OUTRAGEOUS!!

[gpi]

dim_span:
like I said in an earlier post, if no one else who has bought this model has had the same problem, then it will be very difficult to demand full compensation if the warranty has expired ... that goes to prove that the problem is not a design fault

did the OP use a mains power conditioner? ... has the tv been moved and perhaps dropped (even from a low height) when repositioning?) etc etc

If the OP were to take this to court, it will cost him a lot of money, and these are the sort of questions that will be asked ...

If Sony do fix the prob for no cost, that will be very good service as IMHO they do not have to

I am not a lawyer, but think the OP should try for full compensation, and if that fails, I would not persue the matter further ....

take it on the chin and write it off as a bad experience ... its not worth the hassle

Doubtful as there would be no proof and the owner would just say no. Besides if the TV had been dropped or damaged in some way, replacement on home contents insurance could come into play.

 

[Alec]

I feel so enlightened after reading this thread.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh well, suppose I learn something new everyday ... here is a recent aricle where a similar case happenened

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/may/23/tesco-consumer-guarantee

and another:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/article.html?in_article_id=487304&in_page_id=5

and here:

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/eu-directive-sale-of-goods/

and here:

http://www.wak-tt.com/tt/2yearwarranty1.htm

 

[staggerlee]

The difficulty anyone will have is that they will have to take the retailer to court to try to prove the points mentioned in the various links and this for most of us is prohibitive because of the legal costs involved - unless you have legal cover through your home insurance who may be able to help.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Big blue, have noted your points made, yes it is 1999 directive.
Whilst the English SoGA was amended the EU rule allows the return of goods up to two years after purchase is at odds with the returns policies adopted by most major shops.

I am correct on that very important point and it is not the same as the SoGA!
No wonder most english retailers cling to the SoGA and put the burden of proof on the customer. As it is on the retailer for 2 years under EU law, unfortunately most people are not aware of it.

I have successfully claimed last year and have read that retailers like Tesco and John Lewis have a returns policy that complies with this directive.

If you are representing a trade, legal or retailer please disclose. The directive is in the link below, printing off a copy and giving it along with your complaint to the retail will give further strength to your claim.

http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/64/index_en.htm

 

[Anonymous]

what I find strange is the fact that the recent article which I posted showed that the guy who claimed the tv from Tescos was awarded compensation from Tesco after the store manager phoned the head office ... The head office acknowleged that the warranty should be 2 yrs and not 1 yr

yet, tesco still advertises the 1yr warranty (as far as I understand, but may be wrong):

this is a snippet from their website (Tesco direct)

Some, but not all, items are sold with 12 month warranties. For some items you can also choose to purchase an extended warranty when you place your order.

and what cheeses me off is that everytime I recently purchased an electrical item (like my recent washing machine), I paid extra for an extended warranty when in fact it was not necessary?

would also be good to hear the verdict from the members on this board who actually sell tv's and hifi equipment?

like I said ... I learn something new everyday and made a pratt of myself (yet again) on my previous posts on this thread

 

[Alec]

Yes, im still learning too. Or am I? One only really something if it is true. All the articles linked to above talk about the EU rling and SOGA as separate, and not intgrated (and it seems the implementation of the former has not been settled on yet). They also make our rights sound pretty rubbish in practice, regardless of which directive you pick.

Also, i was under the impression that we cannot demand a replacement, but that stores have the right to try to repair an item first, within a uselessly undefined "reasonable time"...? Furthermore, i was unaware that when i got my dell warranty for 3 years, i actually had 4 years (as one of those articles states) - albeit probably with one year of slightly lower "spec" cover (how good is my english eh?). I know that dell would be surprised to hear that too.

All of a sudden, everything is as clear as mud and expensive warranties are starting to seem worth it (especially to those of us who will probably never buy on a credit card with their added benefits).

 

[bigblue235]

trevor79:Hi Big blue, have noted your points made, yes it is 1999 directive. Whilst the English SoGA was amended the EU rule allows the return of goods up to two years after purchase is at odds with the returns policies adopted by most major shops. I am correct on that very important point and it is not the same as the SoGA!

