Onus on the consumer to prove Televison Fault.

slimjimmc

themadhair wrote: »

QFT. This is simply a tactic to try imposing a burden a proof on the consumer that simply cannot be met.

Isn't Boggles saying virtually the same thing so why charge in with the QFT?

themadhair

slimjimmc wrote: »

Isn't Boggles saying virtually the same thing so why charge in with the QFT?

QFT=quoted for truth

Most QFT posts tend to be reiterating the posts they are QFT-ing.

slimjimmc

themadhair wrote: »

QFT=quoted for truth

Most QFT posts tend to be reiterating the posts they are QFT-ing.

Ah ha ok, it's just I've seen it used elsewhere to mean Quit F'ing Tro11ing, my mistake and my apologies.
Thank's.

Boggles

The Currys every changing return policy auction continues.

Apparently now it is €75 (maybe) to determine a manufacturing fault or "in use fault", no mention of an independent engineer which was last months deal., the month before it was €120 non refundable. Can't wait for next month.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056169922

Also Declan assures me he has not forgotten us, that he has engaged with the NCA and is waiting for a response, then he will be right back to us.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

What I said on the consumer issues forum was that I would engage with the NCA at the appropriate level, which I've done, and update the thread once I've heard back from them. I'll be doing that in due course.

Currys PC World: Declan

Boggles wrote: »

The Currys every changing return policy auction continues.

Apparently now it is €75 (maybe) to determine a manufacturing fault or "in use fault", no mention of an independent engineer which was last months deal., the month before it was €120 non refundable. Can't wait for next month.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056169922

Also Declan assures me he has not forgotten us, that he has engaged with the NCA and is waiting for a response, then he will be right back to us.

I think that's a little unfair. There's no change in the policy as such. If the TV has an in use fault it's a chargeable repair and if it's a manufacturing fault then we fix it. No change there. What we're doing is making it easier for the customer to have an assessment as we will do it ourselves, charge for it and refund it if it's a manufacturing fault.

Making it easier for customers comes from feedback that we're trying to make it difficult, which we don't want to do. I will as promised be back when I've heard from the NCA

Boggles

Currys: Declan wrote: »

I think that's a little unfair. There's no change in the policy as such. If the TV has an in use fault it's a chargeable repair and if it's a manufacturing fault then we fix it. No change there. What we're doing is making it easier for the customer to have an assessment as we will do it ourselves, charge for it and refund it if it's a manufacturing fault.

Making it easier for customers comes from feedback that we're trying to make it difficult, which we don't want to do. I will as promised be back when I've heard from the NCA

Sorry Declan, I hardly think I am being unfair pointing out your companies ever changing returns policy.

We have gone from €120 non refundable to an independent engineers report to maybe €75 refundable in the space of 2 months. Would that not be a change in policy?

All are nonsense by the way, which has been proven on this thread.

With respect it's you and your company causing the confusion, not me.

I appreciate you have engaged with the NCA and you are awaiting a reply. In the meantime if you could comment on the case I outlined and your opinion on the outcome, we would all be grateful.

Boggles wrote: »

As good timing would have it, I was speaking with a friend of mine at the weekend who experienced first hand Currys procedure with warranty repairs.

Her television of 2 years purchased for €650 euro refused to switch on. It wasn't abused, mistreated, etc. It had actually very moderate use, analogue TV only.

She immediately brought it back in store, where she was to put it mildly shocked at the response.

Speaking with the manager she was informed that Currys were not obliged to fix the television as it was out of warranty. They would take the TV from her, but it would cost €120 just to look at it, this did not include the cost of any repair.

Of course she mentioned her statutory rights,. which was met with a polite smile and some strange advice, she should take it to a local repair man, as he would probably be alot cheaper.

The manager was more than nice, and seemed to be reading from the Currys hymn sheet, she mentioned her rights again, but it was a flat out no. No point arguing or making a scene, she knows her rights so she is going down the only route left open to her.

Boggles wrote: »

Just an update on this case as I was talking to the lady yesterday.

She sent a registered letter to head office outlining her grievances.

Over 2 weeks later she received no reply.

She initiated a Small Claims Court Case.

Within 2 weeks and this is a quote from her.

