Absolutely crazy! Things are going backwards? Plasma tv @ currys!

[demon_x_slash]

LOL dear, if it were aimed at you, I wouldn't have put text surrounding it. Next time, tho...

[Guest samantha2007]

what is it with everyone. i read many threads and am new to this but what is it about you that thinks if it aint sorted that day you got the right to sue.

 

this thread for instance many of you quoting if the store cant find the fault thats their problem.

 

so i can take a 5 month 27day month old mobile phone or laptop to a store without the cell battery knowing they dont have a spare to power it up and tell them its faulty they will immediatly take it back. taking my word for it.

 

i dont think so somehow.

 

if i took it to them and demonstrated the fault then they would accept it and arrange repair or replacement, but repairing a product because of someones word. i mean come on next you will be saying pigs can fly and make people believe it

 

you say about a couple people to stop giving bad advice.

 

but using guarantees is not bad advice is it?

can you clarify why using a guarantee is bad or illegal and if illegal or affecting rights if you use it why trading standards dont do something or government dont change the law.

 

why bother offering a guarantee if its illegal or whatever you few seem to believe to tell people to stop listening to people that ask them to use the guarantee.

 

to me under the first year i use the guarantee, then after that i use SOGA. yes i can use soga in first year too but guarantees are faster at repairing then getting the retailer or courts involved. am i right

 

i mean isnt that the best thing to get the product fixed not fill the pockets of lawyers for every fault.

 

can someone please write a guide. not just limiting it to go to store only store if not sue blah blah.

but what other external parties, manufacturers people can use. 99% of people who come here dont know their legal rights so they are not wishing to go the legal route everytime they just want it fixed. so forgetting about the filling the laywers pockets first. please right a guide to help get it fixed legally. and then as a final statement write the legal small claims route. AS A FINAL STATEMENT

 

even i would like to know who i can go to and who i cant. i do not want to go to a judge everytime my toaster blows up.

 

i know from reading the posts from those that say "dont listen to him" they also say that manufacturers are fine, external repairers are fine and then get reimbursed from shop.

 

but then on other threads that same person says go to shop or sue. which is it

[demon_x_slash]

Please provide quotes to back up your assertions above. No one is saying not to use the guarantee that the store offers - it is when stores refuse to deal with your faulty item because you have no guarantee that they are in the wrong. TBH, why waste money on a guarantee that you already get under SoGA anyway? It's throwing money away when you're covered in law anyway.

 

As for the mobile phone example, it's pretty weak - if the store/company sells the product, then they should have the means to test it, whether that means in-store or sending it away for an engineer's report. How else are they to determine that they are not liable under the Act?

 

Some people are coming on here with the idea that CAG promotes trigger-happy, unnecessary court claiming. It doesn't. CAG promotes consumers' rights; people come to CAG when they've already exhausted other routes, or have been mistreated and abused (yes, abused) by shopworkers/retail managers all the way up to the Big Boys like the banks and credit agencies. There is even a sticky in the main forum called 'How to Complain' which sets out advice for bringing disputes to a polite and mutually agreeable end. Where these people are getting the idea that the SCC is the first point of call is beyond me.

[patdavies]

to me under the first year i use the guarantee, then after that i use SOGA. yes i can use soga in first year too but guarantees are faster at repairing then getting the retailer or courts involved. am i right

 

No, you are not right

 

When you purchase from a retailer, you enter into a contract with the retailer. This makes SOGA binding on the retailer. SOGA applies to whatever it is that you have purchased from the retailer.

 

Additionally, you may get a manufacturer's warranty/guarantee. This cannot (does not) replace your rights under SOGA.

 

If the item is faulty, then SOGA places all the responsibility for resolving the issue with the retailer. They may not simply tell you to contact the manufacturer, although they may take advantage of the manufacturer's warranty in order to effect the necessary repair. Furthermore, the retailer remains liable even if the manufacturer's warranty has expired. Many stores prefer to tell customer that the customer's rights end with the warranty - this is absolutely not so - SOGA continues to apply.

 

Now you may ask, "Why does it matter if I use the retailer or manufacturer to repair a fault?".

 

The reason is this. You, as the purchaser, have no contract with the manufacturer. If there is any future argument with the retailer, they can get out of their SOGA liability because you involved a third party without recourse to the retailer - thus removing their rights.

 

Worse, the manufacturer may rectify under warranty by simply swapping the item. SOGA no longer applies, because the item now in your possession is not the item that you purchased and SOGA only applies to that item.

 

 

i mean isnt that the best thing to get the product fixed not fill the pockets of lawyers for every fault.

