CCTV Faulty

deckhanddave

Hi all

I bought a CCTV system from Maplins and installed it last June. It's just gone KaBlooey! Never to work again. Now I spoke to Maplin and they said they can't replace the recorder as they have none at that size (500GB) and make. I can pay more for a lesser one (350GB), another fifty quid or I can have a refund in full. That will mean my having to take down the cameras, try and remove the wiring runs and all at my expense and inconvenience. Where do I stand legally with this? It seems unfair that I have to go to all the aggro of uninstalling this one and buying and fitting another. They say that it's because I got the 500GB recorder and cameras at a deal price which is no longer available. It would be easier for me if they repaired it or swapped it for a recorder that will work with the previous cameras. I feel they are trying to force me to cough up the extra to avoid all the work entailed in swapping systems. :mad: Also, my health isn't too good at present and shinning up ladders is a no-no for me at present. I may have to pay someone to take it down, if so, can I make them pay?

unholyangel

Basically if something goes wrong in the first 6 months, its up to the retailer to prove its not inherent. After the first 6 months, its up to the consumer to prove it is inherently faulty.

If a product is inherently faulty and acceptance has occurred (i wont go over that as acceptance has occurred here imo 100%, no doubt about it), you can request a repair, replacement or rescind the contract for a refund (which can be partial to take into account use you have had of it) but they can refuse if your choice is disproportionately costly in comparison to other remedies.

If they're offering a full refund, its technically more than they need to. They could get away with offering a partial refund.

Of course you could always counter offer with a partial refund for the faulty part and keep the cameras and then source your own replacement? SoGA allows for this - for a reduction in price by an appropriate amount.

deckhanddave

Hi Unholyangel

The problem is the price I paid. I got the kit on offer and the cost of replacing the 500GB unit now is probably more than the kit cost. They offered to provide me with a 350GB unit as a kit which is a lesser kit but £50.00 more to pay. They don't appear to want to try and get a repair done so they appear to be pushing me to remove the installation and take the refund or do as they seem to want and for me to accept the lesser sized recorder and pay the £50.00. What I'd like to know is 'If I have to remove the system because they don't wish to pay to repair the recorder, can I claim back any expense I incur if I have to pay someone to remove it'? After all, it's they who are forcing this decision.

keyser666

unholyangel wrote: »

Basically if something goes wrong in the first 6 months, its up to the retailer to prove its not inherent. After the first 6 months, its up to the consumer to prove it is inherently faulty.

If a product is inherently faulty and acceptance has occurred (i wont go over that as acceptance has occurred here imo 100%, no doubt about it), you can request a repair, replacement or rescind the contract for a refund (which can be partial to take into account use you have had of it) but they can refuse if your choice is disproportionately costly in comparison to other remedies.

If they're offering a full refund, its technically more than they need to. They could get away with offering a partial refund.

Of course you could always counter offer with a partial refund for the faulty part and keep the cameras and then source your own replacement? SoGA allows for this - for a reduction in price by an appropriate amount.

Acceptance hasn't occurred here from what I read, they could be going above and beyond and offering a full refund, I have always had good service from maplins so not uncommon.

OP is the DVR at fault? The cameras? which part?

shaun_from_Africa

keyser666 wrote: »

Acceptance hasn't occurred here from what I read

Not occurred? What makes you say that? (or was is a typing error?)
The OP has had their CCTV system for about 10 months, and IMO, a couple of weeks after installation should be more than enough to test the goods and make sure that they were as advertised and working correctly.
Once a reasonable time has passed without the system being rejected, the OP has legally accepted ownership.

Slowhand

keyser666 wrote: »

Acceptance hasn't occurred here from what I read, they could be going above and beyond and offering a full refund, I have always had good service from maplins so not uncommon.

OP is the DVR at fault? The cameras? which part?

What makes you say acceptance hasn't occurred here?

Looksguywalker

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Not occurred? What makes you say that? (or was is a typing error?)
The OP has had their CCTV system for about 10 months, and IMO, a couple of weeks after installation should be more than enough to test the goods and make sure that they were as advertised and working correctly.
Once a reasonable time has passed without the system being rejected, the OP has legally accepted ownership.

Typo. I hope. If so, it's yet another case of a 'regular' not reading over what they post. See my sig., words which were given as advice by a regular.
Guess who got a yellow for pointing it out?

deckhanddave

Hi all.

The DVR is the part that has ceased working. The warranty is 12 months but it isn't unreasonable to expect it to last longer than that. The warranty isn't the issue anyway as they accept it is in warranty. What I wasn't happy with was their initial response that they couldn't do anything other than basically replace it with a lesser (350GB instead of 500GB HDD) recorder in a new system which I had to pay an extra £50.00 for. However, they have found a similar recorder with a 320GB hard drive which they are going to swap the hard drive for my 500GB one. That works all should be fine. However, how do I stand regards any further problem? What does the law say regards durability of a repair? Especially as the warranty runs out in June. Do I need evidence that they carried this out? :question:

keyser666

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Not occurred? What makes you say that? (or was is a typing error?)
The OP has had their CCTV system for about 10 months, and IMO, a couple of weeks after installation should be more than enough to test the goods and make sure that they were as advertised and working correctly.
Once a reasonable time has passed without the system being rejected, the OP has legally accepted ownership.

Slowhand wrote: »

What makes you say acceptance hasn't occurred here?

Looksguywalker wrote: »

Typo. I hope. If so, it's yet another case of a 'regular' not reading over what they post. See my sig., words which were given as advice by a regular.
Guess who got a yellow for pointing it out?

Apologies all, I for some reason remember reading it at the time as unholyangel was saying that the company had accepted responsibility, not sure why probably skim read. Did think it strange at the time that unholyangel would say that based on heaps of posts made by them on the forum