TV from the CO OP

[diasal]

hi i purchased a flat screen tv 7 months ago for my son as a birthday present ,the colour of the set has got progressively worse i have the receipt and it has a 12 months guarantee,i phoned the CO OP and was told it has nothing to do with them now and i would have to phone a number on a card in the box that the TV came in they will then send out a repair man to look at it and assess the situation.

surely i can take the tv back to were i purchased it and ask for a new replacement or a full refund which would be my fisrt choice.?:?

[gyzmo]

Err - they sold it so it has EVERYTHING to do them them. Your contract is with the co-op and no-one else, and it is for them to sort it out. the warranty is neither here nor there - you have statutory rights which override any warranties.

 

You need to quote s. 14 of Sale of Goods Act which is about implied terms as to quality, durability etc. As it is more than 6 months, it is for you to prove that the goods are faulty, and not for the store. In such a case, it is sufficient to argue that the goods should not do this after a short period of time, you could not have done anything to cause it, therefore there is a breach.

 

 

As for the remedy, it will be either a repair, replacement or refund in that order - it will depend on which is most proportionate and least convenient (but it is the sellers choice).

 

Stand your ground and be firm but polite with them. Your conduct should say that you will not be bullied.

 

Good luck

[Chesterexpress]

Why not just phone the number and arrange for it to be repaired? As that is the first thing that is required. They won't give you a refund unless it is looked at first by whoever is appointed to service/repair it.

[gyzmo]

The only refund will be partial if at all. It is for the store to sort this out - not anyone else. And phoning the number is not required - it is a fob off.

[Chesterexpress]

gyzmo what is wrong with calling the number in the box if it is the number that the co-op have designated for repairs? After all they have to call someone to arrange repair and it is far easier to do that than traipsing down to a shop. I really think common sense has gone out the window!

[gyzmo]

Common sense went out the window when the Government gave up a very good opportunity to stop stores fobboing customers of with this kind of behaviour. This debate has raged on previously with a certain other person - there is also a sticky on the matter about why you should use statutory rights.

 

The issue is that the problem is a breach of statute which Co-op is trying to wash their hands of by using the "warranty" method. It is not acceptable. The contract is with Co-op. They sold the item, they are responsible for it being compliant with the contract. Put it this way:

 

If I owed you £1000 and you asked for it back, would you be happy if I told you to phone someone who owes me the same amount of money and get it from them? I should hope not, but that is exacty what is being advocated here.

 

Another reason is that the wrranty may not cover what is given by statute, and using the warranty will be restricting possible remedies that would otherwise be available.

[Chesterexpress]

Unfortunately you are missing the point. Supplied with the television was a number to call in the event that the item developed a fault, this number is the repair company. Therefore why didn't the OP call that in the first place? It appears that they want a refund rather than trying to resolve the matter by repair (hence my comment regarding common sense). I accept that the shop assistant was wrong to say nothing to do with them, however as we were not present we really don't know exactly what was said by either party.

[gyzmo]

I think the point has been made numerous times and I am not going to repeat them.

[Chesterexpress]

As always you guys have no answer. As I stated the retailer has done what they need to do by supplying a number for the consumer to call in the case of product breakdown (no need to go to the shop). If the product is deemed unrepairable then they can take it further. However until then they need to follow the correct procedure. What is so difficult about this?

[gyzmo]

That's what i'm wondering. I have given the answer several times. The fact that you don't like it does not make it wrong.

[Chesterexpress]

gyzmo you have not given a satisfactory answer, in fact all you have done is spout rubbish as usual and evaded answering. Now answer the question, if the product was supplied with a telephone number to call in case it requires a repair, why in your opinion is the retailer at fault?

[gyzmo]

firstly, can we do without the personal insults? Secondly, if you care to read my posts on this thread, you will find that I have already supplied the answer. But just in case...

 

The contract is between teh OP and the store. Legislation and basic contract law states that it is the seller who is responsible for providing a remedy - and that means actually doing something instead of passing it on to the customer. The manufacturer is not the seller - there is no contract with them.

