Faulty TV 'allegedly' JUST out of warranty - HELP!!!

d.edna

Dave Brooker offered to take your TV away for an easy one off payment of £10 (Making cheques/postal orders payable to Dave Brooker) then the fault wouldn't be present.

Isn't that right Dave?

TDA10

Just a quick update for anyone who might read this post in the future.

I did send a nice letter to MW explaining my dissatisfaction with their unfair date of ordering=date of 12 months warranty rule and they collected the TV a couple of weeks ago.

Following a few nice email conversations with a lovely lady called 'Rona' at Marshall Ward CS dept, I have today received a cheque for £89 to cover the cost of the TV! :beer:

So, big up to MW for coming good and seeing sense!

codger

TDA10 wrote: »

So, big up to MW for coming good and seeing sense!

Actually, Marshall Ward hasn't "seen sense".

They have instead manifested a highly unusual, and highly commendable, commitment to customer satisfaction.

It was not their fault the Bush product proved so unreliable, but legally they are, as retailer, liable to put right a product's failings in the first 12 months by calling upon whatever replace-and-return provisions exist in whatever agreement they as the retailer have with the manufacturer.

That Bush is, like Grundig, today one of the great devalued brands and thus in the untouchable-with-barge-pole category is a gamble Marshall Ward takes in actually retailing the stuff.

That Marshall Ward has in this instance elected to pay you £89 is another gamble: that the goodwill MW earns from this will translate into future purchases from yourself and others of a total value considerably in excess of the amount currently in play.

I hope the gamble pays off. Customer service such as this from Marshall Ward (and, as another earlier poster said, from a vastly improved Comet) merits customer support. But please don't think MW "saw sense": if they'd done that, they would've argued that their legal responsibility as a retailer ended in November, and left you to it.

Blacksheep1979

codger wrote: »

But please don't think MW "saw sense": if they'd done that, they would've argued that their legal responsibility as a retailer ended in November, and left you to it.

Then the op could have come back and stated that under the sale of goods act the TV has to be usable for a 'reasonable' period of time, up to six years. MW couldn't be bothered with the cost of getting their legal department to look at it (which could easily have cost more than £89 in the end) and all the back and forth issues (besides they probably got some money back from Bush).