TV from the CO OP

[gyzmo]

They are saying that is what they prefer. What one wants and what one can get are two different things. The remedy is either damages for breach of warranty, or using the additional consumer rights of repair / replacement / (partial) refund which is down to the SELLER dependant upon minimal convenience to the consumer and it being proportional to the other options. The point is that it is for the SELLER to do this and not fob them off.

 

Why is this so bloody difficult to understand?

[Chesterexpress]

gyzmo, first off I am a guise for nobody so you can forget that nonsense of trying to muddy the waters. We only have the OP's word that they were told it was nothing to do with the shop, two sides to every story, also depends on the attitude of the customer, remember they wanted a refund/replacement so may have been bolshy (no excuse, but most would not help if so).

 

As for your comment "Why is this so bloody difficult to understand?" well we could say exactly the same about you. As I have asked numerous times, why can't they just call the number supplied and get the tv fixed or if it is beyond economic repair, then see what the retailer offers? Not exactly rocket science is it? But then as already stated some people have no common sense!

[gyzmo]

The consumer can do that if they so wish. They could also throw the TV in the canal if they so wished, or accept that it is nothing to do with the store - it does not make it right.

 

And what's this about phoning up someone, seeing what they say and then seeing what the store has to say?

 

Why not just get the store to say it will be corrected under their STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. The store has already said it had nothing to do with them (which of course is possibly untrue but then I am not going round calling everyone a liar - (and before you start I'm not saying you are either) - is it just here that you are sitting on the fence or is it with everyone?).

 

The information I have provided in this thread is factually correct. I know that because I am doing a degree in this area (and doing very well in it thank you very much). I know what I am talking about. Others seem not to, which is the purpose of these forums - to help those that do not know better.

 

Unfortunately, this seems to be totally wasted on some, hence the comparison to Fred / RPOV who consistenly falls into the same boat.

[Chesterexpress]

And what's this about phoning up someone, seeing what they say and then seeing what the store has to say?

 

Again you are not reading what is actually being said! I actually said that if they call the repair line number and if once the engineer has looked at it and can't be fixed then see what the shop offer i.e. refund or replace. And who is sitting on the fence, I aint, I just think people ought to use common sense and not expect everyone to run around after them and quoting laws when there is no need to at this stage. All the OP had to do was call the number, quite simple really or at least it is for those who use common sense.

 

As for doing a degree, so what that means squat diddly, but good luck with it anyway.

[gyzmo]

I think I have read quite well what you said and answered appropriately. As for the degree, how on earth do you think Traing Standards get their job? Or solicitors? They don't do it by reading a few Which? guides or advice notes fom the CAB. The point was to demonstrate that I know what I am talking about and not making thing up, inapproprately quoting legislation and generally making a thread to be 10 times longer than is necessary by continually posting incorrect information and arguing points without the ability to back it up.

 

As for the common sense bit, can you please advise why every single bit of advice (as well as the legislation) states that it is not acceptable for sellers to refer those with problems to the manufacturer or claim that it is not their responsibility?

 

I'm getting fed up of posting on here just to correct factual inaccuracies so I will stop (continue if you wish). I will leave it for people to make their own minds up. If they do not want to use the rights granted to them by Parliament, designed to protect them, then that is their choice. Some people simply will not listen no matter what. That seems to be the case here.

[wilel7]

Gyzmo I agree with you, as I work in this field.

 

The consumers first port of call should be the retailer as they are the only person that they have a contract with. The consumers statutory rights come first and warranties are only required over and above these.

 

If the consumer does not know whether the number relates to the retailers designated repairers or the manufacturer, then calling it could open a whole new can of worms. Basically, if it belongs to the manufacturer and they accept a repair through them, then any rights they had against the retailer are effectively severed. Therefore, if any further problems ensued and the warranty was gone then they would not have anywhere to go for remedy.

 

The warranty exists for approx 1 year, whereas the rights under the SOGA applies for 6 years or 5 from discovery in Scotland. However, this does not mean that all goods must last this period of time!!

[ForestChav]

the rights under the SOGA applies for 6 years or 5 from discovery in Scotland. However, this does not mean that all goods must last this period of time!!

Well, strictly speaking, that is only because debts after six years become statute barred.

 

SOGA actually implies (it might even be stated) that goods must last for a reasonable time after purchase. This accounts for factors such as type of goods, purpose acquired for, price, etc etc... The fact that there is a six year ceiling on the claims under SOGA means neither that you can expect all goods to last six years nor that goods are only meant to last six years. For instance, if the expected lifespan of a product is only a year then you can't say after 5 years 11 months oops it's fubared.

 

And of course, the legislation only protects against non-conformity to contract at the point of sale. So, if a product had a manufacturing defect or design flaw which meant breakdown was always going to happen (even if it took a year or so to), then your legal rights cover this until the product either passes its expected lifespan or becomes six years old, whichever is sooner. But of course, there is the issue that the fault needs to be proved to be (or not) inherent, which if the product is over six months old is the buyer's responsibility.

 

If the fault can't be proved to be inherent then it isn't covered under SOGA.

[reduk054]

wrong thread! sorry

[Conniff]

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

 

Don't think so gyzmo - this one can spell and use punctuation and capitals, and he's not talking about spotty shelf stackers.

[Chesterexpress]

Don't think so gyzmo - this one can spell and use punctuation and capitals, and he's not talking about spotty shelf stackers.

