LG DVD out of warranty help pls with SOGA

[madasamuppet]

Hi, we bought a dvd home cinema system from Currys it's an LG It was bought June 2008 in Jan 09 developed a fault and was replaced by the company LG use. Now the replacement has developed a fault (the same one as the original) and its not even a year old. Have phoned LG and they say that because the original is out of warrant (June 2009) that there is nothing they can do as the warranty runs from the original purchase. This is total B*****it as far as I'm concerned if it was still the original one it would only be 18mth olds. Its not like its used three times a day every day. The replacement and the original are faulty in the same way, they please themselves what discs to play or not.

 

I have the escalation address to write to if I'm not happy which I'm not but I need help with the legislation I will be using in my letter to them eg SOGA and the other european laws which cover this sort of thing. Any help would be much appreciated. Surely the law outweighs their company policy, thank you for any help.

[Bookworm]

The first time it failed, you say it was replaced by the company LG use. Does that mean you contacted LG and not Curry's? If that's the case, they are completely correct, as they are the manufacturers.

 

Your remedy is in fact with CURRY's, who are the retailers and who you have a contract with. The problem is that if you went to LG directly in the first place, you have weakened your position because Curry's are the ones who should have dealt with it in the first instance.

 

"surely the law outweighs their company policy", well yes, but the problem is that you didn't follow either. I can see Curry's playing the "but you went to manufacturers first, not our problem" whilst LG will stick to their 12 months warranty.

 

Incidentally, even if your goods get replaced, the original date of purchase is still what counts when it comes to expiry dates and such. I once had a laptop replaced at 11 months, when that failed after a couple of weeks, the burden of proof was on me, not the company as it was deemed that the contract ticked from 11.5 months ago. Go figure.

 

Anyway... I would suggest you contact Curry's, explain the situation, tell them that under SOGA the goods should last more than 18 mths whether it's a replacement or not, and NOT let them fob you off with sending you to the manufacturer. How much did you pay for the system anyway?

 

Normally you would be in a very strong position to argue your case, in this instance, you have painted yourself in a corner.

[madasamuppet]

The first time it failed I called currys who forwarded me to the LG line and who then forwarded onto the company they use Invex solutions for a replacement. This second time I called currys and you get the automated telephone line eg press 1 for dvds then press 4 for LG and then you get put through to the company. Would it be worthwhile phoning a different number for currys.

[ukaviator]

I would go to the retailer armed with a copy of the Eu directive stating that UK goods are "covered" for two years irrespective of the sellers policy. The EU rule allowing the return of goods up to two years after purchase is at odds with the returns policies adopted by most major shops.

 

Most major retailers will have a stated returns policy that complies with UK consumer law. The law says that retailers must sell goods that are 'as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality'. If a defect is detected when, or in a reasonable period of time after, the sale is made, then buyers can demand a full refund. Under UK law, buyers in England and Wales can get a partial refund or full repair up to six years after the purchase was made, five years from discovery in Scotland, the refund should take into account how much use the customer has already had of the product.

[madasamuppet]

Okay so maybe write to LG and Currys the same letter stating the same facts and as far as I;m concerned for two machines to develop the same fault within less than a year means they have an inherent fault and not fit for purpose. Do you have a link to the EU directive I could include in my letter and does anyone have a number for currys other than the stupid 0845 one.

[madasamuppet]

Right found another number and called currys. They say surprise surprise out of warranty but when i told them that under soga even the first one should last more than 18mths and that they are obviously faulty. he said you need to prove it and get an indpendent report to confirm this. Surely I shouldn't have to prove anything and the fact that they both developed same fault is proof enuf. So what now. Write to both companies and explaining the situation and see what happens. Is this right that I have to prove anything or is there anything in the act that says i don't have to do this.

 

I wouldn't mind so much but its a cinema system so don't even think I could get another dvd player and just plug the speakers into that. Not impressed.

[ukaviator]

Its here in Word or PDf:

 

Easy Reading Corner - Booklets: Europe on the move

 

Sale of Goods Act here:

 

Sale of Goods Act Fact Sheet - BIS

 

The Cinema system should allow you to plug in another DVD player of the same or better quality. If they are playing up you could report them to trading standards. Is this your local shop you are calling?

[madasamuppet]

Hi, no not local shop but currys customer services line. Was bought from currys online. Away to write a letter and email to them both and see what they come up with. wish me luck

[upnorthal]

Out of interest.

 

I heard that in law, if you approach the manufacturer and make a warranty claim - then later try to go back to the retailer claiming SOG - you have effectively 'weakened' your legal position.

 

Is this true?

 

In other words, should you *always* claim SOG against the retailer and not get fobbed of having to ask for a warranty claim.

[ukaviator]

Always go back to the retailer, they will then put in the warranty claim for their refund if the goods are faulty.

