SOGA - Need help with PIC *WON*

[moneydragon]

Hi

 

Just over 3 years ago I paid £1499 for a Sony Bravia tv. Last October Ithe tv developed what I now know to be a common fault. I have been back to both the retailer and Sony and neither want to know.

 

I have obtained at my cost an independant report stating the problem being the screen, therefore the next step I intend to do is take the retailer to court as I believe the goods are not fit for purpose, a tv costing over £1k should last longer than 3years. In the states sony have been taken to court over the same problem and the claimant won.

 

I am about to submit my claim to the courts but I am stuck with completing the PIC - can anyone please help.

 

md

[rebel11]

Hi money

 

Theres info on SOGA in my

signature (10)

I've also moved your thread.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/making-a-complaint/taking-a-dispute-to-the-small-claims-court/using-the-small-claims-court/

 

See example documents :- http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/wirral/countycourtindex.htm

(some info on that site is out of date - but the examples are o.k.)

[moneydragon]

Thanks rebel much appreciated.

 

I have typed up my PIC would someone be kind enough to look it over and let me know if I have done it correctly:

 

On the 15th May 2007, I, the Claimant purchased a Sony Bravia 55’ 19R992/18605 television from the Defendant for the sum of £1449.00

 

The goods were delivered and installed to my address.

 

On 15 October 2010 the LCD screen developed resulting in the colour being green.

 

On 19th October 2010 I informed Sony of the fault and was advised me that the guarantee had expired and that due to the age of your television, it is no longer covered by the manufactures guarantee. Concluding Sony would not contribute towards the cost of the repair or replacement. I pointed out to Sony on 25.10.10 that as the item was faulty and that goods are not deemed 'of satisfactory quality' under the sale of goods act for up to six years after they have been purchased. I was then informed by Sony that if I was to discuss this matter further under the sales of goods act, this will need to be discussed with the supplying dealer, with whom hold a contract of sale

On the 13th November 2010 I wrote to the Defendant drawing their attention to the terms of the sale of goods act in which goods should last a reasonable amount of time and that on this basis in breach of contract, S14 of Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) as the goods were clearly not of a satisfactory quality. I attach a copy of my letter marked XX.

 

I received a response the defendant saving that as I did not provide any evidence from an independent expert they would not look at this matter further.

 

On 16th April 2011 I sent a copy of an independent report stating that the LCD was faulty, I also advised the Defendant of my intention to issue proceedings if they did not respond. I attach a copy of my letter marked XX. I received no further response from the Defendant.

 

I seek a refund of the price paid for the goods, in the sum of £XXXX. I attach a copy of my receipt marked ‘JB3’. I also claim the sum of £54.00 for the cost of the independent engineers report. I attach invoice in this regard marked ‘JB4’. I, the Claimant, believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.

Many thanks md:-)

[rebel11]

Hi money

 

Thread moved.

[nicklea]

You can only claim damages for the full amount if you have received no benefit at all from the goods. You have received three years benefit.

[nicolawelch]

The three years benefit would form part of the defence, so why reduce the claim? The claim may not be defended and judgement would then be the full amount. If defended, the judge might then be able to reduce the claim in a show of being helpfull to the defendant.

[moneydragon]

Many thanks nicklea and nicolawelch for your replies I am about to submit to the court.

 

md:-)

[Jasper1965]

Few points:

1) I don't think you've correctly identified the tv model, thats certainly not a Sony id that I'm familiar with. Sony use a code for numbering their tv's such as KDL-46-X-2010 where the first three describe whether digital or analogue tuner, the second set denote screen size, third set the series (U, S, V, X, W & E) and the final one the colour (in the case of 2010 dark grey).

2) I think you should make greater use of the purchase price, point out that you paid a premium price of about 50% more than the equivalent tv from an alternative manufacturer such as LG or Samsung in order to purchase a BETTER QUALITY item.

3) If this problem can be identified as being responsible for a class action in the USA then you should point this out and include pertinent documentary evidence eg newspaper reports. IMO it's easier to prove a manufacturing defect when numerous others can be shown to have suffered exactly the same problem.

 

 

personally I would amend the amount claimed from the total purchase price to reflect the amount of use you feel you have lost from the product with 72 months being a fair starting point for an item of this type, cost and quality. Claiming the whole amount is wrong and gives the defendant something to defend.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

This could be a struggle. However, you are undoubtedly not entitled to a refund. Even if you could prove that the TV was defective, the correct measure of damages is the lower of the cost of repair, or the cost of a replacement 3 year old television (which I would have thought is quite modest).

[moneydragon]

Thanks Jasper

I quoted the order no the model is KDS 55 A 2000.

 

I was unsure what what to put in the pic so for now I have just entered xxx. I appreciate that I cant and wont be able to claim the full amount, to be honest if they just repaired it and paid the engineers report I would be happy.

 

I also had no tv and whilst waiting for this to sort, I have now gone out and purchased a samsung which has incurred me expense which if the sony stilled worked would not of incurred.

