Is HD over the air really this bad?

Marty_J

When our Sky + box died just after the warranty expired, we just called Sky and asked them to cancel our subscription. They asked why and we told them our box wasn't working and we couldn't afford a new one. They went off to speak to a supervisor, and then came back and asked if we would consider staying if they replaced the box free of charge.

moonrakerz

Marty_J wrote: »

When our Sky + box died just after the warranty expired, we just called Sky and asked them to cancel our subscription. They asked why and we told them our box wasn't working and we couldn't afford a new one. They went off to speak to a supervisor, and then came back and asked if we would consider staying if they replaced the box free of charge.

That's how it should be, a bit of "goodwill". You gain - they gain, everyone's happy.

roddydogs

Nobody is claiming that the SOG act gives a blanket 6 year Gtee, or is in any way as good as a "5 year Gtee" ie J.Lewis, but it is an option to use.
People slagging it off are usually dealers who hate it.........do you know of anyone whose LOST a case theyve taken to the SCC?
In my case the mere threat of it got me a complete refund of the cost price.
Dont be frightened off by posters on here........Claim your rights under the SOG act, thats what its for!

gjchester

roddydogs wrote: »

You have used the act, then and lost a case? what on earth is wrong for a Sky box to only last one year, or any electronic device for that matter, and then use the SOG act? it wont cost much, and i bet the majority of cases will be won by the customer.

No-one has and thats the point. If this is legally valid people should be winning all over the country.

It's just an urban myth that gets trotted out every times people mention years warranty and some item or other that dies a day after the warranty ended.

roddydogs

"No one has used the act".... what rubbish people do every day..and mostly win. just cause you dont want to bother, thats up to you.. do you know anyone who has lost then?

moonrakerz

roddydogs wrote: »

Nobody is claiming that the SOG act gives a blanket 6 year Gtee, or is in any way as good as a "5 year Gtee" ie J.Lewis, but it is an option to use.
People slagging it off are usually dealers who hate it.........do you know of anyone whose LOST a case theyve taken to the SCC?
In my case the mere threat of it got me a complete refund of the cost price.
Dont be frightened off by posters on here........Claim your rights under the SOG act, thats what its for!

Sorry Roddy, but that is just what people ARE implying - AND actually saying.

eg: very recent quotes from this site:
"you actually have up to 6 years to get something repaired or exchanged if it goes wrong"

(For a start, this is just completely and utterly incorrect !! You have six years in which you can claim damages - a completely different thing)

Another:
"Scan have a duty under the Sale of Goods Act to repair a faulty product for up to 6years after purchase"

and again:
"It appears that the items purchased will be covered under the Sales of Goods Act for up to 6 years" (this was put forward as an argument for not paying more for an extended warranty !!!)

and again:
"claim under the sale of goods act which protects against faulty goods for 6 years from purchase"

and again:
"under the sale of goods act the TV has to be usable for a 'reasonable' period of time, up to six years"

and again:
"I read something where you're covered up to six years in England after you purchase the item."

There are hundreds of posts like this - PLUS posts from people who just say that TVs, or whatever, have to last 3 yrs, 5yrs or whatever they wish to put !!

I am not a dealer, I am not slagging it off - I am just pointing out what the LAW says. If you think that your TV should last longer that 13 months - fine, then the LAW says you can take it to Court. What the Law doesn't say is that you WILL win.

You have to prove your case - unless of course (as I previously said) the particular item has a proven record of poor reliability when the supplier might well realise he is on a sticky wicket if it goes to Court and come to some agreement.
It is all down to money in the long run - the case quoted above re the Sky box is the perfect example. Sky didn't replace the box because they HAD to (they didn't) they didn't replace it because they felt sorry for the customer - they replaced it because it was in their financial interest to do so !

roddydogs

None of the above should put you off using the SOG act...its there for your protection.........if youd rather pay for a repair or take out extra insurance, thats your choice........even if you lose in court (if it ever gets that far), what have you lost?

hpuse

mymatebob wrote: »

I am confused by the above

What was introduced in the 80's?

Righto ..1950 ..that was a typo and you had good fun picking on it !

If you are still confused, I'm prepared to explain once again :rotfl: