Dear all

thank you for taking the time to read my post. I bought the above TV approximately 18 months ago. The TV has worked well but yesterday it would not switch on at all and hasn't done since. I have checked the plug and socket and even replaced the power wire but the TV still won't switch on. I have discussed this with Comet Electricals who advise that it will cost around £70 just to have someone come out and look at the machine because it is not under warranty. The guy I spoke to was sympathetic and advised me to contact philips but there was nothing else comet could do. I have not contacted philips yet but I was hoping for advice as to whether there is anything I can do about this. The TV is not in warranty and I didn't extend the warranty at the time as it was extremely expensive. Should a LCD tv which to me is fairly new breakdown like this and what can one do about it other than fork out hundreds to try and get it repaired. I would appreciate your response and advice.

thanks

Hi

You're covered under the sale of goods act - an item has to be fit for its purpose and should last for a reasonable period of time. Do you think an expensive TV should last only 18 months? No, and neither will a judge.

Write to the store stating that under the sale of goods act they are liable for the costs of repairing or replacing the faulty equipment and should they refuse you will seek compensation for their breech of contract through the small claims court. They may need further prodding but they won't let it go to court as they will incurr further expense and negative PR (oh and will lose).

Good Luck

Hi,

It is comets responsibilty for the repair, and therefore keep plugging away at them. The sale of goods act states that a product such as this item should last longer than it has. The problem with a lot of these stores, is that they have little or np training in consumer law. Below is the link to the sale of goods act and others that protect your rights

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sale-supply/sale-of-good-act/page8600.html

nik

thanks for your posting. i actually tried to pursue comet but kept hitting a wall. i ended up having a local repairs company look at the LCD TV who advised me that the power circuit board had broken. They estimated the part at around £200. i then wrote to philips directly and after a few threats got them to supply the part for free. the repair cost me around £80.

i really wanted to pursue comet but they kept saying that their engineer had to come out and look at the tv (for a charge of £30). however i had already found out what the problem was, but they refused to accept this. when philips said they would supply the free parts i stopped writting to comet. although i would have liked to have taken them to small claims court as their a bunch of cowboys.

So you have paid £80 for the repair and obtained a goodwill gesture from Philips for the part.

This, as far as being able to use the TV, is probably a result for you.

However, for Comet, it vindicates their appalling stance and thus perpetuates it for others.

ok here goes

YES you are covered under SOGA. but initially there may be charges. All repair services do have a inspection fee. if it then deemed fault from purchase then this fee will either be waived or reimbursed back.

but this is only if you go to a manufacturer or seller recognised repair service. if not you are breaching SOGA by getting outsiders to fix the issue. they will not even recognise a outsider repair service informing them of the fault. it has to be done by someone they recognise.

as the manufacturer's gurantee has passed by, the seller has to find other means of repairing the product. They can charge the £30 inspection/repair fee and then if it is proven that you have not hammered the back of the TV to break the circuit then they will either waive the fee or reimburse you.

by going to an outsider although the TV is fixed, because of this the seller can no longer inspect it to view if it fault from purchase or acidental damage. And so you are unlikely to get a re-imbursement of that £80.

my advice would have been to take up the sellers £30 offer instead of the outsiders £80 offer.

for 2 reasons

1. its £50 cheaper (or free if proved u not kick the living daylights out the TV)

2. by the sellers recognised repair service you are not breaching SOGA and so if the fault happens again in a couple months you can use this first incident as ammo for a refund or replacement

ok here goes

YES you are covered under SOGA. but initially there may be charges. All repair services do have a inspection fee. if it then deemed fault from purchase then this fee will either be waived or reimbursed back.

 

but this is only if you go to a manufacturer or seller recognised repair service. if not you are breaching SOGA by getting outsiders to fix the issue. they will not even recognise a outsider repair service informing them of the fault. it has to be done by someone they recognise.

 

as the manufacturer's gurantee has passed by, the seller has to find other means of repairing the product. They can charge the £30 inspection/repair fee and then if it is proven that you have not hammered the back of the TV to break the circuit then they will either waive the fee or reimburse you.

 

by going to an outsider although the TV is fixed, because of this the seller can no longer inspect it to view if it fault from purchase or acidental damage. And so you are unlikely to get a re-imbursement of that £80.