[raydetinu]

whose the retailer? may help others to avoid if shirking responsibilities!

I had problem with 40" sony bought from tesco and cliamed from them over two and half years old, they gave ne 50% back by cheque ( did not want to see it just had to fill out claim form ) then got fixed for £75

[Jasper1965]

Thanks Jasper

I quoted the order no the model is KDS 55 A 2000.

 

That makes sense but that particular model is a rear projection tv as such it will not have an lcd screen as you have pleaded. Double check your facts, I guess it's the light engine that went if it is a rear projector.

[raydetinu]

Jasper; It does have three individual LCD panels for each colour, and mirrors similar to DLP projectors.

It is usually the lamp that goes and you can kits for this for about £300 ( £80 or so on ebay ).

[moneydragon]

Just to update.

 

I issued the defendant with a claim for the repair £500 plus the independant engineers report and the court costs totalling just over £600.

 

Today I had notification from the court that the defendant has part admitted the claim and offered £100. I dont think I am being unreasonable in asking just for the repair costs. Therefore I am not going to accept this. I now have to complete a notice of part judgement and would appreciate any advice on completing.

 

md

[Jasper1965]

I'm puzzled how they can part admit this claim and offer just £100 when the part was either faulty or not faulty and the part in question is sold for about £500 by Sony themselves . Can you provide any more information please?

[moneydragon]

hi Jasper

 

The engineers report says that the set has faulty light engine. requires collection of set removal of light engine. Return light engine to sony espana for refurbisment. Replace light engine and return set. Total cost £500.

 

The defendant states that I am claiming £500 yet they have been given no paperwork or evidnce to substantiate this (they have had a copy sent of the engineers report in April) The customer was sent a letter in Dec 10 advising me that as the item was 3½ year old they believed the problem experienced may be due to fair wear and tear, and whilst the sale of goods act sets a limit of six years for making a claim in respect of a fault that was present at the time of sale, this is also not a guarantee and it does not mean that the goods would be expect to last six years (at a cost of 1.4k I expect it to last) The customer cannot also expect a legal remedy in respect of fair wear and tear.

 

We asked the customer to provide us with evidence from an independent expert that the item had a latent or inherent fault present at the time of sale. We would then of course looked in to the matter again in accordance with their rights un der sale of goods act.

 

No further communication from the customer until April 2011 where the same message was reiterated (no they just ignorned my correspondence that is why I submitted a claim)

 

md:-(

[Jasper1965]

sony are fully aware of a latent and inherent fault with the light engine used in these televisions. The internet is awash with unhappy customers experiences. they (Sony) even went so far as to do this and this (you will clearly see your tv model listed as one with the light engine fault in the pdf's).

 

I suggest a copy of the Sony website page and copies of the related PDF's should be included within your bundle as they clearly demonstrate that the light engine in that particular model tv was subject to a disproportionately high failure rate.

 

It might also help your claim to include the following brochure from Sony link

 

The brochure makes a selling point of this tv's technology proudly boasting "After countless hours of enjoyment, simply replace the lamp and your Grand Wega is as good as the day you bought it. In fact with Sonys renowned quality, Grand WEGA may be the last TV you ever own."

 

Clearly Sony were wrong and it may be for a Judge to decide if Sony pitched this claim to prospective customers of this tv range and those customers subsequently paid a premium for the TV whether those customers might in return expect a TV SPECIFICALLY advertised and sold as being "long lasting" NOT to fail so catastrophically at such an early age.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Jasper1965

[moneydragon]

Thanks Jasper thats is very helpful:)

[moneydragon]

Hi Jasper

 

As I have received notice of part admission (specified amount) I have to send this back to the court stating that I do not accept the defendants £100 and a reason why the judge will then look at it and make judgment.

 

The following is my reason:

The defendant is correct in that I purchased the TV 3½ years ago however the TV cost me £1.4k at the time Sony brochure makes a selling point of this TV’s technology proudly boasting "After countless hours of enjoyment, simply replace the lamp and your Grand Wega is as good as the day you bought it. In fact with Sony’s renowned quality, Grand WEGA may be the last TV you ever own." I subsequently paid a premium for this TV.

 

Sony is fully aware of a latent and inherent fault with the light engine used in these televisions. Sony issued on 28/05/20I0 Class Action Settlement and Information after court action was taken against them in America. Included in the Litigation and Settlement Information my TV model is listed as one with the light engine fault.

 

I wrote to the defendant in October 2010 and received a reply in December 2010. They are also correct in that it took until April 2011 to produce an independent engineers report as I had difficulty finding an engineer independent from Sony.

 

Taking the above into account I feel that the TV as per my rights under the sale of goods act is not fit for purpose, therefore I feel that I am reasonable in claiming for the costs of the repair, engineers report and court costs.

Is this ok?

[moneydragon]

Hi

 

The defendants where given a date to submit their documents this date passed, I immediately asked for judgment but the judge decided to give them an extra 10 days to submit their allocation and guess what they did. Bummer!

