Faulty TV

vandriver

Just out of interest,were the onerous terms of a flexirent contract explained to you?
(ie stupendous Apr,final payment to own goods )

Potential-Monke

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

who do you have a receipt for the product from? HN or FR?

The receipt was from HN, i'd have to dig it out to see if there were any mentions of Flexirent being the purchaser.

vandriver wrote: »

Just out of interest,were the onerous terms of a flexirent contract explained to you?
(ie stupendous Apr,final payment to own goods )

Yes, it was. Well, the APR, final payment and terms were explained to me, as was the accidental damage or loss. There was no mention of FR being the owners though.

JimsAlterEgo

I would contact consumer agency (or whatever they are called now). You entered into a transaction with HN and this was facilitated by FR. HN provided the goods to you.

davo10

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

I would contact consumer agency (or whatever they are called now). You entered into a transaction with HN and this was facilitated by FR. HN provided the goods to you.

Not so fast. If you look at the flexirent website, it actually says you are entering a rental agreement with flexirent for the use of the equipment. The op may have picked it up at HN but by the looks of this arrangement Flexirent are the owners.

http://www.flexirent.ie/

It seems that you apply to flexirent when you want an item, they pay for it and the consumer then pays flexirent a rental fee.

I suppose the crux of this is, op did you actually pay HN using your credit/debit card or did flexirent pay them and you just picked up TV?

Edit: sorry I see from earlier post that op confirmed that FR are the owners, it is therefore them that have to deal with HN. The op's contract is a rental contract with FR so op can have no claim against HN, he/she is neither the owner not purchaser on the TV.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

I would contact consumer agency (or whatever they are called now). You entered into a transaction with HN and this was facilitated by FR. HN provided the goods to you.

Have you actually read the thread? It would appear he in effect rented from flexirent not HN.

Potential-Monke

Ok, so got a voicemail from someone in FR, rang back 3 times. First 2 times I was told the mailbox was full, 3rd time I went through to sale finalisation and got through to someone after 15 minutes. They put me through to the lad that left the message. He explained that they are covered by the Credit Consumer Act, and clarified when asked straight up, "are ye going to repair or replace the product?" to which he answered "no".

I ended the call, contacted the CCPC, who didn't have a record of my call and expected callback from last Friday, but the new guy went through it and basically said because i'm renting the equipment, their terms and conditions apply, and I don't have a leg to stand on. He mentioned possibly going for independent legal advice, and said that you can't take companies under rental agreements to the small claims court. He said he's going to try and find who I was talking to last week and see if they have anything else to do.

So it appears i'm stuck with a tv with a defect which i'll probably have to give back, because there's no way i'm paying any more for a defective tv.

Edit: I was reading up on the differences between hire purchase and lease/rental. According to law, lease/rental means the person does not have the option of purchasing the equipment at the end, whereas in HP you do. Seeing as FR give that option, is it not technically HP? In which case the law supersedes the t&c's?

mittimitti

Call Harvey norman they have a call centre that deals with all the stores

Don't mention the credit on the tv

Tell them its broke and that you will give 7 days to fix it after that you wont contact them again and that you will go straight to the small claims court

If you don't hear back lodge the complaint with the small claims court don't mention the credit

Then if you go to court which is highly unlikely you can explain everything to the judge they are a real person and you have a straight forward case

Potential-Monke

Unfortunately, HN don't work that way. They straight up said that because it was through FR, they have nothing to do with it. And even if I didn't mention FR, it's on their system that it was bought through them. I'd get nowhere.

