Woolworths - Playstation 2.

[lsubaby]

Was told by Trading standards that I am entitled to at least a partial refund/amount towards my costs in having this repaired as it was less than 5 years old. They refused and I ended up having it sent away to be repaired. Does anyone know where I stand? Assume it's about 4 years old.

[blitz]

You are enitlited to a repair/replacement upto a period in which it would be reasonable to say the goods should last. In my personal opinion I cap all electronics at 3 years, and would say you would not be entilited to costs after this period.

Ask TS where they got there data from, and also write to the head office of woolworths with a copy of a written letter from TS.

Note you are only entilited to a repair/replacement from mechanical brake down, which is not related to wear and tear.

When you say about 4 years old does this also mean you no longer have any proof of purchase?

[gyzmo]

The refund at issue is basically a formula of:

how long would the product woudl be expected to last

How long has it lasted

Calculate the difference in terms of cost.

 

To be honest, I wouldn't bother (and believe me, I hate saying something like that). I have a PS2 on it's last legs (or microchips) after 5 years, but am waiting for enough money to get something else rather than have it repaired.

 

The TSO is right in what he says. I would not put a figure of 3 years on smething as Blitz has - it does come down to individual circumstances. But a he states it is his opinion. Mine differs, and so possibly would a judge's opinion if it went to court.

 

It is one of those things unfortunately where you have to weigh up the cost of the repair paid for by yourself against the cost (in terms of time and money and stress etc) of fighting your corner. I don't know how long a PS2 should last (I'm surprised mine has lasted so long in honesty, but that does not make it right).

[lsubaby]

i was told if i could prove they break down before their time i could get money back. To be honest I have given up on this, i was just asking for clarification.

 

To put it blank - do not shop at woolworths.

[gyzmo]

Trading Standards are correct in what they say. The problem is enforcing your rights. It can be expensive and time consuming (as well as stressful). Worse still, the older the product, the harder it is to win.

 

You will find most stores will have the same attitude. It is usually best, once you have tried the manager, to write to head office or someone senior. The oiks who work in shops are rarely aware of consumer law at even the most basic level, and will only repeat whatever mantra they have been given in training.

[mortis]

Trading Standards are correct in what they say. The problem is enforcing your rights. It can be expensive and time consuming (as well as stressful). Worse still, the older the product, the harder it is to win.

 

You will find most stores will have the same attitude. It is usually best, once you have tried the manager, to write to head office or someone senior. The oiks who work in shops are rarely aware of consumer law at even the most basic level, and will only repeat whatever mantra they have been given in training.

 

 

it is worth noting that the "oiks" that shop in the stores generally know far less than there oiksih counter parts on the other side of the counter generally using there mis-understanding of there "rights" to demand things of the retailer.

 

not all customers are enlightend to sites such as this where they can find out what there actual rights are and not what they think they are.

 

i personally would say that your argument is not with woolworths but with sony, the retailer honours sony's manafacture's gaurantee which is one year. the reason that woolworths will not take it back after this time period is that there are unable to return the product to the supplier as they are only credited for units returned within the one year gaurante.

 

i would also imagine you would have difficutly proving that the fault was a hardware fault rather than due to ware and tear.

 

you have also not mentioned if at the time of contacting woolworths you had any proof of purchase. i also believe (although i may be incorrect) for you to entitled to a refund the product would have to be in the condition in which it was sold which after 4 years of use i imagine is unlikely.

[demon_x_slash]

i personally would say that your argument is not with woolworths but with sony, the retailer honours sony's manafacture's gaurantee which is one year. the reason that woolworths will not take it back after this time period is that there are unable to return the product to the supplier as they are only credited for units returned within the one year gaurante.

 

It would not matter - if the fault was inherent (i.e. not down to misuse or wear/tear) and this was provable by an engineer's report, then Woolowrths would still be liable under Sale of Goods Act. Due to the age of this particular item, this would be difficult if not impossible to prove; however, I wanted to make the point that the length of the manufacturer's guarantee or whether they'd take it back from the retailer bears no reference whatsoever when it comes to the retailer's legal responsibilities to SoGA.

 

you have also not mentioned if at the time of contacting woolworths you had any proof of purchase. i also believe (although i may be incorrect) for you to entitled to a refund the product would have to be in the condition in which it was sold which after 4 years of use i imagine is unlikely.

 

Again, this would not matter if the fault was provably not down to misuse/ wear and tear. If a repair or replacement is not available for a faulty item, then a refund is a legal requirement.

 

Out of interest, why are you going round resurrecting old threads? Just curious

[mortis]

It would not matter - if the fault was inherent (i.e. not down to misuse or wear/tear) and this was provable by an engineer's report, then Woolowrths would still be liable under Sale of Goods Act. Due to the age of this particular item, this would be difficult if not impossible to prove; however, I wanted to make the point that the length of the manufacturer's guarantee or whether they'd take it back from the retailer bears no reference whatsoever when it comes to the retailer's legal responsibilities to SoGA.

 

surely the manafactures gaurante is important? as this is where it is stating how long the item will definatly last for? ie the "use by date" for want of a better anology, ie if i bought a pint of milk kept it in my fridge for a year and then took it back to tesco's under the SoGA would i be entitled to a refund as it was no long fit for purpose?

i know is a really bad comparison, couldnt think of anything better at this point in time.

i am guessing the counter argument to that would be the price of the product ie a PS2 was £250 4 years ago and so should last at least 4 years but at the same time if you bought a car at £25000 would you be entitled to a refund or replacement after 100 years as it is 100 times the cost of the PS2?

 

as to resurecting the post didnt realise it was old and as someone who works in retail found this part of the site interesting as personally i dont subscribe to the customer is always right ideology in fact 9/10 the customer is totally wrong is pretty much my motto. and only just found this part of the site.

