Coop Refusing to repair TV please help!

Avril65

Hi, i purchased a TV from COOP electricals online 14 months ago, costing nearly £1k, last week it wouldnt switch on, red light, nothing else, phone COOP who as good as said tough its almost 2 months out of warranty. After id thought about it, i rang them back and said i wasnt happy that a TV of that price had died after only 14 months whether it was out of warranty or not, they advised me on the Sales of Goods Act and told me to go and get an independant report ( cost me £45 for that) , report came back as " SET COLLECTED FOR INSPECTION 3/12/16. UPON INSPECTION THE MAIN PCB WAS FOUND TO BE FAULTY. THE OVERALL CONDITION OF THE UNIT IS GOOD WITH NO SIGNS OF MISS-USE. THE COST OF REPAIR IS AS DETAILED " I promptly emailed COOP with copy of this, no reply , 3 emails later, still nothing, so tonight i rang up, and asked them why nothing was being answered, he said send it again, which i did, he received it then and there, went on to say i will pass this on to my managers and they can make a decision, well tonight i have received an email .... this is what COOP have said..... "[FONT=&quot]The estimate you provided has been referred to a manger & unfortunately they have advised we are unable to assist under the Sales of Goods Act on this occasion as the repair estimate does not make any mention of the fault being an inherent manufacturing fault on the appliance."
Are they correct? even though the report has said no mis use and the TV is just over a year old, with a faulty panel? if we didnt misuse it surely it was inherent? Any advice greatly received as i took a long time to save for my TV and shocked its died on me already!
[/FONT]

bris

Yes they are correct, the tv is faulty we know that nobody disputes that, but why is the TV faulty is the important bit.


The fact the main PCB board is faulty is not enough, it's why it's faulty. The report would have to state that the fault was due to a manufacturing fault, inherent at the time of purchase. This is the important bit, if the report doesn't state this then you have no claim.


Electrical components like PCB's can be damaged by power spikes so it's not necessarily an inherent fault and as it's not proved it is then your not going to change their mind.

Voyager2002

Have you consulted Trading Standards?

One would expect an item costing that much to last for several years, meaning that the internal circuitry would be engineered to withstand predictable events such as power surges. A failure to do so might be considered an inherent (design) fault.

neilmcl

Whilst in a perfect world any report would specifically state a fault to be inherent but in reality the proof required is based on the balance of probabilities so a failure, such as this, which in particularly is quite common with LCD Tvs, is generally outside the scope of excess wear & tear, misuse, accidental damage etc and more likely down to simple premature component failure inherent to manufacture.

Unfortunately for the OP, if the retailer won't play ball then his/her only option to take is to start off by sending the retailer a letter before action prior to taking their chance at the small claims court.

Avril65

Thank you, i have now done online form to Trading Standards, May or may not have a leg to stand on as the first answer said but i wont give up without a fight!

bris

neilmcl wrote: »

Whilst in a perfect world any report would specifically state a fault to be inherent but in reality the proof required is based on the balance of probabilities.

can you point me to anywhere in the CCR's that state your rights are based on the balance of probabilities? I can only find proving an inherent fault but maybe I missed it.


The courts want proof, they need to be convinced it's faulty by design and not just one of those things.


Proof can often be found online, such as lots of other complaints regarding the same fault with the same TV, this can be taken into consideration, but if there is nothing to back the OP up then they have no case.

naedanger

bris wrote: »

can you point me to anywhere in the CCR's that state your rights are based on the balance of probabilities? I can only find proving an inherent fault but maybe I missed it.


The courts want proof, they need to be convinced it's faulty by design and not just one of those things.


Proof can often be found online, such as lots of other complaints regarding the same fault with the same TV, this can be taken into consideration, but if there is nothing to back the OP up then they have no case.

It is the standard of proof required under UK civil law.

'The civil standard is 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

I agree with those whose view is that the report supports the op's case to the required standard (assuming the co-op have no evidence to the contrary).

neilmcl

bris wrote: »

can you point me to anywhere in the CCR's that state your rights are based on the balance of probabilities? I can only find proving an inherent fault but maybe I missed it.

You've been a member here for over 6 years and you still don't know what the standard of proof for civil law is!

naedanger

Avril65 wrote: »

Hi, i purchased a TV from COOP electricals online 14 months ago, costing nearly £1k, last week it wouldnt switch on, red light, nothing else, phone COOP who as good as said tough its almost 2 months out of warranty. After id thought about it, i rang them back and said i wasnt happy that a TV of that price had died after only 14 months whether it was out of warranty or not, they advised me on the Sales of Goods Act and told me to go and get an independant report ( cost me £45 for that) , report came back as " SET COLLECTED FOR INSPECTION 3/12/16. UPON INSPECTION THE MAIN PCB WAS FOUND TO BE FAULTY. THE OVERALL CONDITION OF THE UNIT IS GOOD WITH NO SIGNS OF MISS-USE. THE COST OF REPAIR IS AS DETAILED " I promptly emailed COOP with copy of this, no reply , 3 emails later, still nothing, so tonight i rang up, and asked them why nothing was being answered, he said send it again, which i did, he received it then and there, went on to say i will pass this on to my managers and they can make a decision, well tonight i have received an email .... this is what COOP have said..... "[FONT=&quot]The estimate you provided has been referred to a manger & unfortunately they have advised we are unable to assist under the Sales of Goods Act on this occasion as the repair estimate does not make any mention of the fault being an inherent manufacturing fault on the appliance."
Are they correct? even though the report has said no mis use and the TV is just over a year old, with a faulty panel? if we didnt misuse it surely it was inherent? Any advice greatly received as i took a long time to save for my TV and shocked its died on me already!
[/FONT]

How did you pay for the tv? Was it with a credit (and not debit) card?

I agree that your evidence supports the view that the tv had an inherent fault on the balance of probability.

You could perhaps ask the person who wrote the report to see if they could say even more. e.g. "in our view as there is no sign of misuse our opinion is that the tv, more likely than not, had an inherent fault as the PCB has failed much sooner than one would expect of a tv of this age and price - in other words our view is that more likely than not it was insufficiently durable."

You may need to discuss the wording to get them comfortable but I would point out to them you are only asking for their view of what is likely to have been the cause. They are not being asked to be certain, as this is clearly not possible.

Avril65

Credit card, does that make a difference?

naedanger wrote: »

How did you pay for the tv? Was it with a credit (and not debit) card?

I agree that your evidence supports the view that the tv had an inherent fault on the balance of probability.

You could perhaps ask the person who wrote the report to see if they could say even more. e.g. "in our view as there is no sign of misuse our opinion is that the tv, more likely than not, had an inherent fault as the PCB has failed much sooner than one would expect of a tv of this age and price - in other words our view is that more likely than not it was insufficiently durable."

You may need to discuss the wording to get them comfortable but I would point out to them you are only asking for their view of what is likely to have been the cause. They are not being asked to be certain, as this is clearly not possible.

DoaM

A credit card means you have Section 75 protection (see the MSE article), which means the credit provider are equally liable with the seller for the performance of the contract - including any legal liabilities.