An expensive Plasma .... But 5 years ago

vyle

Matty007 wrote: »

As an ex owner retailer, I accept that profit margins within a shop of varying products can show differing margins.

But as a general rule the same product type will have an industry 'norm' that retails at similar profit margins.

For an independent retailer to commit to hold stock of a higher price item it is only right for them to benefit from a higher financial gain.

Again I must stress that this issue isn't one of the depreciation of the the TV or its technology, unless I was looking for some sort of refund, which I am not.

Again with respect and as a former owner retailer your examples of buying and selling prices within your own store seem a little unlikely, I certainly would not offer my supplier a shop window for his goods with such unsustainable profit margins.

Unless of course I could make fantastic margins on other of their popular lines, if not it would seem they no longer wish to supply you with their goods !!!!

If you successfully challenge a retailer in the SCC then the cost are reimbursed by the retailer.

Apple holds a lot of power and my employer's pricing policy is infuriating lol.

We do sell cables and other things which help margins, but there's very little price competition with 26" TVs while the bigger ones seem to be carried by everyone nearby at the moment.

At least the fees will be paid should you win. Does that mean that if you lose you'd have to pay the defendant's fees?

Crazy_Jamie

Matty007 wrote: »

I think we are stuck on the 'inherently faulty' aspect, this is as vague as a 'reasonable amount of time' and 'satisfactory quality' it is subjective and something that the SOGA lends itself well to.

Actually, it's the one bit that isn't vague. After the six month threshold you need to prove that the television contains an inherent fault and is not in its current state due to standard wear and tear. An engineer will tell you which it is. If you decide to go ahead with this issue and potentially pursue a claim, an engineer's report has to be your first step. You can then have the debate about what is a reasonable length of time for a £2,000 plasma television to last, which is the vague bit. But without showing that there is an inherent fault with the television, it is entirely moot to be discussing the other aspects in detail at this stage.

What you have to decide is what the (rough) chances are of this fault being inherent, and then decide the (rough) chances Currys deciding that five years is not a reasonable length of time for a plasma tv to last. If they don't you then have to take into consideration what the chances are of a Court finding in your favour on the issue, once you've risked some costs in making a claim. You also have to judge what the likely outcome would be if you were successful, and weigh all of that together to make a risk/reward decision on whether pursuing this matter is worth it.

If a failing component effects the overall function of an item, then ultimately the decision will be whether the Magistrate feels that the product should still be working after a certain amount of time, especially with a 'standstill product' such as a TV.

It will be a Deputy District Judge or a District Judge, not a Magistrate, as it will be in a County Court rather than a Magistrates Court. Minor correction.

peachyprice

Matty007 wrote: »

I think we are stuck on the 'inherently faulty' aspect, this is as vague as a 'reasonable amount of time' and 'satisfactory quality' it is subjective and something that the SOGA lends itself well to.

No, I think you're the only one stuck on this aspect.

Inherent fault = fault present at the time of purchase, not vague at all

The likelyhood of a component failing due to an inherent fault will decrease with time as the likelyhood of it failing due to normal wear and tear increases.

The only obligation is yours, to prove that the failed component was faulty at the time of purchase, as it has lasted 5 years it's not likely is it?

dmg24

I am completely with Crazy Jamie and peachyprice on this one. When I consider making a claim under SOGA, I know that the easiest thing to make a claim on is when an item an inherently faulty, as I would have solid evidence in the form of an engineers report, or numerous (verified) examples of the same fault occurring to other people.

molerat

It would seem that in the OP's view a £2K 3D TV package purchased 6 months ago should last considerably lomger than a £1K package purchased today when in fact that they are exactly the same item. You are paying the "technology fairy" a load of money if you are an early adopter, you are paying a premium for lower scale production and marketing costs of that new technology and not necessarily for a quality product.