 

These cases are dealt with on the Small Claims track. This doesn't need the involvement of lawyers and the losing side is not responsible for the winners legal costs.

[Parva]

Like the new name RPOV.

[dave]

If I may also add, this is like a mini war. Us against them.

 

Big business relies on the fact that the average consumer does not know his/her rights, and yes, it's not illegal to exploit that.

 

We are redressing the balance - you may have heard (source: BBC) that 85% of county court cases are bank charges related these days. The court system is flooded, as is the FOS and the FSA.

 

This is good - for the right or wrong reasons, these institutions are now on site - if the remaining 15% of county court claims were against retailers not fullfilling their obligation, eventually something will have to be done - and done it will be. Governments only make change when THEY want to - not when WE want it done. This is pushing them into wanting it. If it starts to hurt, rest assured it will be the courts/fsa/fos etc... that will be calling for it to be stopped - and as we have done nothing but assert our rights, it will have to be those that bend the rules that will have to change, and thus, turning this country back into what it once was in terms of fair retail.

[gyzmo]

Big business relies on the fact that the average consumer does not know his/her rights, and yes, it's not illegal to exploit that.

quote]

 

I disagree with that. If a business, for example, puts a sign up saying "no refunds" or even "refunds only if goods are damaged" then that is the company seeking to exploit the consumer's lack of knowledge. Furthermore, using such statements is actually a criminal offence, such is the severity with which it is seen.

 

Also, the new Uffair Commercial Practices Directive, and the new Fraud Act amongst others, comes with a wide-ranging effect on the way businesses conduct themselves. Exploiting a consumers lack of knowledge could very well be an offence under this legislation.

 

There is no excuse in this day and age for a business to try and fleece consumers, and with respect, statements like the one quoted do nothing to help redress the balance.

[Guest samantha2007]

No, you are not right

 

stop misinterpretting people. when was it said that a shopper has no rights and has to rely on manufacturer guarantee. no where

 

When you purchase from a retailer, you enter into a contract with the retailer. This makes SOGA binding on the retailer. SOGA applies to whatever it is that you have purchased from the retailer.

 

Additionally, you may get a manufacturer's warranty/guarantee. This cannot (does not) replace your rights under SOGA.

 

who said about manufacturers replacing your rights im talking about it working along side the SOGA rights giving the buyer choices and options

 

If the item is faulty, then SOGA places all the responsibility for resolving the issue with the retailer. They may not simply tell you to contact the manufacturer, although they may take advantage of the manufacturer's warranty in order to effect the necessary repair. Furthermore, the retailer remains liable even if the manufacturer's warranty has expired.

 

yes after warrenties expire then the choices buyers have for a repair method fall back to one.. the retailer.

 

Many stores prefer to tell customer that the customer's rights end with the warranty - this is absolutely not so - SOGA continues to apply.

 

also to clarify. not all products are suppose to last 6 years either some items are not suppose to last 12 months. so if you wish to offer advice stop informing the people that they have 6 years.

 

Now you may ask, "Why does it matter if I use the retailer or manufacturer to repair a fault?".

 

The reason is this. You, as the purchaser, have no contract with the manufacturer. If there is any future argument with the retailer, they can get out of their SOGA liability because you involved a third party without recourse to the retailer - thus removing their rights.

 

Worse, the manufacturer may rectify under warranty by simply swapping the item. SOGA no longer applies, because the item now in your possession is not the item that you purchased and SOGA only applies to that item.

 

after reading threads i came across someone quoting that manufacturers guarantees dont affect consumers rights.

does it say manufacturers services and guarantees dont affect consumers rights apart from when we do an exchange?

 

please clarify

 

i thought if they have a statement that says it does not affect consumers rights. then simply it does not affect consumers rights. whether a manufacturer has some legal status to allow them to ammend the contract between retailer and buyer. maybe thats why they want proof of purchase so they know who to contact.

 

please clarify

 

These cases are dealt with on the Small Claims track. This doesn't need the involvement of lawyers and the losing side is not responsible for the winners legal costs.

 

so i go to court because the retailer not fix my fully proven as faulty toaster, they pay up the £30 for toaster. and they are not responsible for me legal costs.?

 

so how much are legal costs?

 

so you want me to avoid manufacturer. knowing a retailer cant repair my toaster but still take it to retailer waste time. take them to court. and what have i actually gained???

[Parva]

Yawn. You've been here long enough to know all the answers to your questions RPOV, sorry, Sam. You're trolling is becoming tiresome.

