Claiming under section 75 of the CCA

bomber0405

Zebedee69 wrote: »

Your tv is three years old and broken? Whats the problem?

Is that a serious question?

Manufacturers have a responsibility to provide goods that are fit for purpose and last a reasonable amount of time given fair wear and tear. Given that the TV has been attached to a wall out of harms way and has not been overly used, I would say it would qualify for fair wear and tear.

Guidelines from consumer direct are that modern flat screens should last a minimum over 5 years, which is considered as reasonable. Certain manufacturers such Panasonic confirm this on their website.

bomber0405

Mr_Friendly wrote: »

Which Samsung?

A Samsung PS42S5HX Plasma.

bomber0405

normanmark wrote: »

The TV worked for 3 years. You've got no chance of claiming under section 75.

You really all shouldn't be so pessimistic (normanmark, TheExpert, PROLIANT, Zebedee69).

Today I received a letter from HSBC card services offering to settle my claim, not for the full amount I paid but for for 2/5ths of the price I paid (based on the assumption TV's should last for 5 years and my set was 3 years old). Hopefully they're up for a bit of negotiation as well!

PROLIANT

bomber0405 wrote: »

You really all shouldn't be so pessimistic (normanmark, TheExpert, PROLIANT, Zebedee69).

Today I received a letter from HSBC card services offering to settle my claim, not for the full amount I paid but for for 2/5ths of the price I paid (based on the assumption TV's should last for 5 years and my set was 3 years old). Hopefully they're up for a bit of negotiation as well!

So you scamed money off the bank, well done, no doubt my interest rates will be going up again. :rolleyes:

bomber0405

PROLIANT wrote: »

no doubt my interest rates will be going up again. :rolleyes:

I doubt that very much.

I am simply exercising my rights, this isn't a scam of any sorts. Let's not forget that this was the advice I received from consumer direct in the begining. If you want to lay blame on anyone it should be the retailer who went bankrupt and in the process let people down, the bank is bailing them out not me. Samsung should also take a large proportion of the blame for supplying poor quality goods. My battle with them isn't over yet either.

I wouldn't spend too much time feeling sorry for HSBC, I think it's fair to say that they make a pretty tidy amount of money from credit card transaction fees, interest, late payments fees.

It goes to show that you should never give up if you feel you have a good case. Also, whilst there is some good advice available on these forums not everyone knows what they're talking about....

Inactive

PROLIANT wrote: »

So you scamed money off the bank, well done, no doubt my interest rates will be going up again. :rolleyes:

It is not a " scam ", the OP was honest and open in his/her dealings with the bank in question, they agreed to pay him/her.

Your interest rates will not go up because of this claim.;)

bomber0405

The plot thickens.....

I received a call off Samsung this morning offering me a replacement TV!! I told them that I am not interested in another Samsung TV, given the experience I have had with them, plus I looked at the TV on the internet and didnt like it. They said they would only offer a depreicated value based on 56% of the price I paid, although this needs to be approved by head office.

Now I have a bit of a dilemma, obviously I will take the higher offer but something at the back of my mind is telling me to take both - I am not entirely comfortable with accepting both offers.

moonrakerz

Altarf wrote: »

SOGA gives rights to the consumer rights up to 6 years after purchase. Whether the OP has a claim will depend on the cost of the original product and the nature of the fault. A £10,000 TV could reasonably be expected to last for 6 years without suffering an irreparable failure but a £49.99 TV might not.

As usual - a lot of misunderstanding of SoGA.

This gives the consumer very limited rights for up to 6 years. It does not give a 6 year guarantee, it has no bearing on the price paid for the item, a Rolls Royce might be reasonably expected to be more comfortable than a Ford, not that it will last longer !

After the "normal" guarantee has run out, any claim under SoGA will have to have the claimant proving that there was a design fault or a manufacturing fault in the item AND that he used it (for 3 years) strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions . Just about impossible - if you fancy your chances, raise a claim in the County Court !

Altarf

moonrakerz wrote: »

As usual - a lot of misunderstanding of SoGA.

Nope, I have a pretty good understanding of the SoGA thanks.

moonrakerz wrote: »

This gives the consumer very limited rights for up to 6 years.

Correct, hence why I gave the example of something that could be expected to last 6 years without suffering an irreparable failure and something that might not

moonrakerz wrote: »

It does not give a 6 year guarantee,

Who said it did?

moonrakerz wrote: »

it has no bearing on the price paid for the item, a Rolls Royce might be reasonably expected to be more comfortable than a Ford, not that it will last longer !

Despite what you think, with many consumer goods, including cars, price is a pretty good indication of quality, and it would be reasonable to assume that a product costing 200 times that of another would last longer before suffering an irreparable failure.

moonrakerz wrote: »

After the "normal" guarantee has run out,

As an expert in SoGA you will of course know that a guarantee is in addition to your statutory rights and you can claim against SoGA before the guarantee has expired

moonrakerz wrote: »

any claim under SoGA will have to have the claimant proving that there was a design fault or a manufacturing fault in the item AND that he used it (for 3 years) strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions . Just about impossible - if you fancy your chances, raise a claim in the County Court !

Of course a product must not be abused, but what are the instructions for using TV, umm turn it on, change channel and then watch it. Gosh, I will have to read the instructions again, just to make sure I got that. And of course you will know that civil court cases are decided on the balance of probability. So if an internal component on an expensive TV fails causing the TV to be irreparable after two or three years, is the balance of probability likely to be the consumer not using the TV in accordance with the instructions or a manufacturing fault. That's a hard one.

moonrakerz

Altarf wrote: »

Nope, I have a pretty good understanding of the SoGA thanks.

I'm afraid your rather "Troll"-like response proves my point.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about SoGA and posts like yours give a totally false impression to many people as to what they can expect.
There are plenty of posts on this site where people honestly believe that SoGA gives a 6 year warranty.

Example:

Altarf wrote: »

Correct, hence why I gave the example of something that could be expected to last 6 years without suffering an irreparable failure and something that might not

Your "pretty good understanding" doesn't actually seem to be that good - SoGA doesn't give a time span for an article - it gives the consumer rights to claim within 6 years - a totally different thing, hence my statement that it doesn't give a 6 year warranty.

I will say again - posts like yours give a very superficial and misleading impression of SoGA and regrettably lead people up the "garden path".