Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'warrantymay'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location

Found 1 result

  1. Hi everyone, Having recently had a warranty voided by Samsung and Dixons PLC, after one the 2 Netbooks we purchased for my grandchildren was severely damaged either in transit to Samsung's repair centre, or by their UK contracted repairers (Digicare) I thought I ought to let other potential Dixons Group customers know of the risks they may be running when they purchase a Samsung product - the following risks may also apply to other major retailers, such as Tesco and Asda, who have told me they use the same service in the same way. This is the information I sent to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation. Letter to the OFT Dear Sirs, I am well aware that you do not investigate individual complaints against traders and therefore it does not ask you to investigate an individual single issue but a potentially widespread consumer issue that may be tantamount to fraud, within a major sector of the UK consumer (home electronics) market. Though the potential fraud may extend to several major retailers this request for investigation specifically concerns Samsung and its UK trading partner Dixons Group who together, with the potential collusion of Samsung’s contracted Couriers and their UK contracted repairers Digicare may have constructed a mechanism whereby they may be easily able to ‘ring fence’ themselves against their Warranty obligations, by effectively creating a barrier between consumers and their statutory rights under the 1979 Sale Of Goods Act (SOGA). The following is the so simple as to be almost elegant method they may be widely using to deprive what the Internet indicates may be a great many consumers of equitable treatment under SOGA 1979. 1) When a Samsung product fails to perform you are required to take it into the retailer under its Warranty. 2) When the fault is confirmed, instead of taking receipt of the goods for repair and receipting you for their condition, The Dixons’ Group retailer issues you with Samsung telephone number, tells you that you have to contact Samsung direct and then sends you home with the product. 3) When the consumer contacts Samsung and after they have gone through some basic checks to confirm the product is faulty they arrange for a Courier to pick up the product, from the consumer’s home address. 4) The courier picks up the product, without providing the consumer with a receipt stating the overall condition of the product and takes it to another party, in the form of Samsung’s UK contracted repairers (Digicare). 5) Because the consumer is neither warned of the potential need for, or granted any receipted evidence concerning the fault by the Courier the ‘repairers (Digicare) are then in a ‘bulletproof’ position to claim the fault is due to ‘misuse’ by the consumer, thereby voiding the Warranty. 6) Because the consumer is neither warned of the potential need for, or granted any receipted evidence concerning the condition of the product, by Dixons Group or the Courier, the ‘repairers (Digicare) are then in a ‘bulletproof’ position to claim any damage to the product that may be or has been caused by either the Courier during transit or by Digicare in their premises was caused by the consumer prior to collection, thereby voiding the Warranty 7) When the consumer quite rightly attempts to seek a lawful solution Samsung will support the Courier’s and Digicare’s claims, and Dixons’ will support Samsung’s support of the Couriers and Digicare’s claims, thereby voiding the consumer’s Warranty. 8) At this point, in the case of a faulty product, the consumer’s only options are either to pay for the repair or to have the faulty goods returned without repair, for a fee of £26.00 9) In the case of a product that may have been extensively damaged during transit or repair the consumer’s only options are to either pay for a repair, that may amount to more than the initial cost of the product, or have the damaged goods returned for a fee of £26.00 10)‘Trading Standards’ will advise you that Dixons (PC World) are responsible for the damage under The Sale Of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA). 11)After lengthy delays Dixons (PC World will inform you that Samsung has deemed your Warranty void, on the basis that it has to believe its repairers claim that either you misused the product, or the item was found to be damaged on receipt and, as such, their Warranty is void. 12) If you pursue the matter the Courier, Digicare, Samsung and Dixons Group will continue to support each other to the point where ‘Trading Standards’ will eventually tell you that due to the way the item was conveyed to Digicare (from the consumer’s home) the damage has become a civil issue and you will have to determine liability via a Judge, through the small claims court. 13) This potential collusion between the retailer (Dixons Group), the Couriers, Digicare and Samsung makes it virtually impossible to ‘pin down’ the responsible party and even if a small claims court judgement rules in your favour, it may be virtually impossible to collect the debt if they decline to pay. 14) If the item cost less than £600.00 the consumer cannot even upgrade their legal action to the high court, which does have the power to enforce collection of damages, through its court appointed officer. Thus you can very easily see the Warranty process has been so obfuscated by the involved parties as to turn it into a lottery. I would therefore reiterate my request that the OFT investigate the issue, with a view to compelling the forenamed parties to create and engage in a Warranty process that is manifestly transparent, equitable to all parties and free from all possibility of unfair manipulation Yours faithfully etc.
×
×
  • Create New...