"It's amazing how fast my consumer rights kicked in when I got the courts involved".

My original question has been more than answered and sanity restored, thankfully.

Boggles wrote: »

She filed the case, the SCC contacted Currys HQ, to notify them.

An engineer was sent out almost immediately after this.

It didn't go to court, the nudge from the SCC was enough for Currys to fulfil their contractual obligations.

Currys PC World: Declan

You criticise our policy, we change our policy and then you criticise us for changing our policy. I'm scratching my head....

I'll comment again when I've heard back from the NCA.

If you want to pm me the details of the person's case above I'm more than happy to look into it

Boggles

Currys: Declan wrote: »

You criticise our policy, we change our policy and then you criticise us for changing our policy. I'm scratching my head....

I'll ignore your vicious tone and your attempt to make me out to be the one who is spreading confusion, it's childish and serves no purpose for this thread.

I used mild humour above to illustrate the extreme differences in your companies policies over a short period, policies you yourself have confirmed, so it's not like I am making this stuff up.

I gave an example on thread involving your company which directly contradicts what you original stated as fact, subsequently backed up by your misinformed legal department. Something has to give.

Your more than welcome if you like to clarify now exactly what Currys evolved return policy on televisions is.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

I'll comment again when I've heard back from the NCA.

I suggest you try and speed up this process, to be honest and this is my own opinion you have done yourself or your company absolutely no favours on this thread, I know for a fact you are losing quite a bit of custom because of it.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

If you want to pm me the details of the person's case above I'm more than happy to look into it

The complete details of the case are above, pm is not necessary, lets it keep on thread.

Again would you like to comment on it?

foggy_lad

What exactly is an in-use fault? Is that a fault caused by watching the television? Damage caused by customers is never covered let's get that out of the way! But if a television develops a fault during its use then that will be covered as the goods are "not reasonably durable" this sounds like more of the same nonsense from curry's in some attempt to water down or do away with customers statutory rights. This pay first and we'll refund if its a valid case is just another way to get customers to pay for repairs which are covered by statutory rights.

themadhair

Boggles wrote: »

What I will do is ring the NCA and ask them if this statement is correct and conforms with Irish consumer law.

Edit: Actually I'll email them, that way there will be no confusion with me paraphrasing.

Did you yourself do this and, if so, did you receive a response yet?

Currys: Declan wrote: »

If the TV has an in use fault it's a chargeable repair and if it's a manufacturing fault then we fix it. No change there.

Declan, you’re not an idiot since I’m pretty sure idiots do not get appointed to the role of managing director in such a large company as DSG.

Given that we have established that you are not an idiot, you should be capable of reading and understanding the following text extract from the relevant Irish statute on consumer law:

14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—

(a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or

(b) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.

(3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

You can verify that the above text is an unaltered extract, with the exception of my added emphasis, from Irish law by viewing the complete act here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0010.html

Do you see, Declan, how the above act defines merchantable quality to include durability against reasonable use? Do you see how this definition does not recognise any distinction between ‘wear&tear due to reasonable use’ and a ‘manufacturing fault’?

Let’s be blunt here. The meaning of merchantable quality is clearly defined in the above, and your policy is at odds with that definition. Multiple posters have now tried (and apparently failed) to explain this to you.

Boggles wrote: »

As good timing would have it, I was speaking with a friend of mine at the weekend who experienced first hand Currys procedure with warranty repairs.

Her television of 2 years purchased for €650 euro refused to switch on. It wasn't abused, mistreated, etc. It had actually very moderate use, analogue TV only.

She immediately brought it back in store, where she was to put it mildly shocked at the response.

Speaking with the manager she was informed that Currys were not obliged to fix the television as it was out of warranty. They would take the TV from her, but it would cost €120 just to look at it, this did not include the cost of any repair.

Of course she mentioned her statutory rights,. which was met with a polite smile and some strange advice, she should take it to a local repair man, as he would probably be alot cheaper.

The manager was more than nice, and seemed to be reading from the Currys hymn sheet, she mentioned her rights again, but it was a flat out no. No point arguing or making a scene, she knows her rights so she is going down the only route left open to her.

Boggles wrote: »

Just an update on this case as I was talking to the lady yesterday.