I am however reading up on the Credit Consumer Act 1995, which was quoted to me by FR. He kept clarifying that it was a credit consumer agreement, and not a Hire Purchase agreement. But I've found that under the Credit Consumer Act 1995, and under Part VII, which is the section covering Consumer-Hire Agreements, there is section 88, which states that sections 75-83 apply to Consumer-Hire Agreements, and in that there is section 76 which covers the implied undertakings as to quality or fitness. I've emailed FR again with this information.

mittimitti

id still take them to the small claims court its worth it for 25€

I doubt they want to go and it might be worth them just fixing the tv

Potential-Monke

mittimitti wrote: »

id still take them to the small claims court its worth it for 25€

I doubt they want to go and it might be worth them just fixing the tv

Again, FR seem fairly hell bent on sticking to their guns. I've emailed them with the sections I've mentioned above, and I've also emailed HN more to let them know of their guilt by association, and how terrible it is to be dealing with a company that will do anything to get out of having to pay what must be a paltry amount to keep a customer happy.

The lad in CCPC told me that I can't take them to the SCC.

mittimitti

Id still for the sake of 25 take them to the small claims court

you file the case against the two companies and they have to defend themselves

unlikely that either party will want to go and spend the day in court

mittimitti

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Again, FR seem fairly hell bent on sticking to their guns. I've emailed them with the sections I've mentioned above, and I've also emailed HN more to let them know of their guilt by association, and how terrible it is to be dealing with a company that will do anything to get out of having to pay what must be a paltry amount to keep a customer happy.

The lad in CCPC told me that I can't take them to the SCC.

Just as an fyi the only people that can tell you if you can go to the small claims court are the small claims court

Potential-Monke

mittimitti wrote: »

Just as an fyi the only people that can tell you if you can go to the small claims court are the small claims court

Taken from the Small Claims Court webpage:

Excluded from the small claims procedure are claims arising from:


(a) a hire-purchase agreement

(b) a breach of a leasing agreement

(c) debts

I'm in contact with a solicitor in Dublin now, who deal with consumer issues. I'm not going to give up on this!

mittimitti

call the small claims court and explain whats happened and they will tell you what you can do

its the cheapest option

Potential-Monke

Surprisingly, I got a call from the manager in HN enquiring about the tv and the issue i'm having. I did email them straight after email FR again, outline that I wouldn't be purchasing from them again due to their association with Flexirent, and while they are separate from them, it looks bad on them to be dealing with a company that don't give a rattlers about the customer. So this lad from HN is ringing me back on Thursday to arrange for the tv to be collected to be inspected, but stated that if there is any fault found which points towards a consumer caused fault, I would be liable for any charges to fix same, all the while telling me if it's a screen/lcd issue, it's cheaper to buy another tv... Let's see how that goes. Hopefully the solicitor can tell me if i'm at something or nothing at all!

Vodafone tried to screw me over before, and I ended up in a 3 way battle with them, Eir and Comreg. I won in the end, so I've more than enough will to see this through.

davo10

mittimitti wrote: »

call the small claims court and explain whats happened and they will tell you what you can do

its the cheapest option

You do realise that no matter how many times you say the wrong thing, it doesn't make it right?

The op is not the purchaser, is not the owner and seems to be in a rental agreement. Why waste another €25 to be told you can't use the SCC against HN because of the above? HN will just say they have no record of ever selling a TV to the OP.

mittimitti

the small claims court only take payment if they accept the case

theteal

Apologies but I've only been half kind of popping in and out of this thread but I'm struggling to grasp this one a little. So the OP has been paying installments since collecting the telly - but they're not installments, they're rental payments?

Was the OP ever going to own the telly?
How much has been paid to date?

And because of this set up, it's looking very difficult to exercise consumer rights now that the device is faulty.

Anyway, hopefully HN do the right thing and repair the device without charge.

davo10

mittimitti wrote: »

the small claims court only take payment if they accept the case

"To be eligible to use the procedure, you, the 'consumer' must have bought the goods or services (or the service) for private use from someone selling them in the course of business. As a 'business' you must have bought the goods or services (or the service) for use in business from someone selling them in the course of business."

This quote is from the court.ie website, it clearly and in very simple terms it must be said, states that the consumer (op) must have bought the goods for private use. Now the op has clearly stated that under the terms of his agreement with Flexirent that he did not buy the TV from HN, flexirent did therefore they are the owners.

Not only that, the court.ie goes on to clearly, and again simply state that HP and lease agreements are excluded from SCC procedures.

