Jump to content

JB_

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

11 Good

1 Follower

  1. I think I must content myself with having my point missed. It's largely academic anyway and of little benefit to the original poster. Apologies for taking the thread off topic.
  2. I appreciate the difference. My point is that, as a company, my old employer decided not to argue the difference with the TVLA and do as they directed - completing a TVLA form for each sale that included a DVDRewriter. Whether correct or not, the forms were filled in. It may be worth asking the retailer if they do the same. The worst that can happen is they answer "no".
  3. I'm basing it on what the lovely people from the TVLA said to us when the company queried it. I know these organisations are not famous for taking the narrow definition on these things, of course Does your laptop allow you to play and write to recordable DVDs? Mine does. It's a bit pointless having a DVD ReWriter if it doesn't This was the argument put forward by the TVLA and our company decided it was safer to tow the line in this instance. Why not ask the retailer anyway?
  4. For some reason the above post keeps repeating "S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)" I'm not repeating it because I think you're daft, but when I edit the post the changes are not saving!?!
  5. I would assume that laptops would have a unique serial number - and this is the number that would be tied in to their stock inventory system, though admittedly it may be a standard product ID. If they rely on a standard product ID what is to stop someone returning an identical product sold from a different retailer? If the serial number is in their system then I think they are on very dodgy grounds saying "there is nothing we can do". If they do not hold the data for that long (which would be bad practice in my personal opinion but there you go) how did they confirm the value was only £299? Right, the DVD issue. This might seem like clutching at straws but in a previous job, we used our TVLA records to confirm a date of purchase. The retailer is obliged under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 to inform the TV Licensing Authority about any sale involving (among other things) a DVD Recorder. While there is some nitpicking and debate, I am firmly in the camp that considers a DVD ReWriter to fall under this obligation. On this basis, the retailer had a legal obligation to take certain details - if memory serves your name, address and the date of sale among other things- so they could grass you up to the TVLA Now the rest is fairly theoretical and I would love someone with a bit more knowledge to chip in. If the retailer retains this information (which they would be wise to do, as they get audited and fined if they do not have those details to match up against each relevant sale) then it might be available to you. I am wondering whether this information would be accessible via a SAR - (Subject Access Request) - as personal data being held by the company? I would argue this would be sufficient to constitute sufficient proof of purchase. Perhaps the TVLA holds data on the date of purchase and retailer, again accessible via S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)? Personally I think the "We would do it if it was under £300 but we cannot do anything in this case" is not an acceptable answer. Please note, lots of opinion and very little law! It also depends on how much effort you want to put into arguing with the retailer.
  6. I'm sorry to be picky but could you clarify this point? The retailer scanned the (presumably) unique serial from the laptop which confirmed they sold that specific laptop for £299? Did the laptop contain a DVD player/rewriter?
  7. The issue is not so much inadequacies in the law but lack of understanding. For instance... you have the right to claim against an inherent fault for up to six years (certain conditions accepted). WE all know that, but then again I suspect many people on this forum have studied the legislation in depth. The poor salesman/manager feeling the pointy end of our... ehh... pointy-ended wrath is unlikely to have more than 30 minutes dedicated to the law as part of their induction. In many shops, especially small independents, the sum total of legal knowledge might be based on last week's Watchdog. Combine this with a natural reticence for a business to accept liability and you have the current situation. Changing the law is all well and good, provided all those people bother to learn it. If they do not bother with the old law, why bother with the new law? The consumers who know the law are more likely to fight anyway. Theconsumers who do not know the law are the ones who back down in the face of stubborn retailers. Old law, new law, will this necessarily be addressing the problem? Perhaps a DTI or even government mandated scheme to ensure minimal levels of statutory awareness could be more beneficial? There are basic levels of hygiene required in food preparation, why not a basic legal certificate for managers or senior sales? The time-scale argument hinges around interpretation of what the legislation seeks to accomplish. I am too tired to hit the Law Commission reports or Hanzzzard but this might give a good insight into the debate. If you think the purpose of the legislation is to make sure the item you get will work for at least six months then yes, it should restart with each replacement. If you think the purpose is to make sure you get a working item for six months from date of delivery, then it works fine the way it is. While I would prefer the former, I consider the latter to be (and I dislike saying this) more practical. If the six month period kept restarting then I know, without any question or hesitation, that expensive items would suddenly and mysteriously start breaking down every six months for the duration of the six years. The business implications are not to be underestimated. The law is about making things work. SOGA is about fitting consumer rights into a system without breaking the system, keeping it working. Restarting the six months would leave the system open to abuse. For all the people in the world who benefit from protections, there are as many who will take the opportunity in their favour. In a previous life I worked somewhere that provided Warranty Services for a major brand printer. Every week we would see a few printers with CLEARLY user-created problems from deliberate damage. We knew, our techs were good and very experienced and we had a number of clues to look for as well. The expectation? "Well, the warranty runs out next week and it suddenly... 'stopped' working. We want a new printer, but this model is obsolete so give us the new version. With a spare set of cart's for our 'trouble'." Interestingly enough, in that scenario, when we replaced a unit the replacement would automatically get a 3 month extension if the original 12 month was due to run out, similar to the idea that has been suggested. Every subsequent replacement would get another 3 months. We saw a few cases where people attempted to abuse this. In conclusion, I think the issue is not with the law. The issue is that the people it seeks to protect and the people it seeks to bind, both remain largely blind to it. The other few paragraphs I typed between the opening sentence and this conclusion are pretty much "post-midnight waffle". This lack of awareness is the real issue that needs to be addressed, more than legislative changes.
