TVs and Sales of Goods Act -Amazon

dburdon

I have an LG 50 inch Plasma TV that has stopped working after 20 months. Having cost £700 new Consumer Direct advise me that I have a claim under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 against the retailer.

I bought the TV from Amazon, who despite claiming to be "The Earth's Most Customer Centric Company" are not willing to play ball.

Does anyone have experience of pursuing Amazon.co.uk on such a matter?

Techhead_2

Consumer Direct will have told you that after 6months from date of purchase, you need to prove that the TV is inherently faulty.

Did you give Amazon that proof? and what did they say?

macman

As above, but certainly also worth an approach to LG if the retailer won't play ball without you providing the engineer's report at your expense, you might find that this model has had generic faults. Nothing to lose.

KillerWatt

LG are more than happy to help the end user if the retailer refuses to play ball, give them a call.

wayne77

Having a problem with my Samsung television,around 18-19 months old.
I emailed Samsung UK and all they could do was reccomend a local repair shop. Should I contact the retailer (Currys) and mention Consumer Direct or should I email Samsung again mentioning Consumer Direct?

Thanks.

Kurtis_Blue

wayne77 wrote: »

Having a problem with my Samsung television,around 18-19 months old.
I emailed Samsung UK and all they could do was reccomend a local repair shop. Should I contact the retailer (Currys) and mention Consumer Direct or should I email Samsung again mentioning Consumer Direct?

Thanks.

You need to prove that the fault is not down to misuse, so will need to pay for your own or their survey and report.

wayne77

Define misuse? Two adults in the house ,so no kids messing around with television. I have emailed Currys,so I await their response.

macman

Regardless of the circumstances, after 6 month the onus is on you to prove that there was a pre-existing fault. So before you can make any claim you will have to commission an independent engineer's report to that effect, the cost of that can then be added to your claim if successful. You have no hope of a warranty repair without such a report to support your claim.

dburdon

Techhead wrote: »

Consumer Direct will have told you that after 6months from date of purchase, you need to prove that the TV is inherently faulty.

Did you give Amazon that proof? and what did they say?

Amazon have made a monetary offer claiming I have to prove that the TV was faulty on date of purchase. However, it seems other people have had problems with LG 50 inch TVs.

Techhead_2

dburdon wrote: »

Amazon have made a monetary offer claiming I have to prove that the TV was faulty on date of purchase. However, it seems other people have had problems with LG 50 inch TVs.

Amazon are correct. The law says that you have to prove that the set is inherently faulty, in order to lodge a complaint under the sale of goods act. If it was under 6months old then the retailer has to prove that it isn't inherently faulty.

As consumer direct will have told you, the best way to do this is with an independent report. If you can compile an convincing dossier with evidence of the SAME problem being widespread then you could try that route instead.

Squirrel2

My husband bought me an Archos 5 internet tablet for Christmas 2009. This completely packed up after 16 months (hard drive failure), losing all the data (great :-( ). We got the same fobbing off letters from Amazon that others have described, insisting that the item needs to be shown to be faulty at the time of purchase, but this conflicts with what is in the SGA, which says it has to be of 'satisfactory quality' - s.14(2). This includes durability. I believe that an item of this price (replacement cost £250, and manufacturer has confirmed that it is irrepairable) should last for longer than 16 months and so - after plenty of emails to them, culminating with an 'intention to issue legal proceedings' notice sent by recorded delivery (and to be fair, they did respond to each one pretty quickly) we are suing them using the Money Claim Online process.

They have just said that they are going to defend the claim, even though it is only for £155 (deducting a proportion for the use I have had out of it) plus £25 costs...

I will be interested to see what the judge says....