Sky/NOW TV blatantly breaching our statutory rights

custardy

warrenrichards wrote: »

I bought the box from Sky.

And no - the box should last a reasonable time, up to a maximum of 5 years. It is evidentially quite difficult to argue that a box which died 13 months after purchase was of satisfactory quality.

I would argue back they are near disposable items given their initial cost and resale value.
You can replace the box for near free given the included subs vs paying your monthly subs.

pmduk

custardy wrote: »

I would argue back they are near disposable items given their initial cost and resale value.
You can replace the box for near free given the included subs vs paying your monthly subs.

The included subscriptions were worth £5 more than my first Now TV box

shaun_from_Africa

warrenrichards wrote: »

I bought the box from Sky.

And no - the box should last a reasonable time, up to a maximum of 5 years. It is evidentially quite difficult to argue that a box which died 13 months after purchase was of satisfactory quality.

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that price can be taken into account when assessing if goods are of satisfactory quality.
A cheap, low end electronic item (which is exactly what you purchased for £15) wouldn't be expected to last as long as a far more expensive, better quality item that was built to do the same job.

It's no different to you trying to argue that a £15 plastic cased wrist watch should last the same amount of time as a far better made, more expensive watch.

warrenrichards

marlot wrote: »

I've been throwing the old, white ones away as I've replaced them with the new model.

The old ones aren't even worth a fiver. I've been putting them straight in the bin.

I've just realised you pick them up for 'free' effectively when including the vouchers. Not sure I will use NOWTV again after my experience but if the advisor would have offered me a new one if I took another three months subscription, I would have taken it. poor service.

BrentMeister

warrenrichards wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on both points.

1. I did buy it from Sky directly along with my subscription, so my sale of goods contract is with Sky.

2. Heres NOW TV's most recent T&Cs:

General Information: NOW TV is powered by Sky and is a trading name of Sky UK Limited (registered number: 02906991) of Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex, UK, TW7 5QD. Email: [EMAIL="customerservices@nowtv.com"]customerservices@nowtv.com[/EMAIL]. Our UK VAT number is: 440 6274 67. Prices are inclusive of VAT (where applicable)

Im afraid im not the one that is wrong.

As the item is over 6 months old, the onus is on you to prove it is inherently faulty. This will be achieved by getting an independent report stating such. If this is the case, you can claim the cost of the report back along with a remedy of either repair, replacement or refund. This is upto the retailer to decide. In the case of a refund, they can deduct money for the use you have already had, plus any vouchers that were included.

Yup, its powered by Sky and is a trading name of sky, however that does not make them the same entity. The fact you struggle to understand this means you won't get very far arguing that point.

warrenrichards

BrentMeister wrote: »

Im afraid im not the one that is wrong.

As the item is over 6 months old, the onus is on you to prove it is inherently faulty. This will be achieved by getting an independent report stating such. If this is the case, you can claim the cost of the report back along with a remedy of either repair, replacement or refund. This is upto the retailer to decide. In the case of a refund, they can deduct money for the use you have already had, plus any vouchers that were included.

Yup, its powered by Sky and is a trading name of sky, however that does not make them the same entity. The fact you struggle to understand this means you won't get very far arguing that point.

Firstly, My contract is with NOW TV, that is where I said you are wrong.

However, while you are correct about the six month shift in burden of proof (but don't understand that circumstantial evidence will suffice in most circumstances in small claims) you are wrong about it being for the 'retailer to decide' on remedy. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which replaced the Sales of Goods Act on 01 October 2015 for consumer contracts clearly states that a breach of the implied terms of satisfactory quality (section 9, CRA), fit for purpose (section 10, CRA), as described (section 11, CRA) give the consumer the choice of (1) The right to repair or replacement (section 23, CRA). (2) The right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (section 24, CRA).

The consumer can select whichever remedy it requires, subject to them both being possible and one not being disproportionate to the other (section 23, CRA).

