Curry’s know how smashed my TV

Lucyloo22

D_M_E thank you so much, and thanks everyone for your advice. I will keep you posted on the outcome

Manxman_in_exile

Am I missing something here? Why is it a warranty issue and why are posters talking about repairs?


The TV may have had a fault, but the real issue seems to be that Curry's "broke" it while it was in their care.


Surely Curry's have to replace it since they broke it? (I'll leave it to others to argue whether it's (a) a new or two year old replacement, or (b) a full or partial refund. Personally, I'd expect a new telly of equivalent or near equivalent spec)

fuzzything

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Why is it a warranty issue

Some warranties may guarantee a new for old replacement, whist other courses of action may involve a difficult - even fruitless - struggle to get this from the shop.


:staradmin Happy World Autism Awareness Week :staradmin

Takmon

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Am I missing something here? Why is it a warranty issue and why are posters talking about repairs?


The TV may have had a fault, but the real issue seems to be that Curry's "broke" it while it was in their care.


Surely Curry's have to replace it since they broke it? (I'll leave it to others to argue whether it's (a) a new or two year old replacement, or (b) a full or partial refund. Personally, I'd expect a new telly of equivalent or near equivalent spec)

So if they broke your TV you would expect a brand new one. If your broke someones 10 year old car for example would you buy them a brand new one?. I don't know how anyone can think it's reasonable to expect brand new replacements for well used products.

NBLondon

Hang on - I think the Manxman is right - there are two linked issues here...

1) It went back under warranty to correct an issue. That isn't being challenged.
2) While that repair was being attempted - physical damage was caused by the engineers.

The OP has rejected the item because of issue 2. That's not a warranty matter - that's incompetent repair. And really shoddy customer service that they sent it out in that state! It should have been noticed and quietly fixed before they sent it back. Unless it arrived at the repair team damaged - by the pick up courier/driver?

So I think the OP is justified in not trusting them to correctly repair a second time and insisting on either a replacement (re-furbished second hand or old stock?) or the current market value to buy a second-hand replacement elsewhere - the latter being what she would get from insurance.

Fosterdog

NBLondon wrote: »

The OP has rejected the item because of issue 2. That's not a warranty matter - that's incompetent repair. And really shoddy customer service that they sent it out in that state! It should have been noticed and quietly fixed before they sent it back. Unless it arrived at the repair team damaged - by the pick up courier/driver?

Or it got damaged on its way back to OP so is nothing at all to do with a lack of skill in repairing or lack of quality control. Large screen TVs without their original boxes being palleted are difficult to transport so there will always be a risk of damage no matter how well they try to prevent it happening. As long as they put it right at no cost to OP then there is nothing wrong with them wanting to firstly assess the damage, secondly choose a suitable remedy. It may just be cosmetic damage that looks far worse than it really is and a quick and easy repair for them to make, or it may be beyond economical repair where they should then offer either a replacement or refund (partial).

jj07

Most likely once it gets to their repair centre, they will not repair the damaged TV and will offer you a similar specification TV up to the original value of £900 you paid.

Manxman_in_exile

Takmon wrote: »

So if they broke your TV you would expect a brand new one. If your broke someones 10 year old car for example would you buy them a brand new one?. I don't know how anyone can think it's reasonable to expect brand new replacements for well used products.

I don't think that is an appropriate analogy. The values of a car and TV are vastly different. Also I doubt the car would have been entrusted to me to look after. Curry's have already attempted to fix it once and they (or their courier agent) have broken it. I think the OP should be getting a TV of equivalent spec to the one broken - from Curry's POV it's only a TV, but I suspect it's more significant to the OP. I suspect it's a fairly rare occurrence for Curry's to break a TV they've taken back for repair - not exactly setting a precedent to provide a new TV in the circumstances. Retailers can (and do) sometimes go above and beyond their legal obligations.


EDIT: I'm not saying anything about the legal position, merely stating what I would expect if Curry's broke my TV whilst trying to repair it.

Edithgrand

They must reurn it to its orignal condition or replace it(usually vouchers to the value)

Korkyb

Not sure why the concern about a repair & potential damage to internal parts.

There is another 3ish years of warranty left so any issues that arise would be covered.