 

my advice would have been to take up the sellers £30 offer instead of the outsiders £80 offer.

for 2 reasons

1. its £50 cheaper (or free if proved u not kick the living daylights out the TV)

2. by the sellers recognised repair service you are not breaching SOGA and so if the fault happens again in a couple months you can use this first incident as ammo for a refund or replacement

I'm sorry, but this is completely incorrect. The store has the duty to rectify anything that contravenes goods legislation. There is nothing to stop a consumer from using a third party for repair and then reclaiming reasonable costs back from the seller. Obviously, it is best to give the seller the chance first. There are many legal cases where a buyer has got their goods repaired by a third party and successfully reclaimed costs.

Really, I just get the feeling that all this is is someone chanting the Party Line

I was beginning to think it was mass spam.

This is undoubtedly yourbestfriend, the way he/she types is exactly the same.

I'm sorry, but this is completely incorrect. The store has the duty to rectify anything that contravenes goods legislation. There is nothing to stop a consumer from using a third party for repair and then reclaiming reasonable costs back from the seller. Obviously, it is best to give the seller the chance first. There are many legal cases where a buyer has got their goods repaired by a third party and successfully reclaimed costs.

Actually, I do have to say I disagree with this. I am aware of cases locally where the court has thrown out the case based on the fact that the trader was not given a reasonable opportunity to put the faults right first.

The most recent case involved some shocking plumbing work where the bathroom was badly damaged. The family lost faith with the plumber to such an extent that they failed to report the problem to him and did not give him the chance to put it right. The judge on the day accepted that the work was of very poor quality and the plumber had not acted with reasonable care and skill, but threw the case out of court because the family had not given the plumber the chance to put it right before going elsewhere.

To cover yourself, the trader must be given a reasonable opportunity. I would suggest that to cover yourself, you write a letter to the trader, keeping a copy, detailing the faults and that the goods therefore do not comply with the terms of the Sale of Goods Act. Set a reasonable date by which to complete a repair or replacement, and detail the action you will take if this is not done by the given date (i.e. taking it elsewhere for repair and claiming the cost). This can show that you have given the trader an opportunity to put it right in the first instance.

Ultimately it does come down to the judge on the day, but in my experience with district judges it is always far better to err on the side of caution and make sure you do things "properly" and reasonably.

ok and on the doing things correctly and properly

with all issues about faults etc please realise retailers are not repairmen. i have many expereinces with other retailers.

id suggest calling the telephone number on the retailers websites, receipts etc FIRST. arguing instore will get you nowhere.

Head office have the authority for refunds, etc. the local stores such as comet, currys, pcworld and argos just have the authority for a few weeks after purchase. 28days in most cases.

using the head office gives you more ammo in the future to either rectify the issue or use their statements in court.

store level staff have no training to deal with it.

a easy way of understanding a retailer in an insulting way as you seem to enjoy doing is this.

the local stores are like little 5year olds selling their toys, if it went wrong dont complain to the 5yo as he will just throw a tantrum. go to his mother (the head office).

and another thing retailers cannot refuse to contact the manufacturer on your behalf. but with data protection issues etc it will take 48 hours for manufacturer to call back.

call them yourself. the result will be the same it will be fixed by a seller recogised repairer

Firstly, (and I'm not wanting to start an argument!), I did mention that the seller should be given the chance first. With all cases, it is down to reasonableness.

Secondly, it matters not that shop staff cannot fix an item or not. It is their responsibility to have the fault corrected where required, not for them to actually physically fix it themselves.

The "authority" for refunds etc comes from Parliament in terms of statutory rights. If goods are in contravention of legislation, there is no need for the shop to contact head office or whoever. Whatever Head Office or whoever says is immaterial insofar as statutory rights are concerned.

Any insult to staff is really an insult to the company that employs them but refuse to train them properly. I am fed up of having to deal with staff (including managers) who cannot understand issues involved. Most of the time it is like banging ones head against a brick wall, and the equivalent of a maths teacher telling a kid that 2+2 is not 5, but the kid has been told otherwise.

In short, sellers have duties and responsibilities. They cannot, but attempt to many times, shirk those responsibilities. Ignorance of law is not an excuse. If sellers cannot comply with legislation, then they should not be in business in the first place. No excuses (besides statutory defences and mens rea elements!)

I'd ignore this guy, he's been here before under a different name spouting the same sort of stuff.

Thank you, and I'd agree. I'e not actually posted on forums before, but i can instantly see the problem of people acting on what others say, without so much as an inkling as to that persons knowledge or experience, and then acting on what is said. Unfortunately, there are many people who would go to a forum like this rather than use a "legitimate" source, such as consumerdirect or CAB, and do not know better than to act on advice that is neither professional or accurate. I hav come across cases where people have eventually come for help when things get bad and have said to me "so and so on such a forum told me".

