Absolutely crazy! Things are going backwards? Plasma tv @ currys!

[harmio]

Ok. So I spent £999 on a 37" plasma tv from Currys as a replacement for a previous faulty model from LG ( also from currys ). I bought this on Monday ( just gone ) ...The TV has built in freeview, and when you switch over to sky, you get the SOUND from the freeview channels playing underneath the sky sound, as if its leaking through ( making for a very annoying experience) .

 

So I assumed, OK I just take i tback. Apparently not, I need to get a panasonic engineer to CONFIRM the fault, as they cant prove it in store, and there is no freeview reception in store. . . .and then i can have a refund. This means I need a day off work, or someone to come and visit. . which I cant do for another week. This is crazy . Surely , I remember in the older days if a tv was faulty, within 4 days, you'd not think twice about taking it back. You'd take it, the manufacturer says ok, then you get a new one.

 

Am I wrong in assuming this?? I can understand if it was a bit longer , but no t4 days, surely not?

[Bookworm]

You don't need an engineer, and yes, you can take it back, after 4 days, it is reasonable to say you haven't accepted the goods as defined by SOGA.

 

HOWEVER!

Before you do that, can you follow through the instructions and different settings? I used to have the same problem, and all that was needed to solve the problems was switch some of the output cables around in a different configuration. I can't be more specific at is was a few years back, and we haven't had a problem since, and in fact, it's only your post that reminded me of it. So you might want to try that before going through the trouble of taking the TV back, and finding out that it wasn't the TV that was faulty after all. ;-)

[gyzmo]

The presumption is that, within the first six months, any fault existed at the time of sale, and it is for the seller to prove otherwise (you do not need to prove anything except to show the fault).

 

Sellers are allowed a reasonable opportunity to examine them and determine any fault. Tell them to either get a replacement or to refund the cost. But remember the emphasis here for you and Currys is reasonableness.

 

Alternatively, did you order this over the internet or by phone? If so the Distance Selling Regulations will apply, and you will have additional rights.

 

BTW, I have heard from those wonderful guys at Richer Sounds (No, I don't work for them!) that buying a TV with built-in freeview is a bad idea. The said:

 

1. the system is due to change and current freeview models will be obsolete (don't really understand this, but three different advisors said it. there you go.)

2. Having more "built in" stuff means more potential for things to go wrong - and affect the whole system of equipment.

 

No. 2 rings true to me. I would get your freeview separate.

 

I'm not an expert on TV's (and I'm not suggesting you are as daft as I am when it comes to these things), but could it be that it is not set up correctly? My TV, DVD, Video, set-top box (Virgin for my sins) are all interconnected, and I have experienced similar problems when the connections are not done properly, or when one particular item is on the wrong setting. Many a time have I played a DVD, watched TV but activated the Video and heard what was playing on that. But that's me!

[harmio]

I had thought that surely under the sale of goods act If I buy something and its not fit this soon, then I should get a replacement without hassle.

 

The thing is that the store manager is saying "we need to see the fault", and there is no freeview reception in the currys store for us to try the situation.

 

Also, we have thrown away the box ( my dad, dont ask why!!) .... but even so, this still seems absurd. But we have the receipt etc.

..

 

As for trying other configurations we have tried varying set ups, and have determined that even without anything connected, as soon as a scart lead is connected to any of the 2 AV inputs on the TV, ( even without a device on other end!) we get the sound from the freeview leaking through, at varying volumes, and with very high frequency, as if there is a leak within the internal circuits.

 

 

What angers me more is when you buy products you are told "if anything ggoes wrong within the first 28 days come back and we sort it out"

 

It shocks me that the government is not making people more aware of their rights, or at least slapping these con merchants' wrists for taking advantage of people's lack of technological /consumer rights knowledge. I'm damned if im going to let them do this to me!

 

I used to work in a "discount" store, where people often complain about service, but I was always told faulty product + receipt + reasonable use= refund . . . and if ever anyone came with this, I'd refund / replace without hassle. This applied to fridges, and keyrings! These "higher class" retailers have a thing or two to learn.Makes me so angry

[Bookworm]

Yes, that's what I said in my first sentence to you, under SOGA, you can take it back! :-?