  8. Off the top of my head a receipt is not strictly necessary. The retailer my ask for proof that you brought the item from them/date etc. The receipt is a convenient way to do this but not the only way. Depending on how you paid, you may have bank statements etc that show a purchase from the retailer for that value on that date. This should normally be acceptable for the retailer. Now, don't tell anyone this, but as I am doing this off the top of my head I haven't got any authority to back this up - I would normally pull out statute or at least DTI guidance but I'm not in a position at the moment Apologies if I'm proven completely wrong. Oh and by the way - yes. people do try and return items bought elsewhere. When working in a retail environment once I had a "customer" blowing a gasket over a faulty product... one that we had never sold and would never of sold, NO chance of a mistake on our part
  9. One of the companies in my area had an policy that certain people would be allowed to board even if they did not have money for the fare, such as young people alone in dangerous situations (certain areas or late at night I guess?) or people clearly in a state of distress. The driver would ask for contact details if possible and the company might send a polite letter later asking for payment. It wasn't an advertised policy for obvious reasons but I have no reason to doubt the person who told me about it. There are some additionals rules that might come in to play - some compnies are contracted to provide local government mandated services I believe, with possible additional policies attached - but I think there is nothing in a normal situation to force a driver to accept a fare.
  10. Thanks. Sorry to go off-topic. In a previous life I worked for a small IT firm but we had to outsource laptop repairs - and we never received a quote for a laptop mobo repair that was cheaper than a new laptop We could do a decent desktop mobo replacement and full software reinstall for £70+ (inc labour and VAT) but mention the "L" word and the prices got scary! That's "Laptop", not the other "L" word. The other "L" word is "Litigation" in case you're wondering
  11. Just out of interest, where did those figures for the repair come from?
  12. It's stranger than you think but that's for another mini-essay of a post The 6 month rule is from UK legislation. More info in this post if it is any help for you. Within 6 months the consumer need only satisfy the burden of proof by making a prima facie case which is subsequently rebuttable. In ENGLISH, this means all the consumer has to say is "it doesn't work 'cuz it's faulty". It is up to the supplier to prove otherwise (ie the fault is due to the consumer) to the civil standard of proof - "on the balance of probabilities". From 6 months to 6 years, the consumer can still make a claim under SOGA but they have to prove the fault was inherent at time of purchase. A lot of this boils down to whether the item should still work after the length of time you have had it. The lifespan of a TV really should be more than 21 months - especially for the price you paid! It is not an unreasonable expectation. Check under any household insurance you may have. I have come across some that will pay out the labour charge for assessments. Best of luck. It does not sound like people are trying to wriggle out of anything, it just sounds like the parties involved are following a set procedure.
  13. I think the entire discussion hinges on a simple yet overlooked issue - my ability to read correctly. Somehow I read "debtor" where someone was actually discussing the "creditor" My apologies to all involved
  14. While I appreciate your point I am not convinced that "acceptance by conduct" is alone sufficient for this situation. To argue this, you would have to convince a court that the specific requirement laid down by Parliament to include a signature box(1) is not sufficient to suggest Parliament wished the signature box to be used. I am not sure you would get far with this argument. Edited to add: Apparantly, while there are many Statutes that mention signatures, only 15 contain a definition of "signature", with 12 of those definitions being consistent. There is no definition in the Interpretations Act.(2)These tend to be along the lines of; ‘signature’ includes a facsimile of a signature by whatever process reproduced Case law in instances of non-defined signature requirements suggests that where a ‘personal signature’ is required some form of the signatory’s name is usually required.(3) This includes situatons where a form was faxed across - although the recipient did not have the original the copy was still held to be 'signed' for the purposes.(4) This case also found (albeit obiter) that where a signed form was scanned and the file later printed by the recipient, the copy was also considered to hold a legal signature. Ok, maybe I'm going into a little over-kill on this While it's fascinating, I do not want to take the OP's thread off-tangent. Apologies if I have done that. --------------------- (1) Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (As Amended) r 4(e) (2) Reed C, 'Digital Information Law, Centre for Commercial Law Studies', 1996 (3) Goodman v J.Eban [1954] 1 All ER 763, [1954] 1 QB 550 (4) Re a debtor (No. 2021 of 1995) [1996] 2 All ER 345
  15. I seem to remember the magic number for The Sales of Goods Act 1979 (As Amended) is six. Six months, six years. If a fault becomes apparant within six months, the presumption is that the fault was inherent, that it existed when the goods where delivered. The burden is on the seller to prove that the fault was not inherent. After six months, the burden moves to the consumer to prove the fault was inherent. Most companies voluntarily agree to presume a fault was inherent for longer than the statutory six months. This is your '12 month warranty' which, as they should note, "does not affect your statutory rights", ie to place a claim even after that period has elapsed! You have up to six years to bring a claim based on The Limitation Act 1980. The longer you leave the claim, the harder it is to prove but still, you have the right to claim. Failing to persue as soon as you are aware of the problem might let the seller claim you have "accepted" the fault! Not relevant in this case but as the rest of the post is starting to sound like a mini-essay I might as well aim for an "A" grade From your description, the fault would certainly sound 'inherent' in that it was a defect in the material that has been a substantive cause of the structural failure. As has already been said, there is a reasonable expectation for a sofa to last much longer than 15 months, bringing you nicely back to the s 14(2a) SOGA 1979 objective test. I think the proposed letter hits the spot and you'll hopefully get the problem sorted with minimal fuss!
×
×
  • Create New...