Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'not fit for purpose'.
Found 3 results
hi, any advice on clarifying a small matter would be helpful. we bought a bed for our son from an online store. the bed was hardly used as was in spare room just before the one year warranty it broke. they sent him a part to fix it but it broke again, same fault as before . he got in touch with the retailer and after some back and fourth they have said not their problem and have given us the manufacturers details. are they right or should the retailer sort this out as we believe the bed is not fit for purpose any advice would be appreciated.
Hello, Could you please help? Not sure where to post as this also involves poor service from Sony not just the laptop purchase. Bought a Sony VAIO Fit E model SVF1421S1EB laptop for £444.88 and a 3 year warranty £44.00 in November 2013. In January 2014 the mouse started behaving erratically, contacted Sony who sent a lengthy list of things to do in an attempt to resolve which I deemed overkill as it involved a system restore which would have wiped my data and software - I opted for an external mouse instead. In May 2014 the hinge broke, contacted Sony who claimed I had damaged it, even though I pointed out that there were cases of this 'common issue' all over the internet. The casing and hinges are plastic not sturdy at all. Shortly after my wireless signal quality dropped - max 2 bars, most times 1. Again contacted support who admitted this is a known issue. They asked me to do a bunch of stuff including a system restore which I did, asked me to do it again when it didn't resolve. At that point my sound started misbehaving. Support offered me a wireless adapter to 'boost my signal' and asked me to do yet another system restore to resolve the sound issue In the middle of the emails I asked Sony for my money back but they suggested I contact the vendor as my contract is with him. I contacted Laptops direct last week, initially they gave me directions for filling a return request online but it seems they have refused my claim. My Issues: The laptop hinges broke within 6 months. This is not acceptable period obviously expected the laptop to last that's why I bought an additional 3 years warranty. Sony has refused to replace or repair the laptop even though it is still under warranty. Sony Support is crap - I have sent over 10 emails and 2 online complaints - their offices are only open week-days till 5pm. I am pretty sure the troubleshooting instructions I got are meant to serve as a deterrent - one was over 2 pages long! When it still wasn't fixed received a second email was the same instructions in a different order! The laptop can not be used for the purpose it was intended ie internet and movie streaming - touchpad & sound are still erratic and wireless is rubbish. What to do? I am looking to get my money back. Is this a feasible position as the laptop is over 8 months old? Worst case I would like to get at least half of my money back and a refund on the additional cover I bought. How do I go about doing this - presumably it is the vendor and not Sony? Small claims, ombudsman? This is the worst computer I have ever owned by the way and I been using them since Windows 3.1! If anyone is thinking of purchasing a Sony Vaio DON'T Thanks so much, sorry about the length - not happy !!!
Here we go then: 20.3.13: sign a finance agreement, pay a deposit and take delivery of 05 Citroen C5 auto diesel, 77k on the clock 21.3.13: having driven c140 miles, the STOP warning light appears on the dashboard. I stop the car immediately. I wait a few minutes, and start the car again. Plumes of white smoke emit from the exhaust. I switch off and wait a few more minutes. Repeat the exercise with the same result. I'm no mechanic, but have enough lay knowledge to suspect this is a blown head gasket. I call my recovery company. Upon arrival, he repeats the exercise. He tells me that he too suspects either a failed turbo or a failed head gasket. He confirms that the cannot be driven. On the job sheet, however, he only mentions the turbo, rather than or in addition to the head gasket, but does mark the job as 'urgent'. I ask him to recover the car to the dealership from whence it came yesterday. The car is delivered as requested. I leave a note on the dashboard, with my mobile phone number, asking someone to call me. I also leave a copy of the recovery agent's report. 25.3.13: I have heard nothing from the dealership. I call them. The sales guy tries to fob me off, suggesting I should be speaking to servicing. I insist on speaking with him, and that he finds out what's going on with the car. He speaks to servicing and returns to tell me that they're looking at the car, and suspect that a head gasket has blown. I advise him that with that news I'm now considering my options, as my view is that the care is not fit for purpose under SOGA. 1.4.13: Hand delivered a letter to the dealership giving them 14 days to refund all monies. See attachment. 2.4.13: Called finance company to inform them of my action. They advised ongoing dialogue with dealership. 2.4.13: Called dealership, spoke to another sales guy (whom I'd met) to ask if they've read letter. He said the letter had been passed to the director 2.4.13: Later, surprise surprise, I receive a call from the original sales guy to say that they've checked the car, and can find nothing wrong with it. This is clearly in contradiction of his previous information given to me on 25.3.13 that their servicing department suspects a failed head gasket. I advised him that I'd be taking legal advice. 3.4.13: Called the finance company. Explained the dealership's response. They suggest they're going to get an independent engineer's report. 3.4.13: Faxed a second letter to dealership and copied to finance company. See attachment. 12.4.13: Call from finance company to say that the independent engineer has completed his inspection, and found nothing wrong with the car. The finance company suggest that accordingly, the car is ready for collection. I suggest to the finance company that the engineer's report is in respect of the car on the day that he saw it, not on the day it broke down, when unambiguously, the car was not fit for purpose, as confirmed by the recovery agent's report. He suggests that from the finance company's standpoint, my complaint has been finalised. I said that I will await a copy of the engineer's report. So.....facts and opinions: 1. the car was unfit for purpose from day 2. opinion 2. the symptoms clearly suggest a blown head gasket or turbo - neither of which could simply rectify themselves without mechanical intervention opinion 3. the dealership told me on 25.3.13 that their servicing department suspected a blown head gasket fact 4. an independent mechanical report can only report on what they find on the day of inspection, not on the day the car failed opinion 5. under SOGA I have a right to return goods that are not fit for purpose fact What next? I fully intend to sue. But I need to be clear. I've now come to realise (I think) that my contract is with the finance company for the entire purchase price, including the deposit I paid direct to the dealership, including fuel left in the car by me. It is the finance company against whom I should be issuing Proceedings. Am I right? Any further observations? Thanks, Caggers, in advance for your advice and guidance.