|
|
Sorry,
but I can not understand your complaint at all. You are given
opportunity to extend the warranty, which you most probably ignored. Now
that the machine has broken down you complain.
I feel and may stress goods these day (particularly electrical) do not
last very long. This is because competition is rife between manufacturers
and retailers hence the quality of the goods purchased are no longer as
reliable because of the lowest prices demanded by consumers.
I may also point out that companies such as Which? should take note, would
you be having such a fight with a retailer if you had inssured your product......ultimately
no. John... 27 October 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with the above comments from John.
How can Comet be held responsible for the machine being faulty?
They offered a warranty which was not taken. Complaining after 14 months
is no different to complaining after 2 years. It's just tough luck.
Clare... 30 October 2002
------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I don't think people know there rights.
Here's a piece from the trading standards:
"when you buy goods from a shop, you enter into a contract under
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), which holds the shop liable for
up to 6 years after purchase, providing that you can show that the problem
is down to an unreasonable fault and not normal wear and tear. Secondly,
remember that the guarantee is only ever going to be in addition to your
legal rights, and is offered by the manufacturer of the goods as a goodwill
gesture. Don't be taken in by the shop's argument here - they are using
the issue of the guarantee as a red herring to try to avoid their legal
obligations toward you. See our leaflet 'Buying Goods' for more information
on your rights."
I am at present having a battle about my washing machine which expired
after only 18 months - you should not need to take out extended warranties
Wendy... 2 November 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I fully am aware of the Sale Of Goods
act, as I have had to study it for numerous months as
part of a HND in retail management, when you mention wear and tear, is
this things such as heads moving, or the machine being rewound...ulimately
yes. Very similar to your washing machines drum rotating every time it
does a spin, wear and tear. Its built in obselence good luck in the small
claims court which will cost more than it's worth
John.... 7 November 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy, what a load of rubbish, the law says
"a reasonable length of time". What is that,
to one person 12 mts, another 12 years. Products in general are covered
for 12 mts, this is usually considered a reasonable length of time in
law. If you dont need warranties why are you suing? If you lose Im sure
the warranty will seem better value. Profit on most electrical appliance
is 20% to 30% before they have paid staff, bills, transport etc. How are
the retailers meant to pay for lifetime repairs!! Everything isnt about
price, what happened to paying for service. Dave ... 7 November
2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said John, Clare & Dave.
Mr Hawkins - Why should ANY retailer be made to pay for a Manufacturers
lack of standards?? & Why do you think they sell extended guarantees
in the 1st place?? Maybe things should be made better quality, but they
ARENT & there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Would you drive a car that wasn't insured?? No i dont think so... if you
had an accident, your car stolen, then what would you do... complain to
the showroom you bought it from expecting them to have some kind of idiot,theft
proofing on your car that no-one can break thro????Anon... 19
November 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh deary me. What a load of guff has been pontificated
in this thread. People who have come to this thread (such
as myself) please take note. Only one comment is anywhere near accurate:
Wendy’s. Otherwise, we've had inane analogies, retail propaganda
and wilful ignorance on a woeful level.
These guys have ridiculed Wendy, who quite rightly quoted you the appropriate
law. The warranty offered by shops (and manufacturers) is over and above
your statutory rights. Such warranties cannot infringe these rights in
any way. They are *statutory*. Guarantees and warranties simply give additional
rights that shoppers can choose to use. Any attempt to infringe these
rights is unlawful. Read you warranty agreement, and I'll lay serious
money that one of the last clauses, buried away in the agreement, is "Your
statutory rights are unaffected" or some such. Go and read some law
before you spout more nonsense.
John and Clare, don’t speak rubbish. An extended warranty
is a difference kettle of fish from your statutory rights. It is more
like insurance, and will undoubtedly cover accidental damage (which you
statutory right do not). Go read up on extended warranties. They are expensive
and virtually useless unless you accidentally damage your goods, and even
then you might well be covered by you home contents insurance. Last I
heard, Comet, Dixons and the like are being investigated for their practices
in selling these so-called 'extended' warranties.