It can't be different, as the EU regulations were transposed into the SOGA

The SoGA contains the Regulations that implemented the directive.

Trading standards:The most important obligations that the seller owes to the buyer are laid down in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002:These Regulations implement Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament

So (for the last time

) the EC directive is part of 'The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers' regulations. Those regulations are now part of the SoGA.

No wonder most english retailers cling to the SoGA and put the burden of proof on the customer. As it is on the retailer for 2 years under EU law, unfortunately most people are not aware of it.

No, that's wrong, I'm afraid. It was the EU directive that actually created the 6 month period. We had no such 6 month period in our legislation until our legislation was amended to comply with the EU regulations. This is the key phrase from from the actual EC directive (my bold):

EC directive:Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

So, within the initial six months, the goods are presumed to have been faulty at purchase "unless proved otherwise", so the reversed 'burden of proof' (that the goods do conform to contract) falls to the retailer. After 6 months, this period expires, so the goods are no longer presumed to be faulty. The 'burden of proof' then falls to the consumer, who may be asked to demonstrate why his goods don't conform to contract.

I have successfully claimed last year and have read that retailers like Tesco and John Lewis have a returns policy that complies with this directive.

They have returns policies that are in line with the SoGA. I can assure you that it's highly unlikely that either store made recent knee-jerk changes to policy. Even in the much-linked Guardian article, the consumer received a resolution in line with the SoGA.

If you are representing a trade, legal or retailer please disclose.

I'm not 'representing' anyone

But for info, I used to work in retail management, and I trained retail store managers. I also dealt with... SoGA and returns disputes

I have spent more time than I care to remember discussing this sort of stuff with Trading Standards/Consumer Advice/etc. I've dealt with this kind of thing many times. It didn't make sense to me at first, either!

The directive is in the link below...

That's not actually the directive, as such. This is the full directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31999L0044&model=guichett

And, I repeat (yet again!) if you choose to use ONLY the EC directive, you're selling yourself short, as the entire SoGA gives you more rights for a longer period. As the chap from 'Which' says in that Tesco article

"While it is true that the EU consumer rules mean stores should repair or replace items that break inside two years, Soga affords consumers protection up to six years from the date of purchase."

EU- 2 years. SoGA-6 years

 

[bigblue235]

dim_span: what I find strange is the fact that the recent article which I posted showed that the guy who claimed the tv from Tescos was awarded compensation from Tesco after the store manager phoned the head office ... The head office acknowleged that the warranty should be 2 yrs and not 1 yr

yet, tesco still advertises the 1yr warranty (as far as I understand, but may be wrong):

The Eu 'guarantee' is not the same as a warranty. (Have I maybe typed that somewhere before?

) A product warranty, as issued by a manufacturer or retailer, is a commercial guarantee. It is nothing to do with the EC directive 'guarantee' and can be as long or as short as the retailer/manufacturer decide. So, it's perfectly legit for a retailer to advertise any period of 'warranty'.

The EC 'guarantee' on the other hand, is a legal one, which gives you certain statutory rights. You have these rights by law, and the retailer cannot legally deny you them. But these rights do not go as far, or offer as much cover, as a decent warranty.

Think about it, if 1 year 'warranties' really were illegal, do you think every manufacturer could continue to offer them?

The Tesco manager may have been slightly misinformed. Hes right in that the EU law applies (as added to SoGA), but he's wrong that the product has a typical 2-year 'warranty'. The consumer was given a payment in line with the SoGA anyway, so the manger was probably taking instruction from someone better informed in the company!

and what cheeses me off is that everytime I recently purchased an electrical item (like my recent washing machine), I paid extra for an extended warranty when in fact it was not necessary?

It depends, if the extended warranty gives more protection than the SoGA (which is very likely), then you've not wasted your money. Unless you've paid too much

would also be good to hear the verdict from the members on this board who actually sell tv's and hifi equipment?

I've never sold TV's or hi-fi equipment, but the law is pretty much the same regardless of the product.

 

[Anonymous]

all this jargon is too complex for me ... I'll stick with paypal and 'cheap vintage' off ebay

 

[bigblue235]

al7478: Yes, im still learning too. Or am I? One only really something if it is true. All the articles linked to above talk about the EU rling and SOGA as separate, and not intgrated (and it seems the implementation of the former has not been settled on yet).