[smed]

Just a thought when I've had similar problems in the past its been due to the sacrt leads being of very poor quality / cheap, have you got good quality scart leads (gold plated) with shielded cables?

[dx100uk]

have you got the thick and very chunky scart lead?

cross talk in the cheap ones will cause this, esp if you do noy have you sky box on the tv's av1 scart socket and have switched scart control ON in the skybox config menu.

to test this. turn off you skybox [into standby] set your tv to a freeview or normal tv channel.

switch your skybox on and the tv should autoswitch to the skybox.

if not, check above advice and that your tv is on the tv [2nd] scart port on the skybox. try reversing your scart lead end for end also.

 

dx100uk

[ForestChav]

I had thought that surely under the sale of goods act If I buy something and its not fit this soon, then I should get a replacement without hassle.

 

The thing is that the store manager is saying "we need to see the fault", and there is no freeview reception in the currys store for us to try the situation.

 

Also, we have thrown away the box ( my dad, dont ask why!!) .... but even so, this still seems absurd. But we have the receipt etc.

..

 

As for trying other configurations we have tried varying set ups, and have determined that even without anything connected, as soon as a scart lead is connected to any of the 2 AV inputs on the TV, ( even without a device on other end!) we get the sound from the freeview leaking through, at varying volumes, and with very high frequency, as if there is a leak within the internal circuits.

 

 

What angers me more is when you buy products you are told "if anything ggoes wrong within the first 28 days come back and we sort it out"

 

It shocks me that the government is not making people more aware of their rights, or at least slapping these con merchants' wrists for taking advantage of people's lack of technological /consumer rights knowledge. I'm damned if im going to let them do this to me!

 

I used to work in a "discount" store, where people often complain about service, but I was always told faulty product + receipt + reasonable use= refund . . . and if ever anyone came with this, I'd refund / replace without hassle. This applied to fridges, and keyrings! These "higher class" retailers have a thing or two to learn.Makes me so angry

Yes, but as gyzmo said, they are entitled to look for the fault. Otherwise you could be making it up, or there might be another way to solve it.

 

An item is presumed inherently faulty if a fault occurs within six months of purchase, but the retailer has to be allowed the chance to investigate whether it is or not.

[patdavies]

Yes, but as gyzmo said, they are entitled to look for the fault. Otherwise you could be making it up, or there might be another way to solve it.

 

An item is presumed inherently faulty if a fault occurs within six months of purchase, but the retailer has to be allowed the chance to investigate whether it is or not.

 

The point is that they have to prove that the fault is not a manufacturing fault; that they are unable to test it is their problem, not the buyer's - if Currys are unable to prove that it is not faulty - then it is.

 

It matters not a jot whether the buyer is lying or not; the burden of proof lies squarely with Currys.

[ForestChav]

The point is that they have to prove that the fault is not a manufacturing fault; that they are unable to test it is their problem, not the buyer's - if Currys are unable to prove that it is not faulty - then it is.

 

It matters not a jot whether the buyer is lying or not; the burden of proof lies squarely with Currys.

 

Yes, and they are well within their rights to inspect the unit to assess that, how else are they going to prove otherwise.

 

It's considered faulty by default, so they have to be given appropriate access in order to prove it isn't a manufacturing defect, surely.

 

A court would probably throw a case out if they were not permitted to do so by the buyer.

[gyzmo]

Whoah! All I was saying is that, before faults are mentioned or presumed to be the cause, make sure it is not a simple operational setup that could be fixed by any old fule.

 

I for one would be slightly red-faced finding (as incompetent as I am come to technology) that I had connected the wrong bits to each other.

[patdavies]

Yes, and they are well within their rights to inspect the unit to assess that, how else are they going to prove otherwise.

 

It's considered faulty by default, so they have to be given appropriate access in order to prove it isn't a manufacturing defect, surely.

 

A court would probably throw a case out if they were not permitted to do so by the buyer.

 

But they are not being refused by the buyer. He has expressed a willingness to return it to the store as he is entitled to do. Curry are demanding that he takes time off work for a manufacturer's engineer to attend at his home.