 

I now have to pay a £80 hearing fee and deliver to the other party and court copies of all documents 14 days before the court date which is in October.

 

Any help, advice to prepare would be much appreciated.

 

md

[moneydragon]

Help Needed Please

 

Well my date in court looms ever so close now(next week) and today I have received the other party's defence whereby in one part they state The customer was sent a letter in 2010 advising that as the item was 3½ years old we believed the problems experienced may be due to fair wear and tear, and whilst the sale of goods act sets a limit of six years for making a claim in repect of a fault that was present at the time of sale, this is also not a guarantee, and it does not mean that the goods would be expected to last six years.

Can someone please help me put together an arguement to this part of their claim

[Crazy Diamond]

Well, seems neither they nor you actually have read the SOGA, so that's not a great start. If either party had, you would both know that the 6 yrs limit is not mentioned in it, for the very good reason that such remedy is under the Limitations Act 1980. As a matter of fact, goods which are sufficiently expensive or valuable would have a recourse for longer than that... Anyway, not the point here, just pointing out the dangers of suing without knowing under which law you're suing. Thankfully, they seem to be just as ignorant of the law so that evens things out.

 

You don't have to prove anything else. You have got an engineer's report that says the goods are faulty, you have evidence to show that it is a well-known fault within the range and brand, even leading up to a recall of some of them in the US, and you are the claimant.

 

It's up to them now to prove to the judge's satisfaction that they haven't denied you your statutory rights, something which is going to be an uphill struggle considering that you have both an expert's report and the company's track record showing otherwise.

The guarantee thing is a fob-off and they obviously haven't consulted a solicitor! Your claim is not about guarantees, it is about "what the average person on the street would consider a reasonable time" (that's the SOGA definition) You paid top dollar for a supposedly top-of-the-range TV, once that the bumph led you to believe would outlast all other TVs hence why it was worth spending that big chunk of cash. That's your case, let them try and defend that!

 

Re: time used v full cost, if you take the full price and divide it by the time you'd expect the TV to last (say 10 yrs for the sake of th example) it gives you how an amount per year. Multiply that yearly amount by the amount of yers you did get the use of it, and deduct that fromt he total price, what's left is what your claim should be for (plus engineer report cost, plus court fees, all of them, plus you should have claimed 8% APR statutory interest from the day of your claim, but if you didn't, it's too late I'm afraid).

 

So say £1500 divided by 10 yrs = £150/yr, 3 yrs use = £450, claim should be £1500 - £450 (+fees, etc...) This is just an example, remember. You can also do it in months if you want to be more precise. However, remember that there are no set amounts, this is not a rigid and set by courts formula, but it helps showing the judge how you reached your calculations, it shows you are prepared to knock something off for the use you did get of the goods and that you are being reasonable.

 

Quick note: if they back down and say they will fix or replace after all, you are perfectly entitled to say no, you will only accept a refund now. They could have done that a long time ago, they chose not to in the hope you'd go away, they lost the right to choose the remedy, so don't let them tell you otherwise. You had to buy another TV whilst they were faffing about, that's their problem not yours.

 

Other questions, shoot. I'm not here too often these days, but will keep an eye on your thread.

 

Incidentally, if you're interested in learning more about the law itself (something I'd recommend to anyone planning to go to court), posts and stickies by Gyzmo and Bookworm on this forum are a very good way to show you how to go about it. Good luck.

[raydetinu]

Crazy, good post, spot on.

[moneydragon]

Crazy

That's great, very informative thank you very much. and just to show how much I appreciated this advice I have made a contribution.

 

I admit I am a little naive and feeling a little out of my depth here, I accept your point of 6 years but it is the other party that keep going on about the 6 years time limit, I have pointed out to them numerous times that my arguement is that the item is not fit for purpose.

 

If I am in court next week then I really need to do my homework and brush up on the law!

 

Once again thankyou and I will keep you informed.

 

md

[Crazy Diamond]

Forget about the 6 yrs, it's irrelevant, so don't let them bog you down with it.

 

Ok, in small claims, it's like this, it's not a case of proven beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal court, it's the balance of probabilities. You're saying that you paid full whack for a top-of-a-range TV, that's a fact. That the TV failed within x amount of time, no doubt. That an independent engineer agreed that the fault was there, not due to wear and tear, that's done. That they refused to do anything about it, obvious. That's it.

 

They OTOH have to convince the judge that on balance of probabilities, you the consumer should have expected that a £1500 famous brand TV, advertised as near enough future-proof, should have known that there is no such thing, that we all take our chances in life, and that you're the one being unreasoanble here.

 

Listen, there are judges and there are judges, and you never quite know what you're going to get, but let's put it this way, if the other side were to post on here and ask for advice on this case, I'd suggest they settle now before they end up with a lot of egg on their face! Obviosuly, there never are any guarantees, but what the hell...

 

Anyway, your case is as above, don't let them sidetrack, it's a very simple case, so no reason to bring in any other complications. Yes, the goods failed too soon, yes, the engineer confirms so, yes, the retailer refused to do anything about it. That's it.