Can I refuse a repair to my 3 month old TV?

Cool_Username

neilmcl wrote: »

I wont, it just makes you look like a tool hence the suggestion.

Okey doke glad you're not worried about it.

neilmcl

smcaul wrote: »

Thankfully, I do do my research, I am also happy to put my money where my mouth is. I have, as stated earlier, had a washer drier replaced three times over the last 2 years. First time was after 4 months, retailer wanted to repair, I refused, after a bit of discussion they did indeed change the WD. And 2 subsequent machines have also developed faults and have been replaced. All from the initial purchase.

I have also rejected other items at varying lengths of time due to "not being of satisfactory quality" or not being "Durable", on a couple of occasions even starting court proceedings.

So as you can see, I can quite easily qualify my statements, please would you be so kind as to do the same with your statements/advice?

I would think a washing machine is slightly different to a TV when taking the significant inconvenience issue into account. Obviously any item has to be taken on its individual merits, its much easier to argue that being without a washer drier for even a few days would cause a significant incovenience therefore a replacement was probably appropriate, not so I would argue for a TV. However the fact remains that the consumer cannot insist on a remedy that is disproportionately costly, the law allows the retailer to decide which remedy is appropriate as long as it's performed in a reasonable time and without significant incovenience. With your case you got a replacement, however the retailer would have been within their rights to offer a partial refund instead.

smcaul

neilmcl wrote: »

I would think a washing machine is slightly different to a TV when taking the significant inconvenience issue into account. Obviously any item has to be taken on its individual merits, its much easier to argue that being without a washer drier for even a few days would cause a significant incovenience therefore a replacement was probably appropriate, not so I would argue for a TV. However the fact remains that the consumer cannot insist on a remedy that is disproportionately costly, the law allows the retailer to decide which remedy is appropriate as long as it's performed in a reasonable time and without significant incovenience. With your case you got a replacement, however the retailer would have been within their rights to offer a partial refund instead.

Nope, I don't see any difference between a washing machine and a TV as far as inconvenience goes.

And you still have not qualified your statement on the retailer decides issue, the retailer does not decide, it must be pretty much mutual, no where in the SOGA does it give carte blance rights to the retailer to decide what to do.

You're giving advice based on your own interpretation of the SOGA, not on any legal basis or, from what I can glean, any personal experiences. At least my replies are backed up with my own battles and court cases.

smcaul

To qualify my post:

48B Repair or replacement of the goods

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

(a) to repair the goods, or


(b) to replace the goods.


(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;


(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).


(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a) impossible, or


(b) disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or


(c) disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.


(4) One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a) the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,


(b) the significance of the lack of conformity, and


(c) whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.


(5) Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the nature of the goods, and


(b) the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

Looks like it is down to the customer, not retailer then!!!!

neilmcl

(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a) impossible, or


(b) disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or


(c) disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

And I think that qualifies mine

And this

Q11. The retailer has said that a repair is "disproportionately costly" and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?

Yes, and vice versa if you request a replacement and this is "disproportionately costly". However, remember any remedy has to be carried out "without significant inconvenience" and within a "reasonable time" for the consumer. Remember that you could also seek damages instead.

:taken from www.berr.gov.uk

Ultimately the seller has the final decision based on what is less costly to them.

smcaul

Nope, does not qualify yours at all, you stated, quite vehemently that it was the retailers choice. When it is not.

All the quote you highlighted says is that the retailer must prove that a replacement is not disproportionate in cost to a repair. But the customer can still make the choice, it is not down to the retailer to choose.

Nice try though, but sometimes just admitting you are wrong is better then flogging a dead horse

neilmcl

The consumer can always make a choice but they can't insist on the remedy. The final decision/choice is the retailers based on what they decide is less costly. I can't see the legislation being any more clearer than that. If you disagree, that's your perogative. I've no intention in getting into a p$$sing contest about it.

BTW, I didn't pick up on the first part of your initial post. I take exception to what you said about by reply to the OP. My post was in no way meant as rude or obnoxious. It was in a tongue in cheek manner hence the smilie and I kind of think that was the manner it was received. If want to make an issue of belittling posters, try looking at some of your own posts on these forums.

garyd

Although having been out of the Appliance Repair/Extended Warranty game for a couple of years I don't think the legislation covering the industry has changed fundamentally in that time.
A legal precedent was set a few years ago where a judge ruled that up to eighteen months was deemed a reasonable time for a fault to appear on an appliance and the retailer to be responsible for a repair/replacement (all be it a White good not Brown as in this case).
So far as a repair/replacement is concerned the consumer is bound to allow the retailer/manufacturer to inspect the appliance to verify a fault exists.
They CANNOT insist on a repair!
Once a fault has been verified then the consumer is within their rights to insist on a replacement.
Of course, don't quote me on it!;)

nettttie

i had a 22" flatscreen from tesco which stopped working after 10 months, took it in with receipt, told them it was hardly used which was true so I'd like my money back pls. refund on card no problem!

smcaul

neilmcl wrote: »

The consumer can always make a choice but they can't insist on the remedy. The final decision/choice is the retailers based on what they decide is less costly. I can't see the legislation being any more clearer than that. If you disagree, that's your perogative. I've no intention in getting into a p$$sing contest about it.

BTW, I didn't pick up on the first part of your initial post. I take exception to what you said about by reply to the OP. My post was in no way meant as rude or obnoxious. It was in a tongue in cheek manner hence the smilie and I kind of think that was the manner it was received. If want to make an issue of belittling posters, try looking at some of your own posts on these forums.

Actually, I have been following your posts for a while, in most of them you are really quite rude, and think your words are wiser then anyone elses, you then fail to back up anything you say, yet insist you are right!!!

I make no apologies about being rude, arrogant and obnoxious towards posters such as yourself. And you are not alone, there are a few of you who frequent the boards. However, my replies to people who are polite are very, very different.