[madasamuppet]

I've drafted this up how does it sound

Dear Sirs

 

I purchased an LG home theatre system from your Currys online store which I am led to believe comes under Branch Code 4944. The receipt number for this transaction is *****.

 

The original dvd player developed a fault within 7 months of purchase and as such I contacted yourselves. You then redirected me to the LG line who requested a replacement via Invex Solutions. This was replaced in January 2009. The replacement unit has now developed a fault and for all intents and purposes is the same as the original fault; in that it is inconsistent in the dvds that it chooses to play e.g. it will play one dvd but try another and it won't. The dvds themselves are not faulty as they have been tested in other machines. This can only lead me to believe that the actual dvd players themselves have some form of inherent fault within them. The first occurred after 7 months of use and the other within 11 months. The replacement unit has not been used as much as the first because of the installation of sky movies and as such not required as much as before. I can only presume that this is why it has lastest longer than the first.

 

Regardless of the length of time I have had the replacement machine; if I was still using the original machine purchased it in itself would still only be about 18 months old. Surely a piece of equipment that is used on average about five times a month should have a longer shelf life than that.

 

On phoning your customer care line I was informed that because the original machine was purchased in June 2008 its warranty expired in June 2009 and that the replacement machine did not carry an additional warranty and as such your company would not do anything to either replace or repair the machine that is now at fault. It is because of this that I now find myself having to assert my consumer rights and write to your company pointing out that in fact under the Law your company is obliged to do something about this faulty machine.

 

As I am sure you are aware of the SOGA 1979, this Act provides for a number of things which protect consumers from organisation like yourselves from hiding behind the “warranty has expired excuse” in order to remove yourselves from your obligations when goods develop faults outwith the one year period. In fact there is also another form of legislation to protect customers in this event and it is the fact that a two*year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in

the EU (Directive 1999/44/EC). All goods bought which are covered under SOGA should:

 

 

"conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale). The fact that two machines have developed a similar fault within their first year of use (the first after 7 months and the second within 11 months) suggest to me that they are not fit for purpose and are inherently faulty.

•* Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description. A resaonable person would regard them as satisfactory if they did not break and become faulty within one year. These machines have both failed to me this standard. A reasonable person would expect just one machine to last longer than 18 months.

 

•* Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.As above

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement). I do not want to go down this route I would like for your company to adhere to your obligations under the SOGA and the EU Directive and replace or repair my machine.

I have bought numerous products from your company and this brand of manufacturer and up until now I have not had any problems when dealing with your customer care team. I feel it very unfortunate that on this occasion I have purchased a product from yourselves that developed a fault was replaced by the same product and this has now proved faulty and all your company can say is “its out of warranty, nothing we can do, get a report and prove its faulty”.

I am requesting that your company replaces this machine or provides a repair not under the original warranty but under the SOGA and the EU Drective 1999/44/EC. I am also hopeful that this issue can be resolved without the need for further action being taken on my part and complaints being raised with Trading Standards and the OFT.

I await your timely response to this matter and would also inform you that a hard copy of this will be sent via post to the relevent postal address.

[Bookworm]

Oy oy oy...

 

Uk, my dear chap, with all my love, you are confusing 2 very separate issues on one hand SOGA (statutory rights - retailer issue), on the other warranties (manufacturer issue), and if you'll forgive me saying so, are mixing up the two.

 

MASM, your post reassures me. If you did go through Curry's and they directed you to LG for remedy, then you haven't alienated your statutory rights, which is great.

 

They are however correct that the onus is on YOU to prove the fault (it would be different if the goods were less than 6 months old). You do need to get an independent engineer report and pay for it, but you can then reclaim the cost from Curry's.

 

So, get that report before anything else. Then send a copy of it to Curry's with a letter drawing their attention to the fact the engineer confirms that the item wasn't of satisfactory quality in terms of durability as defined under SOGA 1979 (as amended) and tell them that you await their response as regards remedy as well as reimbursement for your engineer's report. Remind them that you know that responsability for remedy lies with them, not the manufacturer and that you will not accept being fobbed off.

 

But first, you have to get that report. ;-)

[Bookworm]

Out of interest.

 

I heard that in law, if you approach the manufacturer and make a warranty claim - then later try to go back to the retailer claiming SOG - you have effectively 'weakened' your legal position.

 

Is this true?

 

In other words, should you *always* claim SOG against the retailer and not get fobbed of having to ask for a warranty claim.

Yes, which is why I was worried about MASM's post.

[upnorthal]

Yes, which is why I was worried about MASM's post.

 

The majority of high street retailers will try it on and try to push the consumer into making a warranty claim.

 

I don't know the exact legal reasoning or how much making a warranty claim direct detracts from one's statutory rights.

 

I'm surprised Trading Standards have not taken a stance on this - if it is going to damage people's rights under SOG.