As for profit margins, many modern hi tech products do have a low profit margin, the real profits come in the accessories. Why do you think there is so much pressure to buy the cases and cables etc, it is not for more profit it is just to make a decent profit. The big name manufacturers do have the leverage in pricing even up against the likes of Walmart and Tesco. If the retailer does not tow the line they do not get the product and the manufacturer has the whole supply chain tied up so there is no back door supply.

Gavin83

Matty007 wrote: »

Even if she was successful in the SOGA route, why would the retailer prefer a refund, rather than say a repair ?

As they would only give a partial refund, it would likely prove cheaper for them.

Matty007 wrote: »

We are not paying the 'technology fairy' here, but a retailer who is making a greater profit on selling a higher priced item than others of a lower price.

Actually retailers generally make their money on accessories and warranties, which is why they push these products so much and generally give their sales staff good commission for selling these items.

It makes little difference to the retailer which TV you buy, although larger, more expensive TV's are generally easier to sell these products on.

vyle wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if you took the shop to small claims and won, would they have to pay your court costs?

Yes, although I think they are only responsible for refunding your fee to the small claims court, I don't believe you can charge them for your time or a lawyer, although I might be wrong on this one.

I am actually with the OP here, price does play a part but I don't think it's relevant in this case.

If you want my honest opinion, given the age of the TV I think they'll likely find the fault is down to wear and tear and therefore you won't have any claim under the SOGA. However Im not an engineer but you will potentially be wasting money finding this out which could be put towards another TV.

It's up to you really. Either ignore it and buy a new TV or get an engineers report, there are no other options. It's a big gamble.

custardy

Matty007 wrote: »

As an ex owner retailer, I accept that profit margins within a shop of varying products can show differing margins.

But as a general rule the same product type will have an industry 'norm' that retails at similar profit margins.

For an independent retailer to commit to hold stock of a higher price item it is only right for them to benefit from a higher financial gain.

Again I must stress that this issue isn't one of the depreciation of the the TV or its technology, unless I was looking for some sort of refund, which I am not.

Again with respect and as a former owner retailer your examples of buying and selling prices within your own store seem a little unlikely, I certainly would not offer my supplier a shop window for his goods with such unsustainable profit margins.

Unless of course I could make fantastic margins on other of their popular lines, if not it would seem they no longer wish to supply you with their goods !!!!

If you successfully challenge a retailer in the SCC then the cost are reimbursed by the retailer.

but it is.the retailer is highly unlikely to repair or replace the TV
so a part refund would be in order

Crazy_Jamie

Gavin83 wrote: »

Yes, although I think they are only responsible for refunding your fee to the small claims court, I don't believe you can charge them for your time or a lawyer, although I might be wrong on this one.

There are fixed costs on the small claims track that can be recovered in addition to court fees. However, these are relatively modest in the grand scheme of things, and often instructing a solicitor in a small claims matter will result in you having to pay money to them over and above the amount you recover in fixed costs.

Gavin83 wrote:

If you want my honest opinion, given the age of the TV I think they'll likely find the fault is down to wear and tear and therefore you won't have any claim under the SOGA. However I'm not an engineer but you will potentially be wasting money finding this out which could be put towards another TV.

For what it's worth, I agree, but I would actually take it further in terms of reasoning. Not only is it realistically possible that the fault could be wear and tear (in which case you lose your engineer's fee), even if it is not it is unlikely that Currys will agree that five years is a reasonable length of time for a plasma television to last. Whether they be right or wrong in that, that would leave you with Court proceedings, which will cost more time and money. If you are ultimately successful you will recover your engineer fee and court costs, but the likely benefit will be a relatively small amount in financial compensation (i.e. the cost of the repair) rather than Currys actually fixing the television themselves. Of course if you lose you're out of pocket for both the engineer fee and the court costs.

Personally weighing those factors against one another I would probably advise moving on from this. Entirely your call, though. I personally don't think that risking that money and taking that time is worth it for the potential benefit, but you may view it differently.

Matty007

Thanks guys, I enjoyed the advice, even if at times I disagreed.

Matty007