SONY don't warranty their LCD TV cabinets!

Tozer

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

I think you are going down completely the wrong track here.

BY law, you are entitled to a repair (or replacement/refund if they cannot repair). You cannot insist they replace the TV from the beginning. You MUST give them the chance to repair first. This is how the law works.

As for your credit card. This is a non starter. You cannot decide to go for a refund without first exploring if Dixons will fulfil their obligations under consumer law. Not only have you not done this yet, but you are insisting they do something (replacement) they are not obliged to do.

So far, Dixons have given you wrong advice, whether this is through bad training or whatever doesn't matter. This does not give you a free hand now to insist on things you are not entitled to.

Totally disagree. Rejection is still possible given the short period of time. And under the credit card approach, it is very possible. The credit card provider is jointly and severally liable under s.75 CCA. there is no requirement to accept a repair. The purchaser in this case is perfectly entitled to rescind the contract.

Just my view as a contracts solicitor....

Tozer

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

You have a good reason to expect this to be sorted out, you do not have to put up with this. To get this sorted, you need to follow the correct procedure (as laid down under consumer law).

The best thing for you to do is phone your local Trading Standards. They will explain to you exactly what you are entitled to. They can even help you with the wording of any letter they suggest you send. These people are the experts. For the price of one phone call, you would be foolish not to give them a go.

This is not a warranty issue (it doesn't matter that the warranty doesn't cover the case). You are expecting a repair under SoGA and you are entitled to this. Do not confuse the two. Any warranty cannot take away your rights as set out in consumer law.

It actually is a warranty issue in the legal sense. OP, if you want to PM me, I'd be happy to help out. And for you sceptics - yes solicitors do give free advice.:rotfl:

Rex_Mundi

The OP has had the TV for over a month before doing anything about this (the problem was there from the beginning). Certainly under DSR it is too long to reject the goods. SoGA s.35 states you have a 'reasonable time' to inspect and make sure the goods are of reasonable quality before you are considered to have accepted them.

There's the rub...'reasonable time' is one of those woolly phrases that will cause half a dozen lawyers to give half a dozen different opinions (and keeps them in business). Dixons could equally argue that more than a month is long enough to consider the OP has accepted the TV (given that this fault was plainly visible every time you looked at the TV from day one). Using s75 CCA could also fail because of the same arguement.

Going the route of repair/replacement under SoGA is so much more clear cut for the OP.

Tozer

I don't think a month would fall foul of section 35 at all.

Besides, it is clear that the OP has taken some action - he/she has already explored who would be liable (Sony or retailer) and so has clearly communicated dissatisfaction.

In my experience (having actually sued Dixons group twice and made several section 75 CCA claims) it would be settled immediately upon issuing.

cheghead

Taken from another post
http://www.berr.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Tozer

Just replied to your PM.

uktim29

Tozer wrote: »

I don't think a month would fall foul of section 35 at all.

Tozer when you buy a TV how long does it take you to work out if it's working or not?

No, serious question.

superscaper

uktim29 wrote: »

Tozer when you buy a TV how long does it take you to work out if it's working or not?

No, serious question.

What's a TV "working or not" got to do with this case? I thought the problem was a physical cosmetic fault rather than how the TV actually works.

Tozer

uktim29 wrote: »

Tozer when you buy a TV how long does it take you to work out if it's working or not?

No, serious question.

Not long. But its a cabinet, not a TV.

And what does that have to do with the legal principles involved?

Rex_Mundi

Tozer wrote: »

Not long. But its a cabinet, not a TV.

And what does that have to do with the legal principles involved?

Actually it is the TV. From what I understand, it is the badly fitted frame/casing around the screen the OP is complaining about.

To not accept the TV now does open up questions under section 35. The fault was obvious from the first day of delivery. Why did the OP not complain about this sooner? By leaving it for this amount of time Dixons could reasonably argue in court that this period of time (over a month) is long enough to consider the OP has accepted the TV.