 

I guess the rule here is *always* claim against retailer and advise them to make their own warranty claim themselves!

[Bookworm]

The legal reasoning is this:

 

The contract is between seller and buyer. The seller has a responsability to offer a remedy, whether be replacement, repair or refund. But on the other hand, the buyer can't just go and get the goods repaired wherever without telling the buyer, because what if they were to go their best mate trainee repairman and he were to botch up the job and make matters worse? Then the buyer goes back to seller and says: "look at that, what are you going to do about it?" and the seller would have to pick up the tab and incur further expenses through the buyer's choice. And so the buyer has a responsability to go for remedy to the retailer first. If the retailer then directs buyer towards a repairer of their choice, or the manufacturer, then that's ok, but not for the buyer to do so off his own bat.

 

Hope that makes things clearer.

 

The problem is that people don't understand the difference between statutory rights and manufacturers warranty and the media hasn't helped with their misconceived articles about the "2 yrs european warranty".

[ukaviator]

Always go back to the retailer, they will then put in the warranty claim for their refund if the goods are faulty.

 

Ah i see where the confusion is with my post. The warranty claim would be the retailer getting the item replaced by the manufacturer of the item, when sent back.

 

An example was when my Ipod failed after 14 months, i sent it back to Argos, they gave me a new one, no hassle at all. They then sent my old broken one back to Apple under a warranty claim to replenish the stock Argos had used to replace it.

 

Where delivery costs are involved, the retailer has to pay them, and repairs must be carried out within a "reasonable" time. If it's impossible to replace or repair the item, you can claim a refund of some, or possibly even all, of the purchase price, depending on how much the item has been used.

 

Follow Bookies advice

[patdavies]

Hi, we bought a dvd home cinema system from Currys it's an LG It was bought June 2008 in Jan 09 developed a fault and was replaced by the company LG use. Now the replacement has developed a fault (the same one as the original) and its not even a year old.

 

SOGA no longer applies.

 

The contract that you had with the retailer was for the original item. You no longer have that (as it was replaced under warranty) so the contract has ended.

[Bookworm]

Of course it does. The item was replaced because CURRY's directed the consumer there for remedy, therefore the retailer-consumer relationship still stands. By that logic, every time you get faulty goods replaced, it would mean the retailer could wash his hands of any further mishaps, which is blatantly not the case.

[buzby]

There are a few issues here - it isn;t the original goods, but that's not the primary problem as I see it, but the fact the guarantee - if for 12 montrhs - will have expired. Since it does not re-start to zero with a replacement machine, the guarantee will expire whatrever the period allowed for, based on the original receipt.

 

So - with the guarantee now possibly expired even if Currys agent arranged replacement - that's all OK, but for SOGA to apply, the ORIGINAL goods are covered, not any replacement provided as the replacement was never 'sold' it was provided FoC in consideration of customer goodwill. As such, SOGA is no longer active.

[Bookworm]

Incorrect. The replacement was made because the goods were in breach of SOGA, and that was the remedy chosen by the retailer ahead of repair or refund. For all intent and purpose (including burden or proof) the replacement goods are the same as the original purchase, even if it were a different brand or specs.

[buzby]

Once the offer of replacement is accepted the duty to further act in the matter is discharged. to suggest otherwise opens the spectre of betterment.

 

NOTHING was in 'breach' of SOGA, a replacement was made for whatever reason the supplier wanted. The only relevant document is the original purchase receipt, and if 12 months of a guarantee is promised, after 367 days, you're on your own unless you feel you have an issue and wish to pursue it at your expense.

[Bookworm]

So what you're saying is that if your TV breaks down over and over again, if the retailer replaces it instead of repairing or refunding, the next time the TV breaks down, the retailer can wash his hands of it?

 

Yeah, ok.

 

SOGA is not a "once only" remedy. The goods, whether the original or replacements, are covered under SOGA as long as the "reasonable" length of time for remedy applies. A £5 kettle, not as long as a £65K BMW, for example.

[buzby]

Glad you happy. I look forward to that smile being removed when your replaced item is revealed as non SOGA. It isn't rocket science but then with rose-tints on, it's difficult to see.

 

Your legal remedy has indeed expired ubder SOGA, in that there is no soubt. Whether of course a shop or manufacturer would wish the publicity of such an event is another matter. I certainly concur with your last paragraph insofar as a reasonable length of useful ownership - but then, that wasn't the question, so let's not get sidetracked.

[Bookworm]

Ok, either you're doing it on purpose, or you're deluded, so please show me proof.

 

Show me where it says so that once a remedy has been applied, it exonerates the supplier from further remedies in case of further problems.

[kiptower]

it is as Bookie said

 

the original PURCHASE is what is covered , eg you bought a XYZ TV ( not the actual UNIT ) no matter how many times the XYZ TV is replaced under SOGA, the replacement is still regarded as the "original purchase"