[Chesterexpress]

Who has mentioned the manufacturer? It is quite common for retailers to supply a contact number for use in case an appliance requires attention due to breakdown etc. Therefore all the OP had to do in the first instance was contact the number provided. In this case it appears that the OP didn't want a repair hence the reason for going to the shop and wanting a refund. Common sense says call the number supplied originally and take it from there.

[gyzmo]

No - the store should have dealt with it there and then. I am making the presumption taht it is the manufacturer. The assistant said its nothing to do with them (it is) - so who is this number for exactly if it is not the co-op itself?

[paulgmb]

You're spot on gyzmo. Too many retailers are trying to abdicate their responsibilities and often pass consumers off to a third party and often these phone numbers are premium rate 0870/0871 numbers where they pocket even more money from us!!

 

The contract is with the retailer. Let the retailer do the ringing around.

[gyzmo]

exactly. That is the nature of the legislation.

[Chesterexpress]

0870/0871 are not premium rate numbers, though they can cost more than a local rate call.

 

I still don't see what the problem is with phoning the helpdesk number supplied to obtain service.

[gyzmo]

Common sense went out the window when the Government gave up a very good opportunity to stop stores fobboing customers of with this kind of behaviour. This debate has raged on previously with a certain other person - there is also a sticky on the matter about why you should use statutory rights.

 

The issue is that the problem is a breach of statute which Co-op is trying to wash their hands of by using the "warranty" method. It is not acceptable. The contract is with Co-op. They sold the item, they are responsible for it being compliant with the contract. Put it this way:

 

If I owed you £1000 and you asked for it back, would you be happy if I told you to phone someone who owes me the same amount of money and get it from them? I should hope not, but that is exacty what is being advocated here.

 

Another reason is that the wrranty may not cover what is given by statute, and using the warranty will be restricting possible remedies that would otherwise be available.

 

That is the problem, especially the last point.

[Chesterexpress]

Unfortunately we need to know the details from the OP of the telephone number that was supplied with the product. I have purchased items such as TV's from John Lewis and have been given a number to call if a repair is required. This is perfectly acceptable and does not restrict any further action if needed.

[cazzie41]

Hi hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in but a similar thing happened to me, i bought a tv from argos that went wrong after 10 months i rang them and they said i needed to ring the number supplied in the instruction book which i did, repair man came, tv unfixable, he rang argos and they then replaced it, I would have been happy to have tv fixed, as far as I know after that amount of time that is what they are obliged to do. The thing is after 7 months you are going to get a much higher spec tv for your money i've bought loads of things then seen them cheaper a few weeks later, that's just tough. I also think it's acceptable to get the tv repaired and making the phone call has got to be cheaper than hiking the tv back to the shop! Or am i just missing the point and are you saying that the shop should arrange for the repair man?

[Chesterexpress]

Thank you cazzie, that is exactly the point I have been making. As stated common sense is all that is required.

[gyzmo]

The whole point is that the seller should be doing what they have asked the customer to do. That is what the legislation is there for. It gives rights that cannot be overridden whatsoever, yet companies try to wash their hands of their obligations. As long as this continues, consumers will be herded into the most inconveniten route for the seller, and will have to fight to get their basic rights.

 

So yes, the shop should have arranged for the repair if they accept that it is non-conforming.

[Chesterexpress]

They have provided a number to call, therefore no difference than having to call the shop itself in order to get them to make the call. In fact a damn sight easier if you do it yourself as you can arrange a time etc. to suit without the need for calls back and to. It all comes down to common sense and not thinking your being screwed by the retailer, but unfortunately some people can't see the wood for the trees. Just my opinion....

[gyzmo]

Oh FFS. The cery fact that they said "nothing to do with us" is proof positive that they are trying to screw the consumer. Tell you what, Please lend me a few thousand quid, and when you ask for it back, I'll just use use your arguments. Then you will know about being screwed.

 

In fact, I'm beginning to think you are a guise for a certain someone else....

[cazzie41]

Anyway they aren't saying they want tv repaired they want a new replacement or a refund now that i read it again. surely this is just ripping off the retailer which we would all pay for in the long run. Up to a point it's fair to expect your money back and after then if item is repaired foc i would be happy. I would also want to arrange repair myself as sometimes fault can be solved over the phone