Sainsburys flouting consumer rights

RobinXe

Good morning all, I thought I would post a little about the current situation I have ongoing with Sainsburys in order to see if anyone had any tips or advice, and perhaps to serve as a salutary warning about the risks of doing business with them.

(Scroll to the bottom for TL;DR)

In January 2011 I purchased a Panasonic plasma television from Sainsburys Online for £629. This was, of course, the best price I could find for it, though not by a huge margin, and it was for a brand new item. The vendor provides a 1 year warranty.

In May 2012 the picture on the television started to flicker. This problem got worse over time, and progressed by June to the TV turning itself off, with the '7 flashes' issue, in which I am now well versed, indicating a failure of some of the internal components.

At this point I called Sainsburys customer service to report the problem. Of course the first response I got was "out of warranty, not our problem". After patiently and politely explaining to the representative that it was, in fact and law, still their problem they revealed that they were actually better versed in the SOGA than they were letting on, by insisting that I would have to provide an engineer's report to show that the issue was inherent to the TV and not caused by my negligence or misuse.

I duly lugged my TV to the nearest authorised Panasonic engineer, and paid £60 to obtain a report which indicated a failure of internal components which I have subsequently learned fail with some frequency in this range of TV. The cost of repair is quoted at £316.54.

Ultimately, I would prefer to have a refund for the TV, even if it is slightly abated, since research into the fault has not left me with confidence that it would not reoccur, and thus leave me either significantly out of pocket, or going through this rigmarole all over again!

Having provided Sainsburys with the report, they stalled a while, though I did receive a couple of phone calls to let me know they were still looking in to the matter, before finally receiving an email stating that their 'Investigations Team' had deemed that I would need to get the manufacturer to sort the issue, as it was outside of warranty! :mad:

Thus, I duly drafted a 'letter before court action', citing insufficient quality as grounds for breach of contract under the Sale of Goods Act, which I mailed to their head office on 10th July, with fair warning that after 28 days without a response they could expect a filing in the county court.

I have received no response to this to date which, even allowing for the increased time for post to arrive at an overseas BFPO address, indicates to me that they are simply ignoring the issue in the hope that I will go away. For a £629 TV that only worked for 16 months this is certainly not going to happen!

My intended next step is to write once more on my return to the UK, in order to give them the benefit of the doubt that their mail may have been waylaid between the UK and Afghanistan, after which I will file a claim with the courts.

I am also minded to pursue the S75 route, as I paid for the TV on credit card, though I do have reservations: Firstly and foremost, while I understand that the credit company ARE equally liable, it does not sit well with my sense of fairness, especially given that the trader in question is still very much solvent and trading! Has anyone made a S75 claim under similar circumstances? Does anyone know if the credit company would be willing to assist in my claim against Sainsburys, rather than face the bill themselves?

I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has experience of similar situations.

TL;DR: Bought a £629 plasma TV from Sainsburys Online in Jan 2011 and paid by credit card. 16 months after purchase the TV failed, and the vendor is claiming that I must approach the manufacturer for a remedy. I have an engineer's report that the fault is due to premature component failure and not misuse, and I would prefer a refund, but would consider repair.

sithmaster

i am no expert but i think they are correct as you purchased the item and 16 months it fails, the item is faulty now but was it when you purchased it? if so could be very hard to prove as you had no complains with the item untill 16 months later.
Your best bet would be to contact the manufacture

RobinXe

Hi sithmaster and thanks for your reply.

Under the Sale of Goods Act as I understand it, items must be of suitable quality, and last a reasonable length of time.

I posit that 16 months for an expensive TV is not a reasonable length of time.

Bear in mind that a warranty does not reduce a consumer's statutory rights.

bod1467

tl;dr ... After 6 months it is for the consumer to prove that any fault was inherent (i.e. present at the time of sale but only subsequently appeared). This is usually via an engineer's report. If this finds for an inherent fault (i.e. not due to wear-and-tear or misuse) then Retailer must offer a remedy (repair, replace, refund - any refund can be reduced to account for usage). You can request a specific remedy but retailer effectively gets to choose whichever is most cost-effective (to them).

Note: Retailer must also reimburse the (reasonable) cost of the report.

neilmcl

OP, sounds like you've done all that's necessary and you stand a very good chance of being succesful should you make a small claims. Personally I wouldn't be giving them a second chance, an LBA is supposed to be just that, letter before action.

I wouldn't worry too much about an S75 claim either.

CoolHotCold

bod1467 wrote: »

tl;dr ... After 6 months it is for the consumer to prove that any fault was inherent (i.e. present at the time of sale but only subsequently appeared). This is usually via an engineer's report. If this finds for an inherent fault (i.e. not due to wear-and-tear or misuse) then Retailer must offer a remedy (repair, replace, refund - any refund can be reduced to account for usage). You can request a specific remedy but retailer effectively gets to choose whichever is most cost-effective (to them).