In this case, Mr J Hawkins is completely within his rights.
He has 6 years from purchase (under English law) to claim that the goods
were not of 'satisfactory quality', and outside of a reasonable period
(usually a few weeks after purchase), he can claim for compensation from
the retailer (but not the manufacturer: your contract is not with them).
In my experience, a reasonable operational time for a video recorder would
be around 7 years. His failed after 14 months. Providing he can demonstrate
that the video was not damaged by unreasonable treatment (e.g. pouring
coffee inside it), which he claims he can, he has a very strong case indeed.
Any jurisprudent person would recognise that immediately. Really! An HND
in retail management (retail propaganda, by the sound of it)
from some college... did they give you the answers on the board beforehand,
or were they written on your exam paper already? Give us a break and go
do a real degree before you start this nonsense.
Dave, where did you get that information? Wendy quoted
from Trading Standards. Are you suggesting you know the law better than
they do?
Anon: yes I can see why you chose that name. You need
car insurance to cover accidental damage to your car, not to cover you
car falling to bits after 14 months of normal usage. All you need is 3-party
insurance. If your car suddenly fell apart after 14 months (12 month warranty),
would you suggest that was fair enough, and your tough luck? No, a car
should last years, and so, barring any accident, if the car was sold as
new, with no faults pointed out, at a reasonable price for the alleged
quality of the goods, then you have a claim for compensation. But you
go right on believing you are right. It’ll subsidise our goods when
retailers rip you off so they can fulfil their responsibilities to we
consumers who know our rights and refuse to be fobbed off by this arrant
nonsense. Dave Pirie... 4 April 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
Well actually I am currently
sitting a 3rd year Degree in Retail Business... (Editor's Note: The rest
of this comment was apparently lost or corrupted)
Johnnie Mcdougall... 23 April 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
My complaint is that I did not receive a delivery from Comet today (02.07.03)
as arranged and agreed. I am awaiting a response to my complaint.
John Weth ... 2 July 2003
------------------------------------------------------
Its interesting to see that so many people
can quote Trading Standards. The difficulty arises when
these people do not take the time to read the full response from the retailer.
Comet have not refused to take responsibility for this item and are in
full compliance with the 6 year obligation. To read back on the complaint
would be an idea.
Firstly, Comet found the quote from an independent repair agent too expensive
and therefore offered Mr Hawkins the opportunity to have this unit inspected
to confirm the fault. Mr Hawkins refused this, that was his choice. If
Mr Hawkins was so sure that this was a major fault and should not have
happened after 14 months why refuse an inspection? After all Comet did
offer the customer the inspection fee back should the item be found to
have a major technical fault. The customer refused this.
The people in support of Mr Hawkins case appear to be intelligent people
and on this basis you would expect them to be aware of the literate which,
also gives the retailer rights, one of these being the right to inspect
a faulty appliance. This is Comet's right as the retailer.
Yes, they are responsible for the product, yes there is a 6 year obligation
but each and every appliance is looked at on its own merit and on an individual
basis. The length of time you expect an item to last varies considerably
from person to person. Yes, perhaps this item should not have gone wrong
but without Mr Hawkins co-operating with Comet and allowing them to take
the neccessary action to deal with his issue how would anyone be any the
wiser.
Too many people think that Trading Standards are just there for us as
customers, this is not the case. I have read the emails exchanged between
Mr Hawkins and it seems he had a sarcastic and condesending attitude towards
their staff from the start. I think its probably very difficult for the
people who do this job to deal with such people, there is only so much
they can do. Unfortunatley in life there isnt a magic wand for people
like Mr Hawkins who expect everything on their terms, it requires give
and take on both parts.
Paul & Sarah ... 28 August 2003
TOP OF List
|