[patdavies]

stop misinterpretting people. when was it said that a shopper has no rights and has to rely on manufacturer guarantee. no where

 

At no time did I say that a shopper has no rights. At no time did I misinterpret. I responded to your question (which I quoted at the time and I quote again below) where you asked if you were right

 

Originally Posted by samantha2007

to me under the first year i use the guarantee, then after that i use SOGA. yes i can use soga in first year too but guarantees are faster at repairing then getting the retailer or courts involved. am i right

 

also to clarify. not all products are suppose to last 6 years either some items are not suppose to last 12 months. so if you wish to offer advice stop informing the people that they have 6 years.

And I did this where? I have never done this.

 

Perhaps you should learn not to misquote

 

 

after reading threads i came across someone quoting that manufacturers guarantees dont affect consumers rights.

does it say manufacturers services and guarantees dont affect consumers rights apart from when we do an exchange?

 

please clarify

I clarified this in my original reply; try reading it

 

so i go to court because the retailer not fix my fully proven as faulty toaster, they pay up the £30 for toaster. and they are not responsible for me legal costs.?

No, they are not. They are responsible for the Court fee

 

so how much are legal costs?

As much as you want to spend. Perhaps you might try for some free legal advice from your imaginary judge friends

 

so you want me to avoid manufacturer.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you do; as long as you stop misleading people here

 

knowing a retailer cant repair my toaster but still take it to retailer waste time. take them to court.

The retailer must obtain the remedy to your faulty toaster. Time and time again you have been told this. The retailer cannot simply say "I can't repair it, go away and call these people". The retailer is liable, even if there is a manufacturer's warranty

 

 

 

and what have i actually gained???

Hopefully (he says fervently), you have actually gained some knowledge of how SOGA works. I responded to your initial post because I was misled by your new identity (and the slight improvement in the use of English). Subsequently, it has become obvious (and the English usage has deteriorated again) that you are simply another iteration of RPOV and you are still trolling.

 

The reason that you get any answers at all is an attempt by members of this forum to stop your misinformation being taken as fact.

 

I have tried to keep my language from becoming abusive and I have tried to respond to all your posts in a civil manner. You choose to throw insults, misquote and tell me that I have said things that I have not even implied. I am becoming tired of exercising this restraint. I shall not continue in this way - you are actually making me angry when I read your nonsense - which unfortunately implies your trolling is working. Therefore, I shall not be making any more considered responses to your badly written rubbish. I don't believe that you are dyslexic - I think that your are simply thick and your continued mis-use of English is an insult to those whom you would have read your ranting.

 

You are a waste of bandwidth, a waste of space and an oxygen thief.

[Yawbus]

I've been reading this site (PCW & Curry's) on and off for a couple of days now and I must say that I do sometimes get this impression of 'Scream first and ask questions after you've sued'. (I speak now because someone actually declared War a little earlier....cripes!)

 

Honestly, that's just the impression I get. Probably not the intention but if I get that vibe then i'm sure many of the people who post to get advice will also feel it.

 

Do you want to help the person get their problem resolved with the minimum of fuss or do you want to get the person to pursue their rights?. The two aren't always one and the same and since no one here appears take any kind of legal resposibility for the advice they give, sending people off in vehement pursuit of action without considering the alternatives would be irresponsible. I'm sure no one posts here to make anybody's situation worse (even the one that keeps rejoining as someone else, gets flamed a lot for giving unpopular advice and insinuating people could be nice to retailers:) ).

 

I'm not trying to insult anyone or judge whether any advice is worthy or not, just hold up a mirror to show you what an outsider see's.

[Parva]

I don't know why you've formed that opinion because the vast majority of us advocate simply returning the faulty item to the store where purchased (if possible) if it's within the 12 month guarentee period. Certain other people (well, person) would prefer that you phone head office first or even the manufacturer! I personally would rather return it to the store safe in the knowledge that whatever they try to tell me in-store I know that I am perfectly within my rights to request and if need be demand that they deal with the repair regardless of whether they have facilities on-site or not.

 

I would only contemplate legal action once all other avenues had been exhausted.

[gyzmo]

Yawbus, your comment on rights and minimum of fuss hits the nail on the head. It is becasue of this disparity that ombudsmen, rights groups and forums like this exist.

 

More often than not, many people will approach the store first for a reasonable refund / exchange / repair. They will often be told to go away (see RPOV ad nauseam ad infinitum). Customer becomes frustrated and so threats of or actual legal action commences.

 

I hav lost count the number of times that staff have tried to fob me off. It is ony after (reluctantly) producing my credentials that the store behaves itself. Many large retailers try to get away with whatever they can.

 

enforcing legal rights and having the minimum fuss should be one and the same - SoGA even states this to some degree. It is unfortunate that certain companioes feel otherwise.