Claiming under section 75 of the CCA

PROLIANT

Jesus, the telly is three years old, write it off and buy a new one or get it repaired, I could understand all the flapping if it was a 50" Panasonic HD setup that cost over a grand but this is just too much for the sake of a telly.

Inactive

Try to keep up, the OP has been offered a replacement TV by Samsung ( subject to confirmation ).;)

bomber0405

PROLIANT wrote: »

Jesus, the telly is three years old, write it off and buy a new one or get it repaired, I could understand all the flapping if it was a 50" Panasonic HD setup that cost over a grand but this is just too much for the sake of a telly.

You clearly demonstrate a high level of ignorance, stop wading in to a conversation before you have taken time to read and understand the situation.

Firstly, the TV is irrepairable - the part which needs replacing is obsolete
and secondly, as Inactive has already pointed out Samsung have already made an offer of a replacement

And the TV did cost over cost over a grand, it was £1,500. I think most people would want to take the fight to someone over that kind of money.

Try and keep up!!

Altarf

moonrakerz wrote: »

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

I rather think that you are the one living underground.

moonrakerz wrote: »

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.

Again the warranty word that you keep bringing up, that I have never mentioned.

moonrakerz wrote: »

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.

Which is why I said "SOGA gives rights to the consumer 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."

If you read that as giving a 6 year warranty, then you definitely need to get your club and climb back under your bridge.

moonrakerz wrote: »

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

And posts like yours are helpful? I don't think so. I didn't see you pointing out to the OP what you considered their rights were. Only moaning about others. And at the end of the day, was the OP successful in their claim...

PROLIANT

bomber0405 wrote: »

You clearly demonstrate a high level of ignorance, stop wading in to a conversation before you have taken time to read and understand the situation.

Firstly, the TV is irrepairable - the part which needs replacing is obsolete
and secondly, as Inactive has already pointed out Samsung have already made an offer of a replacement

And the TV did cost over cost over a grand, it was £1,500. I think most people would want to take the fight to someone over that kind of money.

Try and keep up!!

Yes, I would agree with you...but the fight is not with the credit card or the bank, if they were willing to fight for you then fair enough but they are not a safety net. Samsung have said they will give you a new telly....take it, problem solved. And I am not ignorant, I am just putting my point across, personally my first port of call would have been the MFR of TV, not the tool which I used to make the purchase, what would you have done if you used cash or a debit card? Your case is with Samsung, not the bank.

bomber0405

PROLIANT wrote: »

the fight is not with the credit card or the bank.

Wrong, the CCA allows for such claims to be made with the credit card company. This is proven by th efact that HSBC have offered to settle my claim.

PROLIANT wrote: »

Samsung have said they will give you a new telly....take it

I don't like it, why should I accept something I don't like.

PROLIANT wrote: »

my first port of call would have been the MFR of TV

That would be wrong. I am suprised that you suggest this, it is worrying that you are offering such advice to people. First port of call is the retailer but as they are bankrupt (as I have previously explained), the next port of call is the credit card company. This was advice given to me by consumer direct. In fact I would have been within my rights to go after HSBC first - they and the retailer have an equal liability. After the manufacturers warranty has expired the manufacturer has no responsibility to help the consumer - the only reason that I have been successful is because they cannot repair the problem.

PROLIANT wrote: »

what would you have done if you used cash or a debit card?

I would have been stuck but fortunately I did use my credit card as I do for all major purchases. This is a good lesson to people to buy goods with credit cards for the additional protection, credit cards are very good tolls if used correctly and not abused.

I don't make the rules but if you one is given such rights one would be a fool not to exercise them.

moonrakerz

Altarf wrote: »

I rather think that you are the one living underground.

Perhaps in the darkness of your cave you obviously weren't able to understand what I actually wrote.

Nowhere did I criticise the OP for pursuing what he considered to be his rights - I did however, criticise you (and other previous posters) on this subject for giving people overly optimistic expectations over SoGA, from your simplistic understanding of the Law.

Altarf

I notice that you have given up answering the points I raised, and have still not given said what you consider the OP's rights were.

PROLIANT

bomber0405 wrote: »

Wrong, the CCA allows for such claims to be made with the credit card company. This is proven by the effect that HSBC have offered to settle my claim.

....Partially

bomber0405 wrote: »

I don't like it, why should I accept something I don't like.

Then why did you buy it in the first place?

bomber0405 wrote: »

That would be wrong. I am surprised that you suggest this; it is worrying that you are offering such advice to people.

No it is not wrong, having worked in the retail industry in my previous life one thing you get to grips with is things like warranty et al, you have typically a 7 - 14 day grace period (depending on the retailer) where you can return the goods back to the point of sale for a full refund, after that you have typically 12 months for faulty goods to be repaired or replaced, either way the goods need returning to the MFR for inspection/decision what to do, the retailer does not have to give you your money back or honour the warranty after 12 months, you have had the TV for 3 years therefore you must go directly to the MFR of the TV for them to help you.

bomber0405

PROLIANT wrote: »

....Then why did you buy it in the first place?

I did like the TV I purchased. They are offering a replacement that isn't the same model.

PROLIANT wrote: »

No it is not wrong, having worked in the retail industry in my previous life one thing you get to grips with is things like warranty et al, you have typically a 7 - 14 day grace period (depending on the retailer) where you can return the goods back to the point of sale for a full refund, after that you have typically 12 months for faulty goods to be repaired or replaced, either way the goods need returning to the MFR for inspection/decision what to do, the retailer does not have to give you your money back or honour the warranty after 12 months, you have had the TV for 3 years therefore you must go directly to the MFR of the TV for them to help you.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think that you are wrong in many ways with the above.