Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Agree it is not a modification that needs to be disclosed to Insurers as changing the seats has not changed the risk.  
    • Frpm David Frost and Robert Jenrick: 'Conservatives must show we respect the votes in 2016 and 2019 and not give the Opposition the chance to undo the benefits of leaving the EU'   Sweep away the Brexit gloom – or Labour will unravel a huge gain ARCHIVE.PH archived 22 Apr 2024 05:47:50 UTC  
    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

TV faulty after eleven weeks!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5474 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

 

A lady friend purchased TV in the last week of December 2008 from Currys.

Last week while she was watching it the screen went black and the words "No Signal" appeared.

 

Whatever we try to do it will not change. I tried the buttons on the side of TV and there is no reaction. Nothing happens when we try the remote.

 

So she went to local Currys and asked for refund and was told too late to get money back as over 28 days .... she must phone tech support.

This she did and after several phone calls they have now told her they will send a new remote in the post!!! But it can not be a faulty remote as when I bypass that and use the buttons on the TV there is still no response!

 

Because of the very poor attitude of Curry's staff and the fact the TV has gone wrong so quickly she wants her money back and buy a set elsewhere.

 

Please advise .....

We understand that Currys keep saying it is their terms that stress money back only in the first 28 days BUT Under the Sale Of Goods Act can she return TV and demand money back .... after all she only had the set eleven weeks!!

 

Thank you

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

 

A lady friend purchased TV in the last week of December 2008 from Currys.

Last week while she was watching it the screen went black and the words "No Signal" appeared.

 

Whatever we try to do it will not change. I tried the buttons on the side of TV and there is no reaction. Nothing happens when we try the remote.

 

So she went to local Currys and asked for refund and was told too late to get money back as over 28 days .... she must phone tech support.

This she did and after several phone calls they have now told her they will send a new remote in the post!!! But it can not be a faulty remote as when I bypass that and use the buttons on the TV there is still no response!

 

Because of the very poor attitude of Curry's staff and the fact the TV has gone wrong so quickly she wants her money back and buy a set elsewhere.

 

Please advise .....

We understand that Currys keep saying it is their terms that stress money back only in the first 28 days BUT Under the Sale Of Goods Act can she return TV and demand money back .... after all she only had the set eleven weeks!!

 

Thank you

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

 

After a reasonable period of time (generaly assumed as 28 days for most goods) currys have the right to offer a repair, replacement or refund at the discression of the company in the event of a breakdown or fault. It's economicaly sounder for them to offer you a repair because it's cheaper, which is what they will do once you've got this remote and it doesn't work. The only way around this is claiming that losing the TV for 28 days whist it's repaired would cause you undue inconvinence, which, with a TV being a luxury item, is going to be tough if not impossible.

 

A claim under the sale of goods act would require them to provide you with a remedy, which takes the form of (but is not limited to) a repair, replacement, or refund.

 

How exactly were the staff rude to you, maybe I can advise you how to best deal with them? I really dislike negative and rude staff, because they tend to end up tarring all us DSG employees with the same brush.

 

Anyway, I suspect this will have to be sent off for repair, but I wish you the best of luck getting this sorted. Also please bare in mind, they only have 28 days to repair your TV after which they must send you replacement vouchers or another TV.

Edited by Renzokuken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Renzokuken,

 

The staff were not rude as such ...... it was their attitude ..... they did not want to help my friend at all in the shop and told her she will have to go away and phone the tech support number to get them to help.

 

I think this is very unfair as after only eleven weeks my friend will be without her TV while it has repairs done. Surely she is entitled to money back as the TV is unfit for purpose.

 

Thanks

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what you do need to bare in mind, in currys more so than PCWorld, is that very few of the staff are technicians, therefor for some faults, it's better for the customer to go home, ring technical support and have them diognose the fault in the area the TV intends to be used. This is due to the number of TV's we get returned because people can't pick up a signal rather than faulty equipment.

 

I'm not saying they weren't rude to you, all I'm saying is that the act of them asking you to take the TV home and ring technical support isn't them being malicious or not wanting to deal with you. It's simply them putting you in the best position to find a fault with the TV and with the best people to help fix it.