"Excluded from the small claims procedure are claims arising from:

(a) a hire-purchase agreement

(b) a breach of a leasing agreement"


Baring all the above in mind and considering it is not my/other posters opinion but actually a statement on procedure by the court services, why would bother with the SCC?

The op has to deal with flexirent and because it is a lease or possibly a HP type agreement, it is also excluded from SCC procedures.

Potential-Monke

theteal wrote: »

Apologies but I've only been half kind of popping in and out of this thread but I'm struggling to grasp this one a little. So the OP has been paying installments since collecting the telly - but they're not installments, they're rental payments?.

I went to HN to say I wanted x telly on Flexirent. The tv was about €1350, and I agreed a 24 month installment plan with intent to buy at the end. I was intent on getting that point across, I wanted to own the tv at the end, and I was brought through the end of term options. It was explained to me that at the end of the 24 months, I can make an offer to buy it (usually 1 or 2 extra payments), give it back, or get something else on FR and keep the tv.

theteal wrote: »

Was the OP ever going to own the telly?.

If at the end of the agreement, I can offer another payment or two, and I can "purchase" the tv.

theteal wrote: »

How much has been paid to date?.

22x87.86=1932.92.

theteal wrote: »

And because of this set up, it's looking very difficult to exercise consumer

Exactly. They seem to be hiding behind legislation, but i'm fairly sure I've found a loop hole, or something they've overlooked. We'll see how HN can help, my contact with the solicitor has sent the information to the litigation department, and I've also provided further information to a reply from FR.

vandriver

That's an Apr of 50%,then you still don't own it.WOW.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

vandriver wrote: »

That's an Apr of 50%,then you still don't own it.WOW.

No it's not. It's over two years, not one. Still a ridiculous rate to pay though.

readytosnap

you are covered if it is accidental damage? well maybe your telly accidentally fell or was knocked off the stand by your dog, tomorrow.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

readytosnap wrote: »

you are covered if it is accidental damage? well maybe your telly accidentally fell or was knocked off the stand by your dog, tomorrow.

You are not the first to suggest that illegal move. Perhaps the OP is honest.

Potential-Monke

Yaretzi Disgusting Witticism wrote: »

You are the first to suggest that illegal move. Perhaps the OP is honest.

Well I do have to paint the sittingroom tomorrow.... And the man in HN i was speaking to before all this happened, did and didn't suggest the types of damage covered by FR.

No, I'm fairly convinced that the legislation is on my side. And now that they know there's a fault, i'm sure they would fight the claim anyway. They were using the Credit Consumer Act as their excuse, stating that they were fully compliant with it, and that it is NOT a Hire Purchase agreement, but is a Consumer-Hire Agreement.

In my opinion, for them, they are not compliant with it, as I know how to read law, and I've read the acts concerned. It specifically states in the Credit Consumer Act that certain sections apply to Consumer-Hire Agreements, which are found under the Hire-Purchase section, and which relate to the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, stating that the product must be of merchantable quality or fit for purpose!

davo10

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Well I do have to paint the sittingroom tomorrow.... And the man in HN i was speaking to before all this happened, did and didn't suggest the types of damage covered by FR.

No, I'm fairly convinced that the legislation is on my side. And now that they know there's a fault, i'm sure they would fight the claim anyway. They were using the Credit Consumer Act as their excuse, stating that they were fully compliant with it, and that it is NOT a Hire Purchase agreement, but is a Consumer-Hire Agreement.

In my opinion, for them, they are not compliant with it, as I know how to read law, and I've read the acts concerned. It specifically states in the Credit Consumer Act that certain sections apply to Consumer-Hire Agreements, which are found under the Hire-Purchase section, and which relate to the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, stating that the product must be of merchantable quality or fit for purpose!

Did your solicitor give you any indication of how easy/difficult it may be to prove the TV isn't of merchantable quality after 2 years of use? Also op, you might want to consider that if flexirent do have to comply with the SOGASA, they would be entitled to offer