Secondly, you are wrong about trading names: see definition of a 'trading name' if it is not obvious by the very phrase, its the same entity, but 'trading as..'. Or if you are 'struggling to understand' read Part 41, Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Perhaps you have some authority that a trading name is its own legal entity?

A trade name, trading name, or business name is a pseudonym used by companies to perform their business under a name that differs from the registered, legal name of the business

The distinction between a registered legal name and a "fictitious" business name or trade name is important, as businesses with the latter give no obvious indication of the true identity of the entity that is legally responsible for their operation. Fictitious business names do not create legal entities in and of themselves; they are merely names assumed by existing persons or entities.[2] Legal agreements such as contracts are normally made under the registered legal name of the business or owner, and the legal name must be used whenever a business sues or is being sued.

See PLC definition used by lawyers under reference 1-107-6526. I'd love to provide you links to all the legislation but unfortunately I'm a new user and I don't have the requisite standing on here.

Let me know NOW TVs company number if I'm wrong?

W

mije1983

warrenrichards wrote: »

The consumer can select whichever remedy it requires, subject to them both being possible and one not being disproportionate to the other (section 23, CRA).

What realistic life span do you expect from a £15 box?

Let's say 2 years. A repair would be out of the question on a £15 item so that leaves replacement or (partial) refund. So saying a 2 year lifespan then a replacement free of charge would be disproportionate as a partial refund could only be £7.50 for example which is half the cost of a replacement. Even a 3 year lifespan would make a replacement possibly a third more costly so again would be disproportionate. This is assuming a linear depreciation, which isn't always the case. It could lose more value in year 1 than year 2 for example.

While the wording says you can choose, in reality the choice usually boils down to the retailer due to the above reasons.

electic

The Consumer Rights Act only applies to contracts formed on or after 1 Oct 2015. If it was before that, SOGA applies.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Argos NowTV five months entertainment pass, and box, £25. Saving £9.95!

Then again, you keep on complaining!

BrentMeister

warrenrichards wrote: »

Firstly, My contract is with NOW TV, that is where I said you are wrong.

However, while you are correct about the six month shift in burden of proof (but don't understand that circumstantial evidence will suffice in most circumstances in small claims) you are wrong about it being for the 'retailer to decide' on remedy. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which replaced the Sales of Goods Act on 01 October 2015 for consumer contracts clearly states that a breach of the implied terms of satisfactory quality (section 9, CRA), fit for purpose (section 10, CRA), as described (section 11, CRA) give the consumer the choice of (1) The right to repair or replacement (section 23, CRA). (2) The right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (section 24, CRA).

The consumer can select whichever remedy it requires, subject to them both being possible and one not being disproportionate to the other (section 23, CRA).

Secondly, you are wrong about trading names: see definition of a 'trading name' if it is not obvious by the very phrase, its the same entity, but 'trading as..'. Or if you are 'struggling to understand' read Part 41, Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Perhaps you have some authority that a trading name is its own legal entity?

A trade name, trading name, or business name is a pseudonym used by companies to perform their business under a name that differs from the registered, legal name of the business

The distinction between a registered legal name and a "fictitious" business name or trade name is important, as businesses with the latter give no obvious indication of the true identity of the entity that is legally responsible for their operation. Fictitious business names do not create legal entities in and of themselves; they are merely names assumed by existing persons or entities.[2] Legal agreements such as contracts are normally made under the registered legal name of the business or owner, and the legal name must be used whenever a business sues or is being sued.

See PLC definition used by lawyers under reference 1-107-6526. I'd love to provide you links to all the legislation but unfortunately I'm a new user and I don't have the requisite standing on here.

Let me know NOW TVs company number if I'm wrong?

W

I didn't say your contract wasn't with NowTV. I said 'retailer', which would be NowTV as they sold you the box.

You purchased the box 13 months ago, Sales of Goods Act applies and not Consumer Rights Act. So what you posted is irrelevant in your situation.