Manufacturers responsibility?

GAVIT

Hi, I bought an LG Plasma TV in 2009 in late 2010 (outside of the 12 month guarantee) the TV became faulty. After several letters to the retailer, Comet, they went into administration. I have contacted LG under the Sale of Goods 6yr reasonable use clause and LG say that this clause only applies to the initial retailer and does not extend to the manufacturer. Is this true?

Thanks for your help everyone.

Fosterdog

Yes it's true. You have no contract whatsoever with LG.

How did you pay for it? If it was on finance or credit card then the credit provider is equally liable and you can chase them instead

shaun_from_Africa

Yes, they are correct.
The SOGA relates to the sale of goods only applies to contracts of sale between a retailer and the person who purchased goods from them.

How did you pay for the TV?
If it was with a credit card or on HP then you may well be able to claim from them, but to do this you will probably need an independant report stating that the peoblem is due to a manufacturing defect.
This link will give you more info
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

2010

Fosterdog wrote: »

Yes it's true. You have no contract whatsoever with LG.

True, yet you get retailers trying to fob people off by telling them to contact the manufacturer.

Fosterdog

2010 wrote: »

True, yet you get retailers trying to fob people off by telling them to contact the manufacturer.

A lot of the time the retailer uses the manufacturer as the repair agent, they are allowed to do this and it's not fobbing them off. The retailer could just as easily buy the items without a manufacturer warranty which would be cheaper for them, and they could pass the savings on to the customer but then the retailer has to carry out the repair.

I'd rather the manufacturer do the repair as they will have better access to the parts needed and will be fully trained to fix each product they make.

bod1467

Is this a rhetorical question? I ask because the timescales seem strange ... when did Comet go into administration? (November 2012 as far as I can determine). Yet the OP is talking about a fault that developed in late 2010, so around 2 years before administration.

shaun_from_Africa

It looks like the TV went wrong in 2010 (whilst Comet were still trading) and the OP did contact them about the problem but it dragged on and they closed down before the problem was resolved.

After several letters to the retailer, Comet, they went into administration

and as this was over a year since the TV was purchased, I guessing that Comet wouldn't do anything which is why the matter went unresolved for so long.

2010

Fosterdog wrote: »

A lot of the time the retailer uses the manufacturer as the repair agent, they are allowed to do this and it's not fobbing them off.

It`s fobbing them off if the retailer tells the customer to contact the manufacturer!(who he has no contract with)

bod1467

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It looks like the TV went wrong in 2010 (whilst Comet were still trading) and the OP did contact them about the problem but it dragged on and they closed down before the problem was resolved.

and as this was over a year since the TV was purchased, I guessing that Comet wouldn't do anything which is why the matter went unresolved for so long.

I gathered that. I'm just surprised the OP left it so long in the first place, and has still left it another 9 months AFTER administration before asking. That's why I wondered if this was a rhetorical question.

But as said earlier ... if a CC or finance was used to make the purchase then Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act should be applicable. However an engineer's report stating the fault was inherent (and not caused by the consumer) may be required to support any such claim.

shaun_from_Africa

2010 wrote: »

It`s fobbing them off if the retailer tells the customer to contact the manufacturer!(who he has no contract with)

Is that any different to the retailer asking the customer to contact their authorised repair agent?
The customer could refuse to do this, but why would any sensible person want to?
In many cases it turns out to a case of "I know my rights and I don't care if forcing the retailer to abide by those rights causes me delays or expense"

Suppose I took a faulty item into a store and left it with them to arrange the repair.
It might sit on their shelf for a day or two before they sent it for repair, then when the job gets completed, it gets shipped back to the store.
They then have to contact me to arrange for it to be collected.
The whole process may well end up taking far longer than if the buyer made one phonecall to the manufacturer themselves.

If my laptop failed, I would much rather contact Toshiba directly to get them to repair it under warranty rather than let the PC World "technicians" fiddle with it.

lucy03

2010 wrote: »

It`s fobbing them off if the retailer tells the customer to contact the manufacturer!(who he has no contract with)

It's normally easier for the manufacturer to deal with it as it normally just delays the matter if the retailer processes everything. The problem lies when the retailer claims that this is the only recourse.