with a burnt-out CCD (becasue it was pointed at an inappropriate light-source) would not result in a no-fee replacement, unless as a goodwill gesture. In this situation a Consumer HAS NO RIGHTS, and advice like this is giving consumers false hope.
As we've wandered a bit OT, wanna move it to the Bear Garden, as I'd be interested in which sections of SoGA and Trading Standards advice support your theory - as it's not relevant to this thread.
Thanks for the replies, i can see what you are both saying, do i go back to the retailer and go through a very slow process of who is right and wrong, or do i just use the £109 fix fee and buy a new one i have seen for £140
Hi Dom - as you can see from the debate it's a hot potato with a split as to the course of action. As I see it, you aim is to have a family video not a product stuck in a repair shop. If it REALLY only costs £149 for a replacment then go for it - use it continuously from the delivery room to the graduation..... but just don't point it at the sun!
It is only you who is suggesting misuse, I am giving OP advice based on the fact that he is indeed telling us the truth and has not misused the item. I would never suggest that somebody tries to use the SOGA in their favour if the item was misused, and it is only you who seems to be discussing misuse of the item.
I stand by my original comments, if the camera has been used correctly it should last longer than 2 years.
Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.
"Some people say The Stig chews on spark plugs and drifts while walking. Some say he is terrified of ducks, and that there is an airport in Russia named after him. All we know is that he is really barracad from The Consumer Action Group" - Jeremy Clarkson (allegedly)
No - I am suggesting that the retailer will suggest misuse, and in the absence of the OP being able to prove or disprove this you enter into a stalemate with the retailer having the upper hand. There is nothing any consumer can do without resorting to an independent estimate/repair and the retailers is not bound to accept this. As I noted earlier, you can fry a CCD in just 15 seconds, and whether its 2 weeks or 2 years old it won't matter. Since you don't believe me, I'm not bothered either way - however if you want to see an army of folk with 2 month old mobile phone handsets that don't work - being told neither SOGA or Warranty or even their Insurance policy covers them for water damage, haven't managed to change or challenge this - makes you wonder why?
Furthermore, if retailer tries to say it is misuse, it will be up to them to prove it.
A search on "CCD failure" brings this up:
What caused the problem?
If you have an affected camera, you probably don't care too much about what the underlying problem was, as long as you can get it fixed. If you're the technically curious type though, here's a synopsis of the information we've been able to assemble about the underlying cause.
Several different explanations for this problem have been put forward by various parties. Our own industry contacts indicated that the problem was caused by the use of epoxy chip packages for the failing sensor units, rather than more robust (and also much more expensive) ceramic packages. The environmental sealing of epoxy circuit packaging is generally not as good as that of ceramic packaging, and in the case of the failing sensors appears to have let moisture enter the chip cavity itself. This seemed to be a quite plausible explanation, but subsequently, two other possible causes came to our attention. An article published by Japan's Nikkei Business Publications agreed that the sensors in question were sourced from fabs operated by Sony Corp., but provided a different reason for the failures. According to Nikkei journalist Naoki Asakawa, the problem was twofold: Changed settings on a wire bonding system resulted in weaker joints between wires and electrodes; and iodine-bearing bonding compound vaporized inside the CCD package which further decayed the joint surface. Nikkei reported that Sony removed the iodine compound from its CCD manufacturing process, and said that the company also introduced a test for bonding strength in March 2004.
Finally, an email from reader Paul Taylor pointed us toward another possibility. We've since heard from several readers that they were able to get failing cameras to work again for short periods, either by bumping or flexing the camera chassis. This is obviously something we do not recommend trying, as it could damage other components in your camera and lead to expensive repair bills. Still, given that little if any force could be transferred through the sensor package by these methods, it does hint at another problem coming into play in at least some cameras. Paul theorized that the zero insertion force (ZIF) connectors and flex cables inside the camera might not be providing sufficiently good contact, and mechanical action on the camera body could move the cables inside the connectors enough to temporarily improve the situation.
