SONY don't warranty their LCD TV cabinets!

Tozer

Trading Standards is hit and miss at the best of times. Given that Dixons are giving the two finger approach (to replacement, repair or refund) and there are no rights against Sony, then the only action is to take action against Dixons (and credit card provider) directly.

Twice (out of two occasions) they have settled immediately in my case. Oh, and one was for a digital camera which wad faulty after 16 months.

Rex_Mundi

Tozer wrote: »

Trading Standards is hit and miss at the best of times. Given that Dixons are giving the two finger approach (to replacement, repair or refund) and there are no rights against Sony, then the only action is to take action against Dixons (and credit card provider) directly.

Twice (out of two occasions) they have settled immediately in my case. Oh, and one was for a digital camera which wad faulty after 16 months.

I don't agree with your remark about Trading Standards. Sometimes they are not in a position to act as fully as person wants (they are as restricted by the same laws as they give good advice on), but aside from this. They always give good advice.

I would always recommend that people take free unbiased advice before they consider acting against a company/person through the courts (the advice you've given so far is so open to interpretation that it could easily end up there). Obviously, working in law, you would tend to differ..........I appreciate you need to make a living.

Rex_Mundi

mountainchrisriver wrote: »

Rex... ever get that feeling your useful advice is being ignored... :rotfl:

I have wondered more than once whether this whole thread is a troll.

cheghead

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

I have wondered more than once whether this whole thread is a troll.

Not at all this a genuine account of my experience.

I have to agree that I found trading standards do not always see things the consumer way and I feel that as I have said before I am getting conflicting advice.

I am gonna live with this problem as I don't feel I'm getting anywhere.

As my earlier post proves (Dixons reply) if anyone decides to buy from Dixons (god knows why) let them be warned. After 28 days they don't want to know! And if you think you're getting a quality 'branded' item like Sony this isn't always the case.

If you order anything on-line get the magnifier out and check it out thuroughly!

Thanks for all the replies. MSE is about saving money and getting the best deal after all.

Tozer

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

I don't agree with your remark about Trading Standards. Sometimes they are not in a position to act as fully as person wants (they are as restricted by the same laws as they give good advice on), but aside from this. They always give good advice.

I would always recommend that people take free unbiased advice before they consider acting against a company/person through the courts (the advice you've given so far is so open to interpretation that it could easily end up there). Obviously, working in law, you would tend to differ..........I appreciate you need to make a living.

I must confess I have a completely different experience of Trading Standards. I often find them extremely weak and will probably just say "take them to the small claims court" (same as what I am saying).

I remember some of the 'weaker' students from Law School who used to get experience at TSD....

I do agree that it is sensible to get proper advice. I feel a little miffed (and a tad insulted) that my advice is considered "open to interpretation". I don't act as a litigator at all but this sort of stuff is really easy to me. I hasten to add that I am not looking for business - in any event it would be small claims so there is no need to be represented.

What I have done (via PM) is draft an email to Dixons for OP. I am also very happy to draft a Particulars of Claim if needed. Oh, and it is free and unbiased.

All I can say is:

1. I have successfully sued Dixons twice.
2. Dixons are clearly in breach of the implied warranties.
3. There is A remedy available to OP.
4. A claim would be pleaded in the alternative thus protecting the position.
5. The OP needs to do something to force the issue or let the situation drop.

Tozer

cheghead wrote: »

Not at all this a genuine account of my experience.

I have to agree that I found trading standards do not always see things the consumer way and I feel that as I have said before I am getting conflicting advice.

I am gonna live with this problem as I don't feel I'm getting anywhere.

As my earlier post proves (Dixons reply) if anyone decides to buy from Dixons (god knows why) let them be warned. After 28 days they don't want to know! And if you think you're getting a quality 'branded' item like Sony this isn't always the case.

If you order anything on-line get the magnifier out and check it out thuroughly!

Thanks for all the replies. MSE is about saving money and getting the best deal after all.

Clearly it couldn't be that bad.

Guys, I think we have all been wasting our time.

cheghead

<Clearly it couldn't be that bad.

Guys, I think we have all been wasting our time.>



Sorry I resent that remark.
I do appreciate all the advice but sometimes trying to get anywhere with all this so called consumer law in this country seems to get you nowhere. The problem with the TV really does P*** me off but its easy for people on here to say do this or do that. There just doesn't seem to be any easy way to persue this. If the TV suddenly blew-up then it might not be such a grey area.

At least anyone else considering a new purchase might benefit from this so no you have not wasted all your time.

Rex_Mundi

Tozer wrote: »

Clearly it couldn't be that bad.

Guys, I think we have all been wasting our time.

This is why I believe that this thread could be a troll from the OP.

I know that we've disagreed Tozer, but, I've enjoyed taking part in a healthy debate. I respect your opinion and even though we took different approaches to this problem. We both agreed that the OP had a case for complaint.

If the OP chooses to go their own way, then fair play to them. They have had good advice, but if they choose to ignore that, it's their own choice.

Tozer

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

This is why I believe that this thread could be a troll from the OP.

I know that we've disagreed Tozer, but, I've enjoyed taking part in a healthy debate. I respect your opinion and even though we took different approaches to this problem. We both agreed that the OP had a case for complaint.

If the OP chooses to go their own way, then fair play to them. They have had good advice, but if they choose to ignore that, it's their own choice.

Totally agree with you. Always a pleasure to have a sensible debate. Not often it happens on this website these days!

cheghead

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

This is why I believe that this thread could be a troll from the OP.

I know that we've disagreed Tozer, but, I've enjoyed taking part in a healthy debate. I respect your opinion and even though we took different approaches to this problem. We both agreed that the OP had a case for complaint.

If the OP chooses to go their own way, then fair play to them. They have had good advice, but if they choose to ignore that, it's their own choice.

I'm not ignoring good advice but I see it is a grey area. Surely you can see from Dixons response from their e-mail posted earlier that they intend to dig in their heels. I really need to know what chance I have of getting it resolved.