 

Currys are saying that they cannot test it because they have no freeview (ie aerial) feed in store - this is entirely their problem and not grounds to refuse the OP or refute his stance that it is faulty.

[Guest retailerspointofview]

But they are not being refused by the buyer. He has expressed a willingness to return it to the store as he is entitled to do. Curry are demanding that he takes time off work for a manufacturer's engineer to attend at his home.

 

Currys are saying that they cannot test it because they have no freeview (ie aerial) feed in store - this is entirely their problem and not grounds to refuse the OP or refute his stance that it is faulty.

 

two things to note.

one under the first 28 days the store should by own policies deal ith the issue. call their helpline and ask them for their policies and ask them for a reference number for them to contact that you can use as ammo which tells the store that they have the authority to deal with it,

 

secondly there is a satisfaction guarantee period in most retailers. forget the fact that its faulty tell them also that you are unsatisfied and just with to return it.

 

thirdly the contract is with the company no solely with the local store. so the company not just the store have to check that the product is faulty.

 

so call their customer service line and without hinting you want an engineer sent out just ask about their own policies. then tell them of your issues and they should give you a reference number to use as ammo to return straight to the store as the customer service have done telephone diagnoses. and the store will class this as proof of fault.

 

this is why i say to call the customer service department each time on expensive items as they have the authority to deal with bigger more expensive products.

[gyzmo]

Or alternatively, require teh store to perform its duties under the Act without you having to run round like a bluebottle with it's ar*e on fire whilst the seller laughs at you doing what they should be doing.

 

RPOV - Give it a rest and STOP MISINFORMING PEOPLE.

[StormWarrior]

thirdly the contract is with the company no solely with the local store. so the company not just the store have to check that the product is faulty.

 

Oh NO !!!

 

Here he goes again Another thread of crap

[clavileno]

Or alternatively, require teh store to perform its duties under the Act without you having to run round like a bluebottle with it's ar*e on fire whilst the seller laughs at you doing what they should be doing.

 

RPOV - Give it a rest and STOP MISINFORMING PEOPLE.

 

Since the box has been thrown away, it seems unlikely that the OP could reasonably reject the goods or take advantage of any "within 28 days, bring it back" deal, as the goods cannot be returned in the state they were sold in.

 

Before we all slag off Currys, can we stop for a moment. Not everybody has a car. Not everybody can carry a large TV to a store. As a nationwide chain, it doesn't seem that silly for Currys to arrange (for free) home visits to check for TV operation. They have to have some sort of policy, and if the problem can be solved more quickly by sending an engineer out then it doesn't seem a bad policy, albeit it may be bad in this case. Can you imagine the tabloid outcry if a 92 year old Grandmother was told "you have to carry the TV back to the store and pay the cab fare to do so for us to test it"?

 

So, deep breath, and don't assume that Currys have come up with a policy just to make your life harder. It is correct to say that Currys have to fix the problem. However, in law, your local Currys store does not have to fix it, just Currys as a whole. So you call Currys and they say "thank you sir/madam, we don't do repairs in-store as that would make our TVs more expensive to buy; we do it with field engineers, so we'll have to send one out to you". They are not in breach of their legal duties by doing this.

 

The OP is alleging a fault. The OP has to prove the case. The OP has to provide the vendor with an opportunity to test the goods.

 

The lesson here seems to be, if you don't want to have to deal with field engineers for repairs / replacements, choose a retailer who doesn't do it this way. You have that choice. The law does not say that the cheapest retailer has to offer the same service as the most expensive retailer; that is your choice to make, and you need to make it wisely (though few do, and instead come to forums like this...). But Currys IMHO are doing nothing illegal by proceeding in this way.

[gyzmo]

Since the box has been thrown away, it seems unlikely that the OP could reasonably reject the goods or take advantage of any "within 28 days, bring it back" deal, as the goods cannot be returned in the state they were sold in.

 

The store's returns policy is irrelevant, and so is the box. That is merely packaging and not the subject of the contract. The remedy is provided by law, which the seller cannot override.

 

The OP is alleging a fault. The OP has to prove the case. The OP has to provide the vendor with an opportunity to test the goods.