Implemented, as far as I know

As mentioned above.

They also make our rights sound pretty rubbish in practice, regardless of which directive you pick.

Nah, they're actually pretty good, providing you play along with the rules. This can be tricky, but the retailer can't do anything about your statutory rights, they have to play along too.

Also, i was under the impression that we cannot demand a replacement, but that stores have the right to try to repair an item first, within a uselessly undefined "reasonable time"...?

Within the initial period of 'acceptance' of the product, you have the right to 'reject' an item if it's faulty. This period, as you mention, doesn't have a percise definition, and can be as short as a day or two, but some retailers will allow you a week, some will allow 28 days. After that period, the retailer have a right to repair/replace/refund/compensate, at their discretion. You can seek these 'fixes' at any point within 6 years, providing the goods don't 'conform to contract'.

The retailer have, once again, 'reasonable time' to carry out a fix. And they can fix your product on more than one occasion without having any obligation to offer a different resolution. If it goes wonky a few times, you could reasonably expect more than a repair, as the goods are likely unfit for purpose, as they keep failing in the course of their normal duties. Many retailers use a 'three strikes' rule, although they may not tell the consumer that this is their policy

Furthermore, i was unaware that when i got my dell warranty for 3 years, i actually had 4 years (as one of those articles states) - albeit probably with one year of slightly lower "spec" cover (how good is my english eh?). I know that dell would be surprised to hear that too.

Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds interesting, could you elaborate a wee bit? Ta

All of a sudden, everything is as clear as mud and expensive warranties are starting to seem worth it (especially to those of us who will probably never buy on a credit card with their added benefits).

Expensive warranties are probably not worth it. Cheap ones can be. Free ones are great!

 

[Alec]

"...if you choose to use ONLY the EC directive, you're selling yourself short..."

Choose? Thought they were one and the same, which is what you keep saying? If so, why do i have to choose anything? And why dont the people who wrote the above articles know it (ok, rhetorical question, that last one)?

One of those articles had a possibly useful link to a site where you could get advice on warranties tho.

 

[Anonymous]

Article 5

Time limits

1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

That clause worked for my claim.

 

[bigboss]

staggerlee:The difficulty anyone will have is that they will have to take the retailer to court to try to prove the points mentioned in the various links and this for most of us is prohibitive because of the legal costs involved - unless you have legal cover through your home insurance who may be able to help.

It costs only £25 to open a case in the small claims court, & you don't even need a lawyer. Check my post on page 4 of this thread.

Also, if you win the case, the losing party will reimburse this cost to you.

 

[bigblue235]

al7478: "...if you choose to use ONLY the EC directive, you're selling yourself short..."

Choose? Thought they were one and the same, which is what you keep saying? If so, why do i have to choose anything?

No, that's not what I keep saying

Trevor was suggesting that using a copy of the EU directive with your retailer may aid your case. Indeed it might, but as it's only one part of the legislation you're entitled to use, you're losing out on the rights that the rest of the (SoGA) legislation entitles you to.

Trevor79:Article 5

Time limits

1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

That clause worked for my claim.

That's a totally different thing, Trevor. That's nothing to do with the 'burden of proof', that is actually the limitation period for using this directive, in other words; this law applies for 2 years from purchase.

What is states is that the retailer is liable to compensate the consumer for non-conforming goods for up to 2 years. But... before goods are deemed to be non-conforming, their non-conformity must be established. This is what the 'burden of proof' is all about, it shows who has to prove the non/conformity of the goods. This section (which I quoted earlier) explains...

EU directive 1999/44/EC:Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

So, within the initial six months, the goods are presumed to have been faulty at purchase "unless proved otherwise", so the reversed 'burden of proof' (that the goods do conform to contract) falls to the retailer. After 6 months, this period expires, so the goods are no longer presumed to be faulty. The 'burden of proof' then falls to the consumer, who may be asked to demonstrate why his goods don't conform to contract.

From the governments own SoGA fact sheet http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.

In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.

This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry Bigblue I cannot agree with the evaluations.