So I'm thinking, pointing at a source of light, no, faulty item, yes. ;-)
Very much a SOGA issue.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
After 2 years...? Slim chances especially as the pursuer will be the consumer. The CCD issue is just one of many pssibilities that either alone or in tandem will provide enough doubt to let the retailer go scott free. I accept in an ideal world it's worth pursing, but if we get to a he says/she says debate on an item that is no longer new or under warranty, a judge would have to decide on the balance of probabilities, and you can bet the retailers will fight this tooth and nail... until we get those promised 2 year warranties! (Which swill STILL exclude misuse, water and sand damage, and probably looking into the lens with an ugly face.....
Yes, after 2 years, of course, after 2 years! And probably a lot longer too!
In this instance, it goes like this:
Test of reasonableness - Should an item worth xxx last more than 2 years? In the case of a Samsung (supposedly reputable brand) camcorder worth a few hundred pounds, the answer is YES. SOGA applies.
OP thinks it may be a CCD problem, but he's not an engineer. All he has to do is take back camcorder to Curry's, say: "not working, 2 yrs old, not good enough, I want repair (or replacement if repair too costly/time consuming), and no, I am not paying a penny to get the fault diagnosed".
Warranties are in ADDITION to your STATUTORY rights, not instead, I'm not sure how many times we have to say before the message gets through.
There is no way that a 2 yr old camcorder should fail. If it does, customer should assert their statutory rights under SOGA.
IF retailer tries to say "misuse" as a defence, then they'll have to prove misuse. Which means they'll have to diagnose it first. Either way, there is no reason for customer to pay for it.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
SOGA doesn't provide statuatory time limits - IMHO, you are advocating a £99 camcorder and a £999 camcorder should last 2+ years and if not, the purchaser has a right to full refund or replacement? I love the concept, but it just ain't going to happen.
Clearly, since you feel so strongly that this 'power' the SoGA provides is a major step forward in consumer rights. Why isn't the forum full of reports that they've received the equivalent of 'new lamps for old'? Could it be because it just hasn't happened in the real world?
SOGA states that items should be of reasonable quality, and fit for the purpose. There is no need for statutory time limits - clearly a camcorder that fails within 2 years is neither of reasonable quality, nor fit for the purpose.
I don't know why you are so against this consumer getting the retailer to act responsibly and repair the camera, I can only assume you have shares in Currys or Samsung as I can see no other reason as to why you have such a problem with it.
And yes, I think a £999 camcorder should last 2+ years. If you'd spent that amount of money on a camcorder and it stopped working would you just shrug your shoulders and go out and buy a new one? I doubt it.
The OP is clearly entitled to a repair FOC according to SOGA.
Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.
"Some people say The Stig chews on spark plugs and drifts while walking. Some say he is terrified of ducks, and that there is an airport in Russia named after him. All we know is that he is really barracad from The Consumer Action Group" - Jeremy Clarkson (allegedly)
I'm all for consumer rights, but not at the the levels you expect. Whilst we both afree a £999 camcorder should work in excess of 2 years - you didn't comment on whether you felt the £99 once should have similar protection. What you state I applaud, but it is not going to happen in practice, and exhorting readers to pursue for items and at 2+ years old is creating a false sense of justification that as far as I am aware, has neither been adequately tested in the courts, never mind being treated as a fait accompli with no caveats at to the probabilities of success. A dealer appearing as a defender to an action based on a SOGA challenge only has to tell the court he believes the purchaser (with no receipt or bill of sale) is attempting to update his purchase at the retailers expense.
I agree the SoGA is useful, but it's not the open sesame to a free product replacement service you make it out to be. If you can cite cases that have been supported and won by consumers, I'll happily accept this - but it's no slam-dunk, and the possibility of losing an action as a result, will be quite high.
Samsung Digital-cam
Reply With Quote
