I remember seeing it here on several occasions in the past, but Google brought nothing...
A friend bought a top-of-the-range TV from Curry's last year, and it now died - 15 months after he bought it.
They refuse to fix it FOC, and forced him to pay for an inspection/assessment (£50 or thereabout), and concluded that the board needs replacing - £800 or so.
It was hanged on a wall for the last year or so, and used as it should - i.e. no accidental damage, etc. - it simply dies one day.
I am looking for the paperwork/legislation for him to present to them to persuade them that it was their responsibility and should be done at their expense. A link(s) etc will be great.
They also told him to take it with the manufacturer if he wishes. I believe that his contract is with them though... Am I correct?
Do you mean he has had this done? What did the report say and what was the retailers response when given the report?
Proving it had an inherent deficiency at the time of sale which later caused it to fail is, after 6 months, the job of the buyer. That is what they pay an independent assessor to prove. They can also argue that it should not have failed so soon, but again the onus is upon the buyer to show what caused it to fail or to argue the premature failure was something that in a device of that price and quality should not have occurred so soon.
You are, but if the manufacturer offers a warranty which covers the failure it may be easier to use them.
By the way, ignore any rubbish you see about "2 year EU warranties", they don't exist.
The goods should be fit for purpose. The claim is with the shop. You might need a report to confirm that the failure is due to a fault and not due to abuse.
I'm not sure that the purchaser has to prove that failure is premature when the TV is only 15 months old. I think the courts (eg small claims court) apply a 'what a reasonable person would expect' view, and even for a cheap TV let alone an expensive one, 15 months use is far too short a period of time.
The purchaser should go to CAB and get advice. If claiming against Curry's, I think one might be able to claim the cost of the repair (or insist that it is done free of charge) AND the cost of the report, which I don't think would be seen as a reasonable request on Curry's part, for such a recent purchase. And if you have to go to the small claims court you might be able to get the court's fee as well.
If however there's any reason for Curry's to think that the TV was damaged by the purchaser, it might be different.
One final question - should he hold back the repair until the issue is resolved? That could be quite a while and I suspect most people would find it problematic if it were there primary TV.
I think it'd be better not to commit to paying oneself for a repair. But get the purchaser to ask the CAB what they think. It might only take a letter quoting wording (advised by CAB) to get Curry's to change their tune.
Yes. And Currys are notoriously 'difficult' when it comes to sorting this kind of problem. He will need to be firm with them. My daughter had a struggle to get a faulty week old TV replaced a few years ago until they saw she wasn't going to accept their version of how things should be done...
I've used Currys just to look at things as it's convenient, then gone to John Lewis or Richer Sounds for service and warranty.
BTW, depending on how much the TV cost, it might just be worth spending a bit more than the £800 and getting a new one with a 'free' 5-year warranty. The TV that cost me a grand about 14 months ago was a available for 600 in August!
You are just spreading rubbish of the kind Peter Parry warned about. And with no good reason aas there are plenty of accurate accounts from sources which specialise in consumer law. Eg most councils' trading standards have the same as
formatting link
*ADV0054-1011.txt
"Q. I've heard that under European Union (EU) law I'm allowed a two year minimum guarantee on goods. Is that correct?
A. EU Directive 1999/44/EC states that all European Union member states must allow consumers to make a claim for faulty or misdescribed goods under their consumer rights for a minimum of two years. English law already allows you to make a claim for up to six years from the date you bought the goods and for up to five years in Scotland. Therefore if you buy any goods from any other EU member state, you can assume that you can make a claim for faulty or misdescribed goods for at least two years after. See the 'Buying goods - your rights' leaflet for more information."
Even simpler version: the EU thing ain't a guarantee; it's 2 years in which you can claim a thing was dud; in the UK you had and have more than 2 years to claim; so the EU changed nowt on that.
It really revolves around how long it might be expected to last, as you say, assuming no maltreatment. Assuming none, then I think there is a good case to be made on this one myself
However, I've heard of tvs dying simply because a spike was on the mains that nobody could really prove most of the time, unless a nearby monitor was in use. Should a TV survive this? I have no idea and proving how big it was is not an option I'd say. It may well be if you can involve both the manufacturer and the store in the discussions, and mention something about bad publicity in t the letter that you might get a better outcome. Brian
Who did the inspection/assessment? Hopefully someone independent and not connected with, or suggested by, Currys! Did the report say what had caused the board to need to be replaced?
If he did pay by credit card, and the card company refuse to play ball, tell him to tell them he will be going to the Financial Ombudsman Service
formatting link
At that point they may well change their mind as it costs them a 'case fee' of £550 for the 26th and each subsequent FOS case in a year.
If they don't help then, then he either waits 40 working days after he made the complaint to them or asks for a 'deadlock letter' and goes to the FOS.
There is quite a good explanation of the reason for the common misunderstanding of just what rights a consumer has in the briefing note from the House of Commons library on "Consumer rights to return faulty goods" (and the Library staff are apolitical and don't do spin).
formatting link
"2 Is there an EU-wide two year consumer guarantee?
Many people are mistaken in thinking that the purpose of Directive
1999/44/EC, 'On certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees', is to give consumers a minimum two years guarantee for all goods. In fact, this EU Directive, implemented in the UK by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, has added little to already existing UK consumer protection law under the SGA 1979.
Under this Directive, all Member States have to ensure that "a retailer could be held liable for all 'non-conformities' (i.e. defects) which manifest in the good within two years from delivery". However, this requirement is not a two-year legal guarantee (although, rather confusingly, the Directive's title describes it as such); goods are not legally required to last for two years. It simply provides that consumer goods must conform to the sales contract at the time of delivery. If a consumer can show that the goods did not do so, they will be entitled to repair or replacement of the goods free of charge. If this would be disproportionate or unreasonable to expect from the retailer, the consumer will be entitled to a reduction in price or a refund. These consumer rights are available for up to two years following purchase. If the defect becomes apparent within the first six months of purchase, it will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery, otherwise this will be for the consumer to prove.
However, as mentioned above, the Directive adds little to UK consumer protection law. The SGA 1979 already provides the same legal rights to consumers to return faulty goods but for a period of up to six years after purchase - a much longer period therefore than provided for by the EU Directive. As a result, consumers should still rely on the SGA 1979 when returning faulty goods."
"Financial web site of the year"? Which year and I assume self elected. The article is utter rubbish. The numpty who wrote it didn't understand that 1999/44/EC simply established a minimum limitation time of 2 years during which action could be taken by the buyer. In some EU states this had been as low as six months. In the UK it had been, and remains, 6 years.
No it doesn't. 1999/44/EC was brought into force in the UK by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. Could you point out where in that regulation this mythical 2year warranty is mentioned?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.