[demon_x_slash]

I give up. I do. I've already explained that the manufacturer's warranty is no indication of how long something should last, the test of reasonableness is (i.e. how long the 'man in the street' would expect it to last, taking into account price, type and function of item). Please don't make me explain again. It's getting boring.

 

And incidentally, the 'customer is always right' motto was one that was meant to reflect the ancient and disused practice of taking care of your customers. The reasoning behind it is that it's better to lose a few refunds or replacements here and there, and keep your happy and loyal customer for life, than to muck them around and irritate them, lose them, and have them tell twenty-five friends about the poor service they received, whether it was actually poor or not. That's the motto I've always adhered to; try it, you may find your PC shop does more business.

[mortis]

I give up. I do. I've already explained that the manufacturer's warranty is no indication of how long something should last, the test of reasonableness is (i.e. how long the 'man in the street' would expect it to last, taking into account price, type and function of item). Please don't make me explain again. It's getting boring.

 

And incidentally, the 'customer is always right' motto was one that was meant to reflect the ancient and disused practice of taking care of your customers. The reasoning behind it is that it's better to lose a few refunds or replacements here and there, and keep your happy and loyal customer for life, than to muck them around and irritate them, lose them, and have them tell twenty-five friends about the poor service they received, whether it was actually poor or not. That's the motto I've always adhered to; try it, you may find your PC shop does more business.

 

indeed i understand what you said about the manafactures warranty the question i was trying to put to you, all be it not very well due to my tiredness at the time of asking was how the reasonable amount of time was decided that was all. as i just would have thought with any product of any type this would be a difficult figure to reach as there are so many other factors that can come into play.

 

as for the customer is always right motto, the reason for my own cynical view on this quote is purely and simply down to working in retail, much as i dont adhere to the qoute i do believe in good customer service and in an event that you where to have a problem with an item in my store you would not know of my feelings towards this qoute and a majority of the time i would sort out the problem as you have suggested for the sake of keeping that customer happy and loyal and preventing bad word of mouth about my buisness, however what i do make sure is that in the event where i do go above and beyond what the customer is entitled to they are aware of it, as i dont believe that there is any point in giving excelent customer service when the customer does not realise it.

 

unfortuantly however this attitude of the customer is always right is leading is further into a compensation culture and customers now believe it is there right to expect things above and beyond the call of duty for the retailer and in an event when nothing can be done they become verbally agressive, and unfortuantly there are so many saps out there that back down to such rudeness from there customers and roll over and do what the customer wants, furthering the problem as the next time the customer wants something even if it is unreasonable, they just shout untill they get there way.

 

in the example of this thread for example the staff at the branch of woolworths are just following procedure and failure to do so would probablly get them in trouble and possibly even cost there job.

[gyzmo]

in the example of this thread for example the staff at the branch of woolworths are just following procedure and failure to do so would probablly get them in trouble and possibly even cost there job.

 

But not following the law, a concept you seem to have much difficulty in understanding in this and your other identites.

[mortis]

i have no other identities

 

the point is the staff in the shop dont have the power to return the item its the company that would be breaking the law and be liable not the individual member of staff/management.

 

however again in this example based on the infomation that the OP gave the company would have done nothing wrong at this point from the OP all we know is that he went into the store and told them he bought it 4 years ago and now it is broken. based on that infomation alone the store and/or company hasnt done anything wrong.

[patdavies]

Y In my personal opinion I cap all electronics at 3 years, and would say you would not be entilited to costs after this period.

 

And I would disagree with this.

 

3 years is probably a valid period of time for the CD drive, or the switches - anything mechanical. But the electronics should last for ever - for a purely electronic fault I could not agree to a 3 year limitation.

 

However, we don't know what the fault is in the OP's case.

[Danny J]

in the example of this thread for example the staff at the branch of woolworths are just following procedure and failure to do so would probablly get them in trouble and possibly even cost there job.

 

No offence buddy but that's quite a warped view. No retailer with an ounce of sense / decency is ever gonna sack someone because they have done what it takes to make the customer happy.

[gyzmo]

I have to disagree with that last bit. Here is a scenario that got me into trouble when I worked as a claims advisor in insurance.

 

A customer called in with an existing (relatively easy to resolve) complaint. Customer was told by operator that person he needed to speak to was not at desk, but a mesage would be sent for him to call back. However, the person the customer "needed" to speak to was away on holiday for three weeks. The advisor did not check this. Nor did they check if there was anything that he could do in the time being. This happened on two more occasions. On the third, I got the call from the customer, who by now was going ballistic. After a couple of hours of chasing things up, the complaint was resolved and customer only called back once to say speak to a manager to complain about how badly treated he was by everyone except myself (he said I was worth ten times more than all the other agents he had spoken to previously (sorry for trumpet blowing!)).

 

So what happens? All the other people, who did sweet FA, got 100% on their call audits an get promoted. Me? I get a bollocking for missing targets. Didn't matter that I was the only one who actually did anything, nor did the customer's views matter one jot. Nor did it matter that the customer did not have to keep calling back to get the issue sorted (calls queueing are a big isue with call centres).

 

So yes, some companies are perverse in how they treat their staff. Sad situation, but if what staff do does not fit with company policy (and I don't mean the diatribe they spout in their "mision statements") then they may as well leave.

[Bookworm]

I'll second that.

 

I have worked in retail, call centres, customer services, and some of them were highly volatile situations, in some case life or death. Yet, I have been pulled up more than once for taking too long with some customers, despite the fact that I *solved* the issue rather than passing it on, thereby ensuring customer satisfaction and reducing stress levels for all.

 

So yes, I totally concur with Gyzmo.

[mortis]

and ill third it