She sent a registered letter to head office outlining her grievances.

Over 2 weeks later she received no reply.

She initiated a Small Claims Court Case.

Within 2 weeks and this is a quote from her.

"It's amazing how fast my consumer rights kicked in when I got the courts involved".

My original question has been more than answered and sanity restored, thankfully.

Boggles wrote: »

She filed the case, the SCC contacted Currys HQ, to notify them.

An engineer was sent out almost immediately after this.

It didn't go to court, the nudge from the SCC was enough for Currys to fulfil their contractual obligations.

Re-quoting the above to make Declan’s side-step tactics harder to use. This is the case Boggles is asking you to comment on Declan.

foggy_lad

Really then it looks like curry's are still ignoring consumers statutory rights and telling lies and spinning nonsense about engineers reports and €120 charges for looking at tv sets right up to the point the customer goes to court. IT looks like if you buy from them you should expect nothing in the way of customer service and your statutory rights unless you pay very dearly for it

themadhair

More boards.ie threads where Irish consumer law has been represented:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056169922
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056152774
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056138801

themadhair

I wonder whether there is enough information on boards.ie to make a successful complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2007. The key portion imo:

Chapter 2
Misleading Commercial Practices

42.—(1) A trader shall not engage in a misleading commercial practice.

(2) Without prejudice to the amendments of the Hallmarking Act 1981 made by section 99, sections 43 to 46 specify the various circumstances in which a commercial practice is misleading.

43.—(1) A commercial practice is misleading if it includes the provision of false information in relation to any matter set out in subsection (3) and that information would be likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that the average consumer would not otherwise make.

(2) A commercial practice is misleading if it would be likely to cause the average consumer to be deceived or misled in relation to any matter set out in subsection (3) and to make a transactional decision that the average consumer would not otherwise make.

(3) The following matters are set out for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2):
(a) the existence or nature of a product;
(b) the main characteristics of a product, including, without limitation, any of the following:
(i) its geographical origin or commercial origin;
(ii) its availability, including, without limitation, its availability at a particular time or place or at a particular price;
(iii) its quantity, weight or volume;
(iv) its benefits or fitness for purpose;
(v) the results to be expected from it;
(vi) the risks it presents to consumers;
(vii) its usage or prior history;
(viii) its composition, ingredients, components or accessories;
(ix) the specifications of the product, including, without limitation, the grade, standard, style, status or model of the product;
(x) the after-supply customer assistance available to consumers in relation to the product;
(xi) the handling of consumer complaints in relation to the product;
(xii) the method or date of—
(I) the product’s delivery, supply or provision, or
(II) in the case of goods, the product’s manufacture;
(xiii) the results and material features of tests or checks carried out on the product;
(xiv) in relation to a service, its execution or performance;
(c) the price of the product, the manner in which that price is calculated or the existence or nature of a specific price advantage;
(d) the need for any part, replacement, servicing or repair in relation to the product;
(e) the existence, extent or nature of any approval or sponsorship (direct or indirect) of the product by others;
(f) the nature, attributes or rights of the trader, including, without limitation, the following:
(i) the trader’s identity, qualifications, assets or status;
(ii) the trader’s affiliation or connection with others;
(iii) the existence, extent or nature of—
(I) any industrial, commercial or intellectual property rights the trader may have, or
(II) any award, distinction, approval or sponsorship (direct or indirect) the trader has or has received;
(g) the extent of the trader’s commitments;
(h) the trader’s motives for the commercial practice;
(i) the nature of the trader’s supply process;
(j) the legal rights of a consumer (whether contractual or otherwise) or matters respecting when, how or in what circumstances those rights may be exercised.

I have bolded the sections I think may apply. Ordinarily this would be a very difficult law to enforce since misleading advice given by a member of staff can be blamed on the staff member, and in order for a prosecution I would imagine it would require showing the company endorsed that misleading advice.

But on boards.ie we have:
- a managing director repeatedly endorsing their misleading advice.
- a managing director claiming this advice is endorsed by their legal department, which is strong evidence of a company policy.
- this advice would clearly lead some consumers to make a ‘transactional decision’ (in this case forking out for a repair) that average consumer (in this case one who knows the law) would not make.