 

As far as a refund goes, that's at the discression of the company, and company policy states that all TV's and large items must be sent away for repair if outside of a 28 day period, stores have no basis on which to challenge this unless an item is returned as missold. This 28 day policy in it's self is a loose and sometimes flawed interpretation of the SOGA, which does not state 28 days, but instead says a "Reasonable period". Although in this case your argument would not stand, as most people, would consider almost a month to be ample time within which to terminate and recend the contract. If it had been a matter of maybe a week or two over, you may have had a case in a court. Obviously I'm no solicitor but judging by what I've read around here, almost 3 months is way over a "reasonable period" for a TV.

 

As stated above, any claim under the SOGA, even if it's unfit for purpose, allows the retailer a chance to correct this with a number of remedies (aka: Repair, replace, refund.), so as long as they are making an attempt to correct the situation without causing you undue inconveniance, they aren't doing anything wrong.

Edited by Renzokuken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ren you are so WRONG! this a major fault and OP is entitled to a full refunf and should insist on one under SOGA in the first six months it is up to the retailer to prove the fault was not in inherent. It is up to the op if they wish to accept a repair or refunf or replacement. Take it pack and ask for a refund or get them to send engineer around to pick it up. SOGA covers you for up to six years remember, pro rata for useage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry ray but thats incorrect

1.S.48B (1) Repair or replacement

 

 

S.48B provides that the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace the goods at the sellers expense. The seller is required to do so within a reasonable time. If the buyer makes this request they lose the right to reject the goods unless the seller does not comply within a reasonable time. The seller need not repair or replace the goods where this would be impossible or disproportionate to do so.

 

the seller has the chance to repair or replaced if they cannot do this in a reasonable length of time or it is impossible to do then the OP can request a refund

Edited by labrat
quote marks messing up post removed

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry ray but thats incorrect

 

1.S.48B (1) Repair or replacement

 

 

S.48B provides that the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace the goods at the sellers expense. The seller is required to do so within a reasonable time. If the buyer makes this request they lose the right to reject the goods unless the seller does not comply within a reasonable time. The seller need not repair or replace the goods where this would be impossible or disproportionate to do so.

 

the seller has the chance to repair or replaced if they cannot do this in a reasonable length of time or it is impossible to do then the OP can request a refund

 

Cheers labrat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ren you are so WRONG! this a major fault and OP is entitled to a full refunf and should insist on one under SOGA in the first six months it is up to the retailer to prove the fault was not in inherent. It is up to the op if they wish to accept a repair or refunf or replacement. Take it pack and ask for a refund or get them to send engineer around to pick it up. SOGA covers you for up to six years remember, pro rata for useage.

Faults being inherent only open the door to a free remedy - repair or replacement.

 

The six months thing only shifts the burden of proof. The remedy (once fault has been established) is identical.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry ray but thats incorrect

 

1.S.48B (1) Repair or replacement

 

 

S.48B provides that the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace the goods at the sellers expense. The seller is required to do so within a reasonable time. If the buyer makes this request they lose the right to reject the goods unless the seller does not comply within a reasonable time. The seller need not repair or replace the goods where this would be impossible or disproportionate to do so.

 

the seller has the chance to repair or replaced if they cannot do this in a reasonable length of time or it is impossible to do then the OP can request a refund

 

Ooh now we are getting complicated. This is under part 5A which is headed "additional rights" - emphasis of additional. There is nothing in the Act which gives a loss of right to a refund if a repair is requested. Indeed, the House of Lords have confirmed this on several occasions. However, the goods have been accepted, so recission under s. 14 would be very unlikely. Part 5A allows for reduced price or recission if proportionate and reasonable time for replacement or repair is refused or impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All and thank you for your help,

 

Wow ..... read all the posts ..... had a cup of tea ...... read them again ....

 

Confused!!!!!:grin:

 

What should she do??? ..... take it on the chin and have Currys repair it in their own time frame or go in shop and demand cash back?

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All and thank you for your help,

 

Wow ..... read all the posts ..... had a cup of tea ...... read them again ....

 

Confused!!!!!:grin:

 

What should she do??? ..... take it on the chin and have Currys repair it in their own time frame or go in shop and demand cash back?

