Complaint to DABS

Gooner71_2

Hi all,

I bought a Squeezebox (wireless music streaming device) from DABS in 2006 and it recently died. On the basis of the 1994 Sale and Supply of Goods Act, I asked DABS to either offer a refund or repair the product.

They refused either option stating:

"In your particular case we do not accept (taking all relevant factors into consideration), that the product supplied were designed, or could reasonably have been expected to be, fault free 36 months after the date of purchase; and accordingly on this occasion we are not in a position in offer you any refund at all. I am sorry that we could have not been of more assistance on this occasion, but should you need any further information from us, then please do not hesitate to contact us."

I have since been on to a discussion forum on the manufacturers website and so far have 5 responses from people who have the same device functioning correctly after 3 years and none stating theirs had become defective.

How can I use this information to demonstrate that it is reasonable to expect the product to function after 36 months.

The product has a 2 year warranty yet DABS says it is not reasonable to expect it to work after 3 years!!

Esqui

If you can prove that it had an inherent fault, they cannot refuse it. This may end up being more costly than getting a new one though.

Might also be an idea to contact Logitech and see if they will assist

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

People on the internet don't count

You will need to find a qualified electrical engineer who can document the fault, how they diagnosed the fault, the cost of repairing said fault and also confirmation that in an experts opinion that the product was inherently faulty or non duirable.

After 3 years I would be very surprised if you can do this.

Esqui

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

People on the internet don't count

This. Remember, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'!!

Though generally, these items aren't commonly repaired, so finding someone who is able to tell this for you will be difficult.

Glax

Under the Sale of Goods act the item must be durable. The question to ask is "Would you expect a Squeezebox to last more than 3 years"? I would say yes.

I had a similar issue with an iPod that stopped working after 2 1/2 years. I called Apple and asked how long the iPod model I had should last (not informing them that it was broken). They told me that they had iPods that were still going after 5 years.

I then wrote to Currys with this information that Apple expected the iPod to last 5 years, mine had failed after 2 1/2 years so the actual iPod i had bought wasn't durable. After a couple of days thinking about it they send me £80 to cover the repair.

Gooner71_2

Glax wrote: »

Under the Sale of Goods act the item must be durable. The question to ask is "Would you expect a Squeezebox to last more than 3 years"? I would say yes.

I had a similar issue with an iPod that stopped working after 2 1/2 years. I called Apple and asked how long the iPod model I had should last (not informing them that it was broken). They told me that they had iPods that were still going after 5 years.

I then wrote to Currys with this information that Apple expected the iPod to last 5 years, mine had failed after 2 1/2 years so the actual iPod i had bought wasn't durable. After a couple of days thinking about it they send me £80 to cover the repair.

Thanks Glax - I think that hits the nail on the head.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

Gooner71 wrote: »

Thanks Glax - I think that hits the nail on the head.

Why because it tells you what you want to hear?

The SOGA means the reverse burden is on you to prove DABS wrong. An average figure spouted by the manufacturer or some random person online doesnt do that.

Until you have a report backing you from someone who has actually examined it and has an accreditation as an expert of sorts you have no case.

smcaul

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Why because it tells you what you want to hear?

Probably because it blows your normal comments right out of the water!

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

The SOGA means the reverse burden is on you to prove DABS wrong. An average figure spouted by the manufacturer or some random person online doesnt do that.

Depends which part you are using, if they were using part about durability then you could well use examples of other products lasting much longer as your evidence I would say. If you are using the part about inherently faulty then I would say that you would need a qualified report, depends on how you approach it.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Until you have a report backing you from someone who has actually examined it and has an accreditation as an expert of sorts you have no case.

Absolute tosh as normal.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

smcaul wrote: »

Probably because it blows your normal comments right out of the water!



Depends which part you are using, if they were using part about durability then you could well use examples of other products lasting much longer as your evidence I would say. If you are using the part about inherently faulty then I would say that you would need a qualified report, depends on how you approach it.


Absolute tosh as normal.

You would need to one prove the usage was the same. i.e not same age, but same hours, same conditions etc otherwise any comparison is pointless. secondly you would need to prove yours was the exception and not vice versa

As for not needing any evidence. the word of amatuers on the internet is not enough to meet the reverse burden of proof.

Nothing the OP has posted suggests he has a case at this time and that DABS response is unreasonable.

Glax

All I can say is it worked for me.

I used a similar approach against Dixons (I think) many years ago when a VCR packed up after 20 months use. They wanted expert opinion, I disagreed. Used the Small Claims Procedure, the court agreed with me. Dixons offered a full refund in the end.

Dabs as most companys do, will try and intimidate the customer. Get the info I suggest and issue them with a Money Claim Online, it's really easy.

the word of amatuers on the internet is not enough to meet the reverse burden of proof

The whole point of posting to an internet forum is so people can respond to you with their actual experiences. You take it or leave it. If you don't like my response, you can always hire a solictor (are you a solictor after some trade perhaps?) Frankly I have never found the need. I am continually amazed at how even the biggest companies don't understand either the Sale of Goods Act or the Distance Selling Regulations.

The act states:
"Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description".

A piece of electronics that fails after 3 years was not of satisfactory quality in that it has not been durable.

smcaul

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

You would need to one prove the usage was the same. i.e not same age, but same hours, same conditions etc otherwise any comparison is pointless. secondly you would need to prove yours was the exception and not vice versa

As for not needing any evidence. the word of amatuers on the internet is not enough to meet the reverse burden of proof.

Nothing the OP has posted suggests he has a case at this time and that DABS response is unreasonable.

You seem to think that every court case would be like something in the high court, with expert witnesses and lots of people in silly wigs. The small claims court is not like, you only have to provide your side of the case (in the real terms), the judge then decides what would be reasonable. Get real Linas, you have been spouting your tripe for a long time, how many times have you actually used the SCC?