My reading of this is that there are certainly grounds for making a complaint. Anybody got any thoughts on this?

foggy_lad

There are very definitely grounds for making a complaint against curry's imo

NWPat

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Incorrect I'm afraid. We don't tend to end up in the SCC too often. Only when we feel we have to. And our point of view would be endorsed the majority of the time.

The reason you don't end up in the SCC is that you are almost always in the wrong. In my experience large companies tend to give in to any reasonable claim as soon as the court documents arrive. The cost of defending these small cases is not cost effective for these companies. The bullshine you get when dealing with shop staff is just that, don't waste your time debating with them as they are just following orders.


Please give figures as to what percentage of SCC cases you choose to defend.

themadhair

Draft complaint to the NCA. Additions and suggestions for improvement welcome.

National Consumer Agency
4 Harcourt Road
Dublin 2
Ireland

To whom it may concern,

I wish to register a complaint with you under the Consumer Protection Act 2007. The company I believe to be in violation of this act is Dixons Stores Group Ireland, which trade under the business name Currys.

Under section 42 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 a trader “ shall not engage in a misleading commercial practice”.

Per the 2007 act, misleading commercial practice is defined as:

43.—(1) A commercial practice is misleading if it includes the provision of false information in relation to any matter set out in subsection (3) and that information would be likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that the average consumer would not otherwise make.
(2) A commercial practice is misleading if it would be likely to cause the average consumer to be deceived or misled in relation to any matter set out in subsection (3) and to make a transactional decision that the average consumer would not otherwise make.

Under the 2007 act, articles by which consumers can be misled include “the legal rights of a consumer (whether contractual or otherwise) or matters respecting when, how or in what circumstances those rights may be exercised”.

I believe that Dixons Stores Group Ireland, as a matter of policy, have been misleading customers with regard to their legal rights as consumers. Per the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, goods sold must be of merchantable quality. Merchantable quality is defined in the 1980 act thusly (emphasis added):

Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

Goods sold which are not ”as durable as it is reasonable to expect” are, per the 1980 act, not of merchantable quality, and thus any consumer is entitled to redress in the form of a replacement, repair or refund in line with the 1980 act. Dixons Stores Group Ireland have, as a matter of policy, been misrepresenting this standard to consumers. Per their policy, they will only stand over cases suffering from what they deem a ‘manufacturing fault’, shirking their legal responsibility when it comes to goods that have been unable to withstand reasonable use as specified by the 1980 act. By misrepresenting Irish consumer law in this manner, Dixons Stores Group Ireland are misleading customers into paying for repairs (a transactional decision) that those customers were already legally entitled to, per the 1980 act.

The existence of this policy, and how it has misled customers, has been made clear via threads on the forum www.boards.ie. A subsection of this forum is devoted to Currys, with Declan Ronayne, managing director of Dixons Stores Group Ireland, acting as an official representative on behalf of the company. Extracts of comments made by this representative showing this misleading policy (with my emphasis) include:

From http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68227401&postcount=11

” What all of this means in essence is that the onus is on the buyer of the product to demonstrate that a fault occurring was present at the time of the purchase of the product. Outside of that we can of course repair the product but it would be on a chargeable basis.”

From http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69172627&postcount=37

As other posters have said, the 1980 Act requires goods to be of 'merchantable quality'. Proving an item to be faulty is not the same as proving it was (or is) not of merchantable quality; e.g it could be faulty due to misuse or wear/tear.
…
But products also fail due to misuse and wear and tear. And we ask customers who assert a fault to give us some proof that it's a manufacturing or component issue rather than wear and tear. Once we're satisfied it's the latter, job done.

From http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70471866&postcount=2

We need to determne whether it's a manufacturing fault, which we'll repair foc, or whether it's an in use fault, which is a chargeable repair. What we'll need to do is to assess your unit. We'll charge for that ( € 75 I think ) but that's refundable if it's a manuafcturing fault.

From http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70171878&postcount=2

Your TV warranty lasts 12 months. For the first 6 months of its life it is subject to a term called " rebuttable presumption ", meaning that if any fault occurs to the product it is assumed to be a fault related to the manufacture of the product and it must then be repaired, replaced and refunded, in that order.

