curry's - 21 month old Sony Bravia TV (KDL-37W5810) - refusing to repair under SOGA

[dx100uk]

sorry?

 

if its repaired under SOGA, there is NO CHARGE to the consumer,

so matters not who the retailer employ.

 

dx

[Squibian]

Apologies, I was not overly clear with my previous comment. You are 100% right that the repair has to be carried out free of charge. By costs, I was referring to the costs of phone calls, petrol and even In some circumstances, the cost of courier fees. I hope this has clarified this for you.

[sparx]

I completely sympathize with your situation, however, the people going on about the SOGA are only quoting part of it! Although the contract lies with the retailer and not the manufacturer, the retailer has rights too!

They are perfectly entitled to use whoever they wish as the repair agents (at an acceptable cost to the consumer) and in the vast majority of cases, this will be the manufacturer (as so many of you have pointed out, this ensures a decent level of repair!). Also a lot of Manufacturers will only accept calls from the customer direct due to stupid data protection type laws.

Now do not get me wrong, I am not defending the company or their actions, but so many people will quote various things, but as mentioned above, only part of it.

 

Welcome to CAG Squibian - how did you find my thread may I ask?

 

But should a consumer be out of pocket for a faulty product? Even more so when that consumer is misled (either intentionally or otherwise) by incorrect information from a retailer?

 

Sony could not guarantee they would not charge, and we would need to transport the TV to them to be inspected and then repaired, obviously this would cost us the petrol, wear and tear, product packaging, risk that this journey would accidentally damage the TV and therefore void the warranty.

 

Curry's gave us incorrect information on many occasions, during both our visits to stores and also on the phone. If you read the thread you will get the idea.

 

So far we have been inconvenienced and also out of pocket for many things that I wouldn't consider "reasonable". I would have thought that a single phone call, or a single visit would have been sufficient to get the ball rolling, but it actually took a fair bit more than that.

 

• 2 visits to Curry's stores
  
• 1 phone call to Curry's (On their nice penny earning number)
  
• Hours of research, emails, phone calls from Curry's
  
• Inconvenience of having someone waiting in during the day for the TV to be collected and then returned
  
• Inconvenience of having to get a replacement TV while ours was inspected (+ travel costs to retrieve + travel costs to dispose of this TV)
  

[Squibian]

Surprise surprise it's started doing it again - i'm going to email the customer service contact we dealt with before, but as it is very close to christmas we do not want to be left without a television over this period - not to mention the fact we are still paying for our Sky subscription when we do not have a TV.

 

Would it be too much to request that we are loaned an ex-display/old model of TV so that if they cannot return the television in time we are not left severely inconvenienced? We did source an old CRT last time at our own expense (fuel cost, was from freecycle), and then disposed of it once we had our TV back (again, at our own expense).

 

How many times can they "repair" the TV before we can demand a refund or replacement - and would this refund run from the date we originally notified them of the original problem (October)?

 

The laws around these things have a lot of grey areas...

What one person sees as an inconvenience, another will not. What one person deems as an expensive TV, another will not.

The retailer is aloud more or less as long as they want to repair most products. Currys 28 working day (6 week) rule is their own, not something they are legally obliged to do. Unfortunately on a "luxury" item, such as a TV, they can more or less use this fully. However if a fault returns immediately after its return to you, with the same fault, they will honour the 28 days as starting from when you originally submitted it to them. (Please note: 28 days is from when you hand it to them/they collect. A savy manager will try and say its 28 from when the workshop received it...)

In terms of numbers of repairs, again, there is no set amount. Currys have their own rule of 3 times for the same fault before replacing.

 

In terms of partial refunds there is again no set amount. Generally you take the price paid, divide it by the length of the guarantee period, multiply by how long is left... If the TV is now 22 months old, you will only get 2 months worth.

From that perspective, you are best holding out for them to repair/replace.

Please bear in mind that the replacement only has to be of equivalent spec, not the same value (as costs of TVs have dropped etc). This can work in your favour if the TV has a particular function that is rare/less common e.g. PIP, as a lot of models will not have it and this is where you can argue them up on the TV they offer.

 

Regards

[dx100uk]

urm...

 

funny how 'experts' that appear never to have visited cag before appear on specific threads...................

having never helped anywhere else

 

dx

[locutus]

It seems to me that some people like the "grey areas" caused by the words "reasonable". Personally, I'd be in court now as I think most judges will see currys have not been "reasonable" in this case.

[Surfer01]

urm...

 

funny how 'experts' that appear never to have visited cag before appear on specific threads...................

having never helped anywhere else

 

dx

Hmm I did nto want to mention that but do you take the advcie of a newbie or a veteran. I know who I would opt for although at one stage we were all newbies!