The directive is clear in its detail, and the SoGA is in addition to AND NOT instead of. Consumers have the full protection of both and can use whichever gives them the better rights.

The directive applies to all member states.
Article 8

National law and minimum protection

1. The rights resulting from this Directive shall be exercised without prejudice to other rights which the consumer may invoke under the national rules governing contractual or non-contractual liability.

2. Member States may adopt or maintain in force more stringent provisions, compatible with the Treaty in the field covered by this Directive, to ensure a higher level of consumer protection.

The protection under it is for a full 2 years.

Article 5

Time limits

1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

The 6 mth period you refer to is on the product being deemed to have had a defect from new. It doesn't apply to the expected quality or reliability of it if a fault develops within a 2 year period.

Article 7

Binding nature

1. Any contractual terms or agreements concluded with the seller before the lack of conformity is brought to the seller's attention which directly or indirectly waive or restrict the rights resulting from this Directive shall, as provided for by national law, not be binding on the consumer.

(a) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the qualities of the goods which the seller has held out to the consumer as a sample or model;

(b) are fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them and which he made known to the seller at the time of conclusion of the contract and which the seller has accepted;

(c) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used;

(d) show the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect, given the nature of the goods and taking into account any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.

3. There shall be deemed not to be a lack of conformity for the purposes of this Article if, at the time the contract was concluded, the consumer was aware, or could not reasonably be unaware of, the lack of conformity, or if the lack of conformity has its origin in materials supplied by the consumer.

Of course retailers will prefer to use the SoGA, as after 6 mths the onus of proof is with the customer!

But that is not so if the directive is used.

Period.........That is EU law of which the UK is a senior member state.

 

[staggerlee]

It doesn't matter what the law says, the retailer here is not playing ball. Therefore, the only action left is to sue them to prove your right. I had a similar issue with an expensive kitchen item. Luckily our home insurance covered the legal costs, we got £3k compensation but the legal costs was £15k. Again i would say if you are going to spend large amounts of money go to a reputable dealer with good customer service. You may pay more but if there is a problem they will always help or alternatively, accept that buying a cheap item on the internet does mean you run a risk of poor service should something go wrong

 

[Alec]

Read somewhere in relation to this thread that many manufacturers consider their goods...er...good, for 6 years. so give us a 6 year full guarantee and be done with it. I'd consider buting a new whatever every 6 years i think.

Yes, i know. Never gonna happan. That would require a law that isnt quite so vague. Reasonable time! Pah!

 

[Anonymous]

has this become the most boring thread of all time ??

 

[John Duncan]

maxflinn:has this become the most boring thread of all time ??

No - search for "oppo".

 

[Alec]

Ooh you take that back Mr Duncan! It was lots of things, but boring is not one such!

 

[bigboss]

staggerlee: Luckily our home insurance covered the legal costs, we got £3k compensation but the legal costs was £15k.

As I said in my previous post on page 4, a small claims court can perfectly handle such claims & it costs only £25 which will be reimbursed to you if you win by the losing party.

 

[bigblue235]

trevor79:I'm sorry Bigblue I cannot agree with the evaluations.

I didn't really expect you to. However, there's clearly no point in me showing, yet again, where I believe you're misunderstanding things. I've done that repeatedly and it's serving no purpose, so I'll leave you to it.

Please check the government fact sheet at http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html This is what your local consumer agency will refer you to. If you still disagree, take it up with them

Cheers!

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I think we have pretty much established that if your product packs up 1 month out of guarantee you don't just have to sit there and accept it.

Which is all some of us where trying to say.

 

[Anonymous]

Bigblue, I wish you all the best for you contribution to this topic.

I will say however that I have won satisfactory (at head office level) compensation against Currys using the directive.

I understand the political and lobbying situation with regards to our retailers and government v the EU. There is a grey area still seeking endorsement.

I do have access to top legal thinking and have recently been part of a shareholders action group (which I was instrumental in forming) winning out of court a multi million pound claim.

I do fully understand how the vast majority of consumers will be fobbed off by the retailers quoting the SoGA and whist being upset will buy again along with paying for a 2 year warrenty!

Money for nothing, dire straits, springs to mind!