 

Don't worry about it Conniff, so far all gyzmo has done is avoid my questions and spouted soga whilst attempting to deflect his inability to take in what I have actually been saying by suggesting I am someone else. I suggest that when he finishes his degree he ought to consider entering parliament as it is a pre-requisition for an mp to be able to avoid all questions.

 

Now what is this about spotty shelf stackers?

[Conniff]

Now what is this about spotty shelf stackers?

 

gyzmo knows what I'm talking about. (a dear departed friend)

[StormWarrior]

Chesterexpress, imagine this case.

Customer purchases £3000 Plasma TV. After 9 months fault develops with sound, calls number on card that was in the box. 3rd party engineer comes out and fixes the sound fault, by swopping the dodgy part.

3 months later the screen itself fails, calls number on card that was in the box, 3rd party engineer who says "yeah thats a problems with that model"

But your out of warranty.

 

What do you do next?

 

Gyzmo - no hints !

[gyzmo]

I have given up long ago on this one. Like I said - some simply do not want to listen.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Hi

Chesterexpress I must say their are valid points raised by others on this thread, you seem to have a problem when anyone dares to disagree with you.

Out of interest can you tell any of us (morons) were you have placed a post/commended on a thread that has helped he OP, rather than taking the I AM ALWAYS RIGHT ROUTE, I do not have time to check all your posts, up until now I have not found a single one where you have offered any assistance, you are just rude why do you even bother

[gyzmo]

This is the problem that wehave had with acertain someone else who continued to argue points invalidly. Threads went on for ages and usually ended up completey off topic. I have no problem with people who disagree or who get things wrong. I do have a problem with those who either do not back up what they say or refuse to learn. There are many a times where I have been corrected or did not know anything, and someone has come along and put me right - that's how we learn. Just repeating a point despite information to the contrary is of no use to anyone. I would hope that people, when we do come across something we do not understand or disagree with, have a reasoned debate about it.

[Chesterexpress]

Thank you storm, I wholly understand the principles concerned, however gyzmo couldn't actually say what you said and instead he waffled on about soga without saying why.

 

As for you gyzmo please read what people are actually saying instead of reading what you want to believe they are saying. And when asked a question please answer it instead of going round the houses and evading them. You have a lot to learn yet, a degree is only the start of things. When you have put it into practice in the real world then we shall see how clever you really are.

[gyzmo]

Thank you storm, I wholly understand the principles concerned, however gyzmo couldn't actually say what you said and instead he waffled on about soga without saying why.

 

Could it be, perhaps, because that is the legislation which covers these situations? That's a bit like defending someone in a theft case and asking why the solicitor is waffling on about the Theft Act.

 

As for you gyzmo please read what people are actually saying instead of reading what you want to believe they are saying. And when asked a question please answer it instead of going round the houses and evading them. You have a lot to learn yet, a degree is only the start of things. When you have put it into practice in the real world then we shall see how clever you really are.

 

I do put this into practice in the real world (I wont go into detail due to conflict of interest) , and I have read all the comments and answered them without evading. You havent, hence this thread now being stretched onto three pages. And if you had read my last post, you would also have read that I am willing to learn because no-one can know everything.

[StormWarrior]

however gyzmo couldn't actually say what you said and instead he waffled on about soga without saying why.

 

Gyzmo has on many occasions explained at length to a number of 'posters' the legal points, that as you have no doubt worked out, flow from my case senerio.

 

One of the problems that arise frequently on this forum, is that 'less experienced' or in some cases, 'deliberatly misleading' posters give advice that without qualification is wrong.

When this happens one of the more knowledgable members correct the advice, based on, what I would call 'best legal position' advice.

 

Calling the manufacturer/agent is certainly an option when it comes to dealing with faulty goods, however it can, in some circumstances, lead to loss of legal remedy, if other things happen.

 

To maintain FULL legal rights, and therefore maintain the coinsumers 'best legal position', advice correctly states that the consumer should deal with the retailer, with whom the 'legally enforcable contract rights' are with.

 

If the retailer then calls the 3rd party company, to act as thier agent to deal with the customer, a totally different legal situation is created, than if the consumer calls them direct. This is a small legal naunce that is often over looked by people new to the litigation world.

However if you are indeed a

senior partner in one of manchesters largest legal practices

then I hope that you knew this.

 

I would also hope that in future, when giving advice, you could remind people that although the course of action you reccommend such as

All the OP had to do was call the number, quite simple really or at least it is for those who use common sense

,

That this may weaken or remove thier legal rights by doing so.

[tomterm8]

I would entirely agree with the advice given by Gizmo in this thread, which is identical to advice given to me by trading standards officers, and my own reading of SOGA and contract law.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

WHY ARE WE USING THIS SITE

I must agree with the comments from StormWarrier, there are times when Gyzmo spends much time giving valid advice, explaining legal points, I feel that then to have people placing a misleading post serves only to confuse these individuals who for whatever reason go off on a tangent to try to prove they are right.

We are in danger of the missing the point of the original thread, I mentioned one such person earlier..

This individual has to be fair stated his/her belief his/her ability, only however via a PM, I suppose with an open forum we must put up with these know it alls.

Thank you to Gyzmo, StormWarrier, Tomterm8, and others who correct any this misleading advice.

[paulgmb]

quote=Chesterexpress;1346879]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.

 

[Oh yes they are!!

 

Maybe not as expensive as 09 numbers but if you use these so called 'national rate' numbers expect to pay 10-12p per minute, with the company you are calling pocketing 3-4p per minute.

 

A national call on the BT network costs around 3p per minute.

 

Visit SAYNOTO0870.COM - Non-Geographical Alternative Telephone Numbers for alternatives.