plasma tv 2 weeks out of warranty

istanbul_2

i agree that it would be taken away for repair but reading on the internet about comet repair service it does make me doubt about their customer care standards .thats why i was trying for a replacement instead but i have spoken to trading standard people and they said if its not repaired and returned in 28 days that would be unacceptable and to push for a replacement.

Esqui

It does make me wonder why they went for a repair when the part costs almost as much as the TV though

Their loss, I guess...

istanbul_2

i was in comets yesterday browsing and the same tv as mine is now £549 !!! but i think comets will claim on their own insurance and add a little bit extra so they are not losing out

woody01

istanbul wrote: »

what i meant was the soga says that if the item is not fit for purpose it was made for you are entitled to ask for repair/new tv /or refund

No you are not!
Too many people quote SOGA when they know very little/nothing about it.

You are not entitled to ask for a refund/repair/replacement. The company has the option to offer you one of them.

As it is out of warranty (after 6 months in fact), it is up to you to prove it was inherently faulty. This you cannot do.

Also, the item must last 'a reasonable amount of time'. There is however no guidance on this so if the company see it as reasonable then there is nothing you can do.

Personally, although i would be a little peed off aswell, i think the free repair is actually good service.

But not in the Sales of Goods Act's eyes :rolleyes:

Very good attempt to be sarcastic. Pity you are wrong though.

rich_months

I'm not wrong. If he could prove it was inherently faulty by an engineer's report, e.g. poor design which was present at the time of sale, then he could pursue for a resolution under the Sales of Goods Act.

Do you disagree with that?

istanbul_2

the main point of this is if you buy a tv you should be able to watch it !
a cooker to cook, washing machine to wash etc. if all these break down just after the guarantee runs out , in my eyes the items are not fit for purpose they were bought for !!! how anyone can prove the fault was there in the first place is beyond me. you would expect items to last a reasonable amount of time, otherwise we would all be buying new items every 13 months !!!! i have in the past bought washing machine ,dryer etc all without extended warranty and they have lasted

Esqui

istanbul wrote: »

the main point of this is if you buy a tv you should be able to watch it !
a cooker to cook, washing machine to wash etc. if all these break down just after the guarantee runs out , in my eyes the items are not fit for purpose they were bought for !!!

Well of course. But unfortunately, they do sometimes go wrong.

how anyone can prove the fault was there in the first place is beyond me.

You should get an engineer to provide a report confirming that the TV should have lasted longer, and the fault was not a result of incorrect use (not that the fault was there from the start...just that the TV wasn't built well enough to last as long as it should)

deanos

rich_months wrote: »

I'm not wrong. If he could prove it was inherently faulty by an engineer's report, e.g. poor design which was present at the time of sale, then he could pursue for a resolution under the Sales of Goods Act.

Do you disagree with that?

Think you are going off topic here, i sais the OP was lucky that Comet have agreed to a repair without the hassle of getting a report done, which they could have done quite easily.

istanbul_2

got this from consumer direct
Your statutory rights

In the absence of any warranty and as we have pointed out several times, the retailer is automatically liable for any faults which develop within the first 6 months. After this time, you may have to prove that the any fault was not down to misuse or wear and tear, although factors such as price paid, model specification, the length of time you have had it (and the length of time it should reasonably last) etc will also be taken into account. Therefore if you buy something which should last around 7 years but has broken down after a year or even after 3 years, the supplier has a duty provide a satisfactory repair – or if this cannot be done, a replacement. If neither a repair or a replacement can be agreed on then the shop can give you vouchers towards the cost of an alternative replacement or a partial refund. Whatever happens, whenever it happens, and whatever remedy you choose, your first and only port of call should be the retailer.

it says you may have to prove that the fault was not down to misuse or wear and tear.
it doesnt say you have to prove it tho.
its a bit confusing

rich_months

deanos wrote: »

Think you are going off topic here, i sais the OP was lucky that Comet have agreed to a repair without the hassle of getting a report done, which they could have done quite easily.

I agree that the original poster is lucky in that sense, but at the same time was pointing out that it doesn't matter whether Comet think it's out of warranty or not, someone looking at the legal definition may think differently.

As I'm sure most of us know, companies will happily stone-wall a customer by deny any legal responsibility in the first instance in the hope that they will go away. And it often works.