 

The OP does not have to prove fault as the fault is within the first 6 months. It is the seller who has to prove otherwise.

 

The whole issue is the way consumers are treated - that the courts are resorted to so often for the most basic things. I cannot begin to describe the frustration I feel every time I get a complaint about these stores and the useless struggles that ensue with the inevitable outcome (where the case is taken up) that the store will end up doing what it has to do anyway. I specifically remember one case of an elderly gent (on State pension) who purchased a £20 kettle from Currys (I think) which conked out after 2 days. He was told by the store (and this was recorded on the telephone) "you might as well just chuck it for £20 bloody quid". It was three months later before he got his money back, and that was only after a summons was issued.

[clavileno]

The store's returns policy is irrelevant, and so is the box. That is merely packaging and not the subject of the contract. The remedy is provided by law, which the seller cannot override.

 

With respect, I said two things here as regards disposing of the packaging:

1. the seller cannot reject the goods, and
   
2. the seller can't take advantage of any "within 28 days, bring it back" deal

As to point 1, that was my understanding based upon the tests of reasonableness - it is reasonable for a prudent ("man on the Clapham omnibus") consumer to keep the box for a few days to make sure the item works. I'm happy to be guided otherwise.

 

As to point 2, I was referring to any store-specific promotional deals, as opposed to statutory remedies. An offer of "protection" over and above the customer's statutory rights can have as many caveats attached as the trader chooses (so long as those don't fall foul of the Unfair Terms legislation, of course).

 

The OP does not have to prove fault as the fault is within the first 6 months. It is the seller who has to prove otherwise.

 

Again with respect, that depends upon the circumstance. Quoting directly from the Trading Standards Institute (link):

• If you have not accepted the goods and are rejecting and claiming a full refund or damages, it is YOU, the consumer, who needs to prove that there has been a breach of contract in that the goods are not of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose or as described at the time of purchase.
  
• If you are claiming the remedies of repair or replacement within the first six months after purchase, it is for THE TRADER to prove that the goods conformed to the contract at the time of sale.
  
• If you are claiming repair or replacement more than six months after purchase, the burden of proof is back to YOU, the consumer.
  

It doesn't seem clear whether the OP falls into category 1 or category 2 here. Even in category 2, the trader has to be given an opportunity to inspect the goods. If the trader is a national firm with many branches, but without repair / fault testing facilities in any store, a home visit (IMHO) wouldn't be unreasonable.

[gyzmo]

I'm sure I posted a response here - where has it gone?!? Probably been at the wine again without realising.....

[Guest dontgetitsorted_SUETHEM!!]

i am unsure about currys policies but i do seem to remember that in some other retailers that if you dont have the box they can charge the customer for missing parts. so legally a box is irrelevant but to the customer having to lose money. it may be relevent.

 

also about the 6 month from purchase rule.

this rule is not that all products are faulty for 6 months so no proof is needed. the rule is that a proven and visable fault is automatically deemed as fault from purchase.

 

the seller still needs to see the product in action to see the fault. especially when it could be customers cabling or their freeview/skybox causing the issue.

 

if the TV was simply powered up instore with nothing connected and no issues were found this would be classed as no fault found.

 

this is why retailers have field engineers to see the faults in the environment which has the issues.

 

i have personally had my computer shut down on me several times in a day so i took it to the shop they had it over night, no powerdowns. eventually found the cause as being a faulty surge protector. and paying labour for them to keep it overnight too. not good.

 

someone coming to house can diagnose easier and normally the engineer visiting is atleast trained in the area unlike retail store staff, sorry currys staff but if its not written on the price ticket you never seem to know.

[Parva]

RetailersPointOfView alert! He's back! Still spouting crap too.

[gyzmo]

Hang on, is this dontgetitsorted SUE THEM fella the same as rpov?

 

Oh dear god, NOOOOOOO!

[demon_x_slash]

Yep, it's him. I've got a new device to beat him back, feel free to use the link...

 

 

Purely for the purpose of protecting new/inexperienced users who believe the bunch of c**p he spouts...

[gyzmo]

Hang on - I'm the above poster there! I'm suing!!!

[gyzmo]

v. funny btw!