Help! HMV refuses to allow me to return faulty Sony PSP, despite being in warranty!

fiddiwebb

The point I am making is that it is for HMV to sort out and not Sony at this stage.

I would go back to HMV again, if they yet again refuse to replace the item then tell them you will be sending a letter to their head office.

If you have a complaint regarding an hmv store, please contact the Store Customer Service department at the following address:
Store Customer Service
HMV UK, Film House
142 Wardour Street
London
London
W1F 8LN

If needs be phone your local trading standards and see what they say.

geordieracer

she had the chance fiddiweb but didnt do it as outlined in first post

Barbie18 wrote: »

I did not mention this at the time, but the Sale of Good Acts states:

• .

cleo1299

Barbie18 wrote: »

I guess I could contact sony, but I don't like the idea of HMV getting off the hook, especially since I will no doubt have to wait ages for a replacement to arrive.

How come shops can so blatently ignore legislation? This should surely be a simple case of the shop swapping it over for me, as they were the ones that sold it.

Shops can't ignore legislation but the legislation can't spell out in advance all possible situations and who is right and who is wrong. If the two sides disagree, ultimately the only people who can rule who is right, would be the county court. Is it really worth it, over a small crack in a button? Since you say it still works, you might have a problem convincing the court that the goods were not fit for the purpose for which they were sold.

A site at http://www.ehow.com/how_4870012_fix-right-shoulder-buttons-psp.html says "Whenever shoulder buttons break down on a PSP, dirty parts are usually the culprit." If that's so, and HMV argue that the fault is due to dirty parts, the court might agree with them. If so then you might not only lose your court case but also be liable for HMV's costs -- which could be considerable if they chose to defend the case.

And anyway, it seems ecologically undesirable to bin an entire system into landfill just because of a tiny crack. From that point of view it would be better for all of us if a retailer's reluctance to provide a complete replacement because of a small fault would be supported by the courts. We really need to get back to a "repair it" philosophy instead of a "throw it away" philosophy.

You could just wait until the Sony warranty expires, and then fix the button yourself. The ehow site gives directions as to how to do it.

fiddiwebb

geordieracer wrote: »

she had the chance fiddiweb but didnt do it as outlined in first post

Correct but do we all have to qoute SOGA when we go back to a store with an item that is faulty or has a defect and is still under warranty.

Whenever shoulder buttons break down on a PSP, dirty parts are usually the culprit." If that's so, and HMV argue that the fault is due to dirty parts, the court might agree with them.

But that does not give any time frame on when shoulder buttons may break, is it the day after you purchase or one month, 6 or a year and as this case is within the 6 months stipulated in the SOGA then it is up to the retailer (HMV) to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g were not inherently faulty).

esuhl

I have always had much a better outcome in these sort of situations if you write a "serious sounding" letter to their head office or main customer service address. In it, you can state that the crack demonstrates that the goods fail to meet the standards set out in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as ammended); in particular, Part II Section 14 of the act states that "goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory".

You can cite the number of online complaints about similar issues as evidence that reasonable people do not consider the fault satisfactory, and that paragraph 2B of the Part II Section 14 of the act makes it clear that the quality requirements include "appearance and finish", "freedom from minor defects" and "durability".

Say again how this clearly demonstrates that the goods supplied are in contravention of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as ammended) and that you would like a full refund (okay, so HMV may be entitled to give you a replacement, but they have tried to conceal your statutory rights, so insist on a refund unless they say they don't legally have to give you one.. in which case you can say, "okay, give me a replacement then".)

If you fail to get a satifactory response, send another, very brief very terse letter headed "Final notice before action" and say that you will be suing them for damages in the County Court if you do not hear back within 14 days.

Finally, if it comes to it, you can make a small claim against them in court via the website below. It costs £30 and costs cannot be awarded either way (i.e. neither you nor HMV will have to pay the other's court costs).

http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/

I hope this helps - I've had to initiate the above procedure a couple of times against unscrupulous retaillers, but have NEVER got as far as taking anyone to court. They always give in much sooner!

Good luck...

Esqui

fiddiwebb wrote: »

The point I am making is that it is for HMV to sort out and not Sony at this stage.

This is true, but if it's quicker and easier to go via Sony, I don't see why anyone should bother going to the effort of persuading HMV to do it just to prove a point.

cleo1299

esuhl wrote: »

Finally, if it comes to it, you can make a small claim against them in court via the website below. It costs £30 and costs cannot be awarded either way (i.e. neither you nor HMV will have to pay the other's court costs).

Is there a document or FAQ sheet online that states exactly what the law is about having to pay the other side's costs? There seem to be conflicting views.

The Citizens Advice Bureau says "In most cases, the court will not order solicitors’ costs to be paid by the losing party in a small claims case" (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/small_claims.htm)

Thompsons Solicitors say "If you are successful, the judge will make an order requiring the defendant to pay. This is a judgment. At the end of the hearing, you should ask the court to include the costs in the order." (http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/other-services/small-claims-court-consumer-problem.htm)

Maybe the loser can be ordered to pay the winner's court fees, but not their solicitor's fees?

Spartacus_Mills

KeithP wrote: »

Thank you Fiddiwebb.

What is the point you are making?

Pretty obvious really.

Your well intentioned advice is utter !!!!!.

Next time let some one who knows the facts deal with it.

HTH.

Spartacus_Mills

Esqui wrote: »

This is true, but if it's quicker and easier to go via Sony, I don't see why anyone should bother going to the effort of persuading HMV to do it just to prove a point.

It is not to prove a point. It is HMV's responsibility not Sony's.

Why let Sony get away with poor service and why should the OP go to the time and trouble of dealing with Sony when HMV should resolve the issue.

cleo1299

cleo1299 wrote: »

Is there a document or FAQ sheet online that states exactly what the law is about having to pay the other side's costs?

Leaflet EX301, "Making a claim? - some questions to ask yourself"

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex301.pdf