Plasma TV sent for repair, not carried out even though they said they did

vyle

You do realise that the whole bit about the retailer having the choice to "repair, replace or refund," is just that. It doesn't have a time frame, or a limited number of goes (legally at least).

Repairs aren't free, they cost the retailer time and money in admin and transport, and cost the manufacturer money. At a point, they will choose to replace or refund because it will work out less expensive for them, but they could choose to keep repairing even if it bankrupted the company if that was their wish.

neilmcl

vyle wrote: »

You do realise that the whole bit about the retailer having the choice to "repair, replace or refund," is just that. It doesn't have a time frame, or a limited number of goes (legally at least).

Repairs aren't free, they cost the retailer time and money in admin and transport, and cost the manufacturer money. At a point, they will choose to replace or refund because it will work out less expensive for them, but they could choose to keep repairing even if it bankrupted the company if that was their wish.

Actually it does have a time frame! Any remedy must be carried out within a "reasonable time" and without causing a significant inconvenience. How many times does this have to be stated on this thread!

CoolHotCold

vyle wrote: »

You do realise that the whole bit about the retailer having the choice to "repair, replace or refund," is just that. It doesn't have a time frame, or a limited number of goes (legally at least).

Repairs aren't free, they cost the retailer time and money in admin and transport, and cost the manufacturer money. At a point, they will choose to replace or refund because it will work out less expensive for them, but they could choose to keep repairing even if it bankrupted the company if that was their wish.

Except under the SoGA they can't.

"Reasonable Time Frame" is part that applies in this case.

However, if over a number of years/decades, yes several repairs could be attempted.

vyle

neilmcl wrote: »

Actually it does have a time frame! Any remedy must be carried out within a "reasonable time" and without causing a significant inconvenience. How many times does this have to be stated on this thread!

My apologies, bad wording. What I meant is, there isn't a magic number at which point the law says "ok, just give them a new one," as the law itself says the remedy must not be disproportionately costly to the seller, and in theory, they could keep repairing until they run out of money, but most retailers will, after a point, give a replacement (or the manufacturer may recommend one) because repairs aren't free, and the cost of getting something repaired adds up to the point the refund or replacement is the cheapest option for them.

Svenholio

Thanks again for all the replies. CAB tomorrow to see what they say. See all I can forsee in this if its goes back for repair is that we end up going over a combined 21 days to repair it and then arguing again with them about wheres my replacement TV.

CoolHotCold

CAB should say exactly the same thing as on here, though they are more consumer agreeable (keeps the complaints down).

Why even bother worrying about arguing, it's a pretty clear internal policy that the staff know about and deal with several times a week.

Might as well let them pick it up again (from the sounds of it they've already arranged it) and then wait, if TV comes back repaired great, if not phone and ask for vouchers as per the T&C of the WEH, if they disagree then argue or put a complaint in writing and comeback.

But theres no point thinking something bad is going to happen when it's not, life is too short to worry about what may or may not happen to the TV in a weeks time, the weather is nice enjoy it while it lasts.

Svenholio

Internal policy. Thats the problem, no matter what it says eleswhere, you always get screwed by internal policy. I dont see the point in having an act if a trader can just keep a customer waiting until they have satisfied all of there options.

unholyangel

Svenholio wrote: »

Internal policy. Thats the problem, no matter what it says eleswhere, you always get screwed by internal policy. I dont see the point in having an act if a trader can just keep a customer waiting until they have satisfied all of there options.

Consumer law is usually very biased.....in favour of the consumer.

However for a contract to be "balanced" it needs to be beneficial to both sides. Therefore a contract which allows one side to withdraw the second something goes wrong without offering the other party reasonable opportunity to resolve it, is far from balanced.

I dont think anyone here is saying never take legal action etc. We're just saying cover your own back before you do so that you dont get screwed over. If you can show a court you have been more than reasonable in your attempts to allow the retailer to resolve the issue and they have still failed, it is more likely the court will side with you.

Only fools rush in.

Svenholio

Balance is what we should have, however what we do have is a situation where you can be delayed and restricted in actions by internal policy. What can the customer do in those circumstances? Go through the long process of getting advice and then threatening with a CCJ maybe?

Depending on how strong a person you are will directly effect what you get.

vyle

What you have to be careful of is to remember whether you're claiming your legal rights, or claiming on your warranty.

For instance, a warranty IS bound by policy and is only legally binding in the sense that it formed part of your deal when you bought the TV. A warranty might say, "we will give you a loan TV, £200 cash and a backrub while we fix the TV, but only if your TV breaks on a tuesday and you notify us in morse code." and that would be perfectly legal.

If your TV then broke down on a monday and you started ranting to them about how they were going against your consumer rights by not doing all of the above, then they'd be quite right to cite policy, because your consumer rights don't offer any of that stuff.

There are times (frequently in fact) where warranties offer more protection than your consumer rights. That's where 21 days comes in, and 3 repairs and all the rest, and again, they ARE bound by policy.

Remember that the SOGA and warranty are very different things, so when communicating to currys, be specific as to whether you're speaking of SOGA or the warranty. Demanding the benefits of the warranty AS your consumer rights will get you the "policy" argument, because they're not one and the same.

If you ARE quoting SOGA, don't expect to get anything more than you're legally due, which may be less than the warranty offers.