[sparx]

The laws around these things have a lot of grey areas...

What one person sees as an inconvenience, another will not. What one person deems as an expensive TV, another will not.

The retailer is aloud more or less as long as they want to repair most products. Currys 28 working day (6 week) rule is their own, not something they are legally obliged to do. Unfortunately on a "luxury" item, such as a TV, they can more or less use this fully. However if a fault returns immediately after its return to you, with the same fault, they will honour the 28 days as starting from when you originally submitted it to them. (Please note: 28 days is from when you hand it to them/they collect. A savy manager will try and say its 28 from when the workshop received it...)

In terms of numbers of repairs, again, there is no set amount. Currys have their own rule of 3 times for the same fault before replacing.

 

In terms of partial refunds there is again no set amount. Generally you take the price paid, divide it by the length of the guarantee period, multiply by how long is left... If the TV is now 22 months old, you will only get 2 months worth.

From that perspective, you are best holding out for them to repair/replace.

Please bear in mind that the replacement only has to be of equivalent spec, not the same value (as costs of TVs have dropped etc). This can work in your favour if the TV has a particular function that is rare/less common e.g. PIP, as a lot of models will not have it and this is where you can argue them up on the TV they offer.

 

Regards

 

Hi Squibian,

 

Do you mind telling me your first name (either on the public forum or by private message)? You seem quite an expert in Curry's policies, and quite eager to defend them.

 

Actually the Sale of Goods Act sets down the limit for repairs as ONE. You can read it yourself at http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained - "In the first instance" - i.e. once - a retailer can choose to repair or replace.

 

Cheers,

[Squibian]

I can assure you all that I have no affiliation with Currys, Dixons or any part of DSGi. I have had a prolonged spell in retail in the past though. I am not defending the actions of such groups or condoning them. I am not even offering "advice" as such (newbie or not!) or suggesting you take my "advice" over theirs. I am merely pointing out that there are laws protecting both parties and that it is foolish to launch yourself head on with these people on the advice of people nit picking the key words from very long winded and complex documents. Make sure you know the facts fully, and do not just read the parts that seem to help you.

I feel that this will go unheeded though, so good luck and I hope you get what you wish for. All the best.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Squibian
mis typed

[rebel11]

This pretty much sums up the key facts of SOGA :- http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

[sparx]

I am merely pointing out that there are laws protecting both parties and that it is foolish to launch yourself head on with these people on the advice of people nit picking the key words from very long winded and complex documents

 

I have read numerous documents regarding the Sale of Goods Act, that are written by the government (Notably http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained). We have not "launched ourselves head on" on just what has been said on this forum - and a large amount of discussion has been going on behind the scenes with regards to what we actually want to get from Curry's...

 

Unfortunately as you have found out, some people may regard a stranger with very low post count defending (at least what it looked like at first) a single company, as potentially from that said company - that's just the way it has to be as the internet is a place where people can remain anonymous very easily (and on the other hand also lose their anonymity very quickly).

[sparx]

It seems to me that some people like the "grey areas" caused by the words "reasonable". Personally, I'd be in court now as I think most judges will see currys have not been "reasonable" in this case.

 

We are still discussing/evaluating options open to us, and what we actually want to get from Curry's... christmas and other family issues have meant that this has gone on the backburner. However, it appears the problem has happened once again (recorded in the error log, count is now 9), and where it does not record any errors it has happened a couple of times.

 

It appears quite vague, but SOGA states "the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance." Could we demand a replacement instead of a repair (i'm assuming this would have to be spec for spec or higher?) Can we claim out of pocket costs (journeys to stores, time spent on the phone, emails, etc) through the small claims track?

 

We're going to leave it a week and see if the problem repeats itself - if so, i'll be requesting Curry's ring us back. Do I need to inform them that I am recording any phone calls they make to us, and if I don't inform them can I use them or transcripts as evidence?

[kurvaface]

If they record your calls to them then it is completely reasonable for you to make reciprocal recordings.

[sparx]

We've once again spoken to Curry's, they are going to collect our TV this Saturday for inspection + repair, on the understanding that they provide information about what is done to it. I'm going to attach a note to the TV to explain what the problems are, a copy of the error codes and how to view the error codes.

 

I've also obtained their legal dept address, and will be writing to them in due course to discuss the intricacies of SoGA with them - i've been informed twice that I will need a solicitor to represent me when contacting them - why? I have no idea. Hopefully they will have much more persuading power than me over the legal side of things (relating to partial refunds or replacement).