After 6 months, it is not assumed that the fault is a manufacturing fault and the onus then switches to the consumer to prove that the product fault is a result of manufacturing defect rather than use.

From http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69914631&postcount=2

The TV has broken down either through a manufacturing fault ( which should have been present at the time of purchase and may only be manifesting itself now ) or by how you have used it. By that I don't mean you have to have done anything in particular to it, but it may have been subject to a power surge or have dust infiltration or the like.

For the first 6 months of the life of a product it is assumed that any fault that occurs is due to a manufacturing fault. The normal warranty on a product gives you greater rights than this. After 6 months the onus is on the consumer to show that the product is at fault due to a manufacturing issue rather than in use issue.

The misleading advice of ignoring the requirement to be able to withstand reasonable use that is being given by the managing director above is not solely his opinion, and he attributes this advice to the company’s legal advice department in this post:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69172627&postcount=37

As the above evidence demonstrates, Dixons Stores Group Ireland have enacted a policy that directly leads to consumers being mislead over their legal rights as consumers, the result of which is to mislead said consumers into paying for repairs they are already legally entitled to. This appears to violate the portions of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 quoted previously.

I hope the National Consumer Agency will investigate this matter and instruct Dixons Stores Group Ireland to cease engaging in this misleading commercial practice. I also hope that the National Consumer Agency will instruct Dixons Stores Group Ireland to cease misrepresenting Irish consumer law to their customers.

Regards,
<snip>

UglyBolloxFace

themadhair wrote: »

Draft complaint to the NCA......

Have you heard anything back from them?

Also, I see Declan has disappeared:rolleyes: I find it hilariously amazing how he has further tarnished the reputation of the company he represents by blatantly misinterpreting Irish Consumer Law on this forum.

Boggles

I hope the mods don't mind but I am bumping this thread as an ample enough time has passed I think for Declan to report back his findings as promised.

Currys & PC World: Declan wrote: »

I will as promised be back when I've heard from the NCA

I think enough important questions were raised and it would be excellent to have some conclusive answers from one of Ireland's largest retailers on what exactly is their obligation to a consumer when something goes wrong.

ejmaztec

Boggles wrote: »

I hope the mods don't mind but I am bumping this thread as an ample enough time has passed I think for Declan to report back his findings as promised.



I think enough important questions were raised and it would be excellent to have some conclusive answers from one of Ireland's largest retailers on what exactly is their obligation to a consumer when something goes wrong.

I see that his post was on 5th February, unbelievable! :eek:

Boggles

Declan has informed me he will not be re-contributing to this thread.

foggy_lad

Boggles wrote: »

Declan has informed me he will not be re-contributing to this thread.

Can we draw our own conclusions from that?

Boggles

foggy_lad wrote: »

Can we draw our own conclusions from that?

Well Foggy Lad, considering he ain't coming back I don't think their is much choice.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056395722

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056392025

I guess nothing was learned.

GEM_13

Hi.
I know of somebody who is having the same problem with Currys at the moment.I don't want to go into too much detail on here but this is it in a nutshell..

Customer buys a television and after 8 months,a fault arises with the TV.Currys have the TV taken away and "repaired" before the 1 year warranty is up-In my eyes they are admitting there is a fault.

The TV is returned "repaired" but after another 6 months,the same problem arises again.
My friend's return to Curry's who tell them that it is nothing to do with them because the warranty is for 1 year.The matter is now with the SCC but Curry's have sent a solicitor's letter asking why it took so long(6 months) to go back to them the 2nd time and to get an engineer to look at the TV and submit a report about the problem.

The reason it took 6 months to go back was because the problem only arose again after 6 months.They are hoping the people in question will just find it too much hassle and let it go IMO.

The problem I have with the whole thing is it has been Less than 10 months at this present time since the REPAIR was done and only 18 months since the TV was purchased.

1) Have they admitted that there was a problem in the first place by taking the TV set for repair?(A report was provided by the repair company who took the TV for the first repair stating the fixes)
2)Why are they being so stubborn when the same fault has surfaced again?

If the TV is taken to be repaired,the consumer should get an automatic 1 year extension to their guarantee.It goes without saying that their is a fault with this TV and it should not need to be repaired twice in the space of 18 months.
I think Curry's have tried fob them off hoping they would not act on it.Now they have gone to the SCC,they seem to be,imo, trying to intimidate them with legal bullying
Where do people think my friends stand?