Note: Retailer must also reimburse the (reasonable) cost of the report.

The retailer can still dispute the report, but rarely do, as it would cost them more money, more bad will, and if a consumer has gotten a report done, they are more than likely to contest it in court costing yet more money.

yangptangkipperbang

" Sainsburys flouting consumer rights"

A grossly misleading heading.

Sainsburys are complying 100% with the Law. You seem to think that they should immediately roll over and comply with your demands without your having to comply with the Law yourself.

The Law states that if you can PROVE that there was a defect in design or manufacture then you can claim damages (after 6 months; Sainsburys actually gave you 12 months, I wouldn't call that "flouting" the Law) - that doesn't mean that you are entitled to a new TV or a refund either. There is NO defined "reasonable time" - who is to know that you haven't had the TV switched on 24 hrs a day for the full 16 months ??

You have a right to take proceedings in Court. Sainsburys might contest it, you might decide not to bother, they might decide to settle. The choice is yours

I am all for consumer rights - and have used the Law myself, but I do wish people would, at least, try and understand the Law before making totally unjustified (and incorrect) statements about how a retailer responds.

RobinXe

Hi yangptangkipperbang, and thanks for your reply.

I'll grant that the topic title may be somewhat strongly worded, but when a retailer lies to a consumer about who bears the responsibility to honour contract terms under the Sale of Goods Act it is hard to see it otherwise (hint: it's always the contracting parties, a contract cannot bind a third party).

Furthermore, the guide to pre-action conduct with regard to county court claims (small claims track) is at pains to point out that it is beholden on both parties to seek to resolve the issue without resorting to the court. Failure to engage as such, by ignoring pre-action communiques, and by erroneously insisting that the manufacturer and not the retailer is liable does not conform to this.

The 12 month warranty is in addition to the statutory rights, not a compliance measure. Nor do I think they should just roll over; I felt that requesting an engineer's report was a totally reasonable request, hence why I promptly complied with it.

So no mate, they are not complying 100% with the law.

You are correct that there is no definition in the statute on 'reasonable time', though courts have set precedent. Panasonic say that their plasma panels should last over 60,000 hours, that's nearly 7 years at your fictitious 24 hours per day. Are you seriously suggesting that 16 months is a reasonable period for a £629 TV to last?

IANAL, but I certainly found no difficulty in understanding the law while studying for a law degree, so no condescension required, thanks. Could you please tell me where you think that I have not complied with the law?

arcon5

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

" Sainsburys flouting consumer rights"

A grossly misleading heading.

Sainsburys are complying 100% with the Law. You seem to think that they should immediately roll over and comply with your demands without your having to comply with the Law yourself.

The Law states that if you can PROVE that there was a defect in design or manufacture then you can claim damages (after 6 months; Sainsburys actually gave you 12 months, I wouldn't call that "flouting" the Law) - that doesn't mean that you are entitled to a new TV or a refund either. There is NO defined "reasonable time" - who is to know that you haven't had the TV switched on 24 hrs a day for the full 16 months ??

You have a right to take proceedings in Court. Sainsburys might contest it, you might decide not to bother, they might decide to settle. The choice is yours

I am all for consumer rights - and have used the Law myself, but I do wish people would, at least, try and understand the Law before making totally unjustified (and incorrect) statements about how a retailer responds.

Since op has has an independent report confirming a component has failed prematurely.... I would say Sainsburys are NOT complying 100% with the law - otherwise they would at this point be offering a remedy!



As for op.... you seem to have done everything correctly. The only thing I would be concerned about it the fact the letter has been sent to them internationally...

I would be surprised if they ignored your LBA. Personally I would resend it once back in the UK (when will that be?) but give them 7 or 14 days instead of 28 days to respond before filing a claim...

AvadaKedavra

I agree, 16 months for a high value TV is not a reasonable amount of time, probably contrary to Sainsbury's opinion who probably want you to buy a new one. SOGA does state a reasonable amount of time, I am sure most would agree a TV of that value should be lasting far longer.

neilmcl

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

" Sainsburys flouting consumer rights"

A grossly misleading heading.

Sainsburys are complying 100% with the Law. You seem to think that they should immediately roll over and comply with your demands without your having to comply with the Law yourself.

I'd strongly disagree. The OP has done everything he needs to show that the item is not of satisfactory quality, he's also complied with his obligations and got an independant report showing that an intenal component has prematurely failed, thus showing an inherent fault in design or manufacture. Remember the standard of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities. The retailer, however is not honoring their obligations and even worse attempting to pass their responsibility onto the manufacturer. So I'd would agree with the OP in that in this instance Sainsbury's are indeed flouting the consumer's rights.