Yeah, thing is, if you don't respond, someone will actually believe this idiot

Lol! Just read your last post on PCWorld thread. Hard work indeed!

The "authority" for refunds etc comes from Parliament in terms of statutory rights. If goods are in contravention of legislation, there is no need for the shop to contact head office or whoever. Whatever Head Office or whoever says is immaterial insofar as statutory rights are concerned.

 

ok it says a refund is an option withn a reasonable time after purchase. many retailers class a reasonable time for anything as 28days. reasonable time after purchase, reasonable time for repair.

after that reasonable time has passed then legally the store does not have to offer a refund. as a primary option. only if everything else fails or with good reason can an refund be offered.

read SOGA PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

what they can offer is a remdy to either repair or replace the product. for the retailer to allow a refund after the 28days they have to contact the head office for permission. because they have to inform head office that the store is asking if they can recind the contract without getting it repaired.

again if it is under 28days (14 in argos) the store legally has to refund repair or replace, which is a option the buyer can choose. after that 28day (14 in argos) period the buyer cannot ask for a refund without good reason. and the store has to contact HQ with this reason.

thats my point about stores needing to contact their HQ. and its legal..

real life experiences are better then a book.

 

what they can offer is a remdy to either repair or replace the product. for the retailer to allow a refund after the 28days they have to contact the head office for permission. because they have to inform head office that the store is asking if they can recind the contract without getting it repaired.

This is purely internal to the retailer and absolutely irrelevant to the coonsumer

again if it is under 28days (14 in argos) the store legally has to refund repair or replace, which is a option the buyer can choose.

Go away and write out 100 times "The choice of option is the seller's, not the consumer's". Maybe then you will remember it.

real life experiences are better then a book.

And the law is better than some of the crap policies that retailers have and continue to get away with due to general public ignorance of consumer's rights under law and the lack of resources by officialdom to enforce

ok it says a refund is an option withn a reasonable time after purchase. many retailers class a reasonable time for anything as 28days. reasonable time after purchase, reasonable time for repair.

 

after that reasonable time has passed then legally the store does not have to offer a refund. as a primary option. only if everything else fails or with good reason can an refund be offered.

 

read SOGA PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

 

what they can offer is a remdy to either repair or replace the product. for the retailer to allow a refund after the 28days they have to contact the head office for permission. because they have to inform head office that the store is asking if they can recind the contract without getting it repaired.

 

again if it is under 28days (14 in argos) the store legally has to refund repair or replace, which is a option the buyer can choose. after that 28day (14 in argos) period the buyer cannot ask for a refund without good reason. and the store has to contact HQ with this reason.

 

thats my point about stores needing to contact their HQ. and its legal..

 

real life experiences are better then a book.

What planet are you on??? I Have SoGA right in front of me, as well as 15 odd other statutes on consumer law. I also have lots of commentaries and authorities on the same. I have them because I am taking a degree in that area and am doing quite well in it thank you.

I do not need to be told incorrectly by some corporate mouthpiece what the Act says or means. I suggest you read the Act, as well as accomanying legislation and case law. when you have spent three years doing it, then come back here and post something that may vaguely resemble the truth.

I'm not going to bother commenting on further innacurate posts. In case someone reads it and thinks it is correct, I will simply say "This is rubbish, ignore it". Some poor souls come here for advice as they do not know better. They should not be subjected to the diatribe spouted by those with no knowledge. End of.

He keeps saying "read SoGA" on here, but doesn't seem to follow his own advice.

There is NO set date by which the consumer loses the right to a refund. The law says they can reject for a full refund "within a reasonable time". Never mind this 28 days, 14 days stuff. Yes, past cases have suggested that 28 days may indeed be a reasonable time in pretty standard faulty goods cases, but ultimately it's down to a judge and not set in stone.

Incidentally I'm also fully qualified in consumer law and have worked in the field for four years so far, so I also don't need to be told to "read SoGA"

I won't be commenting any further anyway, as the chances are that these posts will be deleted the same as the ones were under his old username... so I won't waste my breath on him any more.

Tee hee hee! By the way Rosie, spoke to leturer earlier on today er. returns and SoGA / SGSA - am clear on it now - sort of. It can be argued either way, though the practice does fall into what you said. I was getting mixed up with simple returns and exchanges (e.g, wrong colour, don't like it etc)- they do fall into SSGA, but it does sem to be confusing re. what I said earlier - am still getting different opinions.

Whoever said the law should be made easy to understand???