28064212

GEM_13 wrote: »

If the TV is taken to be repaired,the consumer should get an automatic 1 year extension to their guarantee.It goes without saying that their is a fault with this TV and it should not need to be repaired twice in the space of 18 months.

Ignore the guarantee, it's a red herring. Curry's can have whatever terms they want on their warranty.

However, they still have to allow your friend their statutory rights, and under those, a TV would definitely be expected to last longer than 18 months, especially if it's already had to be repaired once. The SCC does seem like the best approach in this case

Elessar

Any repair must be permanent. Since your friends TV has the same issue, the repair was not permanent and they are entitled to seek further redress.

Tell your friend to ignore Currys legal letter and to only deal with the SCC.

It's a pity Declan has decided not to contribute further to this thread, after saying he would. Currys is admitting defeat and knows their stance is wrong but are continuing with it anyway.

Boggles

GEM_13 wrote: »

The matter is now with the SCC but Curry's have sent a solicitor's letter asking why it took so long(6 months) to go back to them the 2nd time and to get an engineer to look at the TV and submit a report about the problem.

Did they send the solicitors letter via the Small Claims Clerk or directly to the customer?

GEM_13

Boggles wrote: »

Did they send the solicitors letter via the Small Claims Clerk or directly to the customer?

I'm not 100% Boggles but i think it was via the SCC.I'll check it out and i'll let you know.I would imagine they would be reluctant to send it straight to the customer once SCC is involved??

Boggles

GEM_13 wrote: »

I'm not 100% Boggles but i think it was via the SCC.I'll check it out and i'll let you know.I would imagine they would be reluctant to send it straight to the customer once SCC is involved??

Directing everything through the Clerk is the best approach. Keep copies and document everything.

The solicitors letter is asking why the customer didn't bring the TV in before the 2nd fault occurred, which is bizarre and serves no purpose but to time waste.

As the Managing Director of the company has confirmed himself on this thread these things hardly ever go to court, the reality is the intervention of the Clerk is more often than not enough to make these companies comply with the law.

Keep us informed anyway.

GEM_13

I think the solicitors letter is just a smoke screen and they are trying to paint the scenario of "Well,we have fixed it 2 or 3 months before the 1 year is up and it becomes faulty after that so not our problem".

Unforunately for them,it still is their problem whether they like it or not-will keep you posted

Del2005

GEM_13 wrote: »

Hi.
I know of somebody who is having the same problem with Currys at the moment.I don't want to go into too much detail on here but this is it in a nutshell..

Customer buys a television and after 8 months,a fault arises with the TV.Currys have the TV taken away and "repaired" before the 1 year warranty is up-In my eyes they are admitting there is a fault.

The TV is returned "repaired" but after another 6 months,the same problem arises again.
My friend's return to Curry's who tell them that it is nothing to do with them because the warranty is for 1 year.The matter is now with the SCC but Curry's have sent a solicitor's letter asking why it took so long(6 months) to go back to them the 2nd time and to get an engineer to look at the TV and submit a report about the problem.

The reason it took 6 months to go back was because the problem only arose again after 6 months.They are hoping the people in question will just find it too much hassle and let it go IMO.

The problem I have with the whole thing is it has been Less than 10 months at this present time since the REPAIR was done and only 18 months since the TV was purchased.

1) Have they admitted that there was a problem in the first place by taking the TV set for repair?(A report was provided by the repair company who took the TV for the first repair stating the fixes)
2)Why are they being so stubborn when the same fault has surfaced again?

If the TV is taken to be repaired,the consumer should get an automatic 1 year extension to their guarantee.It goes without saying that their is a fault with this TV and it should not need to be repaired twice in the space of 18 months.
I think Curry's have tried fob them off hoping they would not act on it.Now they have gone to the SCC,they seem to be,imo, trying to intimidate them with legal bullying
Where do people think my friends stand?

Don't forget that a solicitors letter has the same weight in law as a letter I send, all a solicitors letter proves is that they have a solicitor and are willing to pay money to try and frighten you rather then deal directly with you.