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

 

Personaly, I would have them repair it. By the time you've argued with them, been stonewalled then raised a small claim, they could have had it repaired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write in quoting 48b of SoGA, but ask for a "remedy" instead of a repair or replacement (if you say a repair for example. they may do that when they would have otherwise replaced it, so don't limit yourself).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it a major fault, the goods are not fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality and a refund or replacement is your right. The buyer has the right to a replacement! if anything goes seriaosly wrong in the first six months ( reasonable time for a television/fridge/car etc ) not so for say shoes. The 28m days limit applied by such stores infringes on your statutory rights and is wrong. Insist they replace the TV or you will take them to court. Argos replced mine after 4 months, they said bring it back and pick up a new one. Also just got the cost for most of the repairs ( engine went ) for my new ( 9 year old car) paid for by the dealer after 11 months after purchase, after threatening to take him to court: by the way barclaycard paid the rest as I paid by credit card.

Know your rights and stick to them; dot let them fob you of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it a major fault, the goods are not fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality and a refund or replacement is your right. The buyer has the right to a replacement! if anything goes seriaosly wrong in the first six months ( reasonable time for a television/fridge/car etc ) not so for say shoes. The 28m days limit applied by such stores infringes on your statutory rights and is wrong. Insist they replace the TV or you will take them to court. Argos replced mine after 4 months, they said bring it back and pick up a new one. Also just got the cost for most of the repairs ( engine went ) for my new ( 9 year old car) paid for by the dealer after 11 months after purchase, after threatening to take him to court: by the way barclaycard paid the rest as I paid by credit card.

Know your rights and stick to them; dot let them fob you of.

 

Ahah.. The exact peice of legislation has been quoted yet you still insist that he can have a replacement/refund. Your advice is misleading, you've been informed of this, yet still you continue.

 

Quite simply, it's up to currys if they want to repair, replace or refund. And the policy of the store is to repair, therefor, unless they cannot repair it, or cannot repair it in a reasonable amount of time or somehow the OP convinces them to change their minds/policy. The OP will not recieve a refund or exchange.

 

This is perfectly legal because roughly 28 days is considered a reasonable time to recend the contract of sale, meaning he would be entitled to an automatic refund or exchange. almost 3 months is way, way over this period.

 

You can insist on a refund or exchange all you like, but currys are well aware that they have the right to repair. Take it to court, and all they'll say is "we offered a repair to remedy the situation and the customer refused". And you'll get nothing but court fees.

Edited by Renzokuken

Link to post
Share on other sites

The buyer has the right to a replacement! if anything goes seriaosly wrong in the first six months

[citation needed]

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little point in arguing over whether 28 days is reasonable or not. As we know, the law prescribes the undefinable "reasonable length of time". 10 days may be reasonable, but then again, 2 months may be reasonable depending on the circumstances. In that sense, it can be seen as a restriction of rights and really such signs should not be put up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little point in arguing over whether 28 days is reasonable or not. As we know, the law prescribes the undefinable "reasonable length of time". 10 days may be reasonable, but then again, 2 months may be reasonable depending on the circumstances. In that sense, it can be seen as a restriction of rights and really such signs should not be put up.

 

In an appeal case over what constitutes a resonable time, the appeal judge said - "What is a reasonable time in relation to a bicycle would hardly suffice for a nuclear submarine."

 

So it would depend on the merits of the purchased product and the price paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I remember seeing that somewhere - gonna dig my cases out!

 

Clegg v Olle Andersson

 

Centered on if time had run out to reject. But this was for something new that wasn't exectly to description and if it had been accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clegg v Olle Andersson

 

Centered on if time had run out to reject. But this was for something new that wasn't exectly to description and if it had been accepted.

 

Oh that one, yes I remember raising this with my lecturer at the time...."So the case was about a yacht and he was comparing bicycles and submarines....OK!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont remember much from law class i was only in it rarely

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the costs of repair outstrip the cost of replacement, then a replacement would be the sellers prefered choice.

I know that, just as you and the rest of us do. I was trying to make the person making the claim I quoted prove it...

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

far as i know the sales of good act doesnt give a time length for "reasonable length of time", i know currys interprits it as 28 days, which includes the time to send out the remote, so after 28 days is up if its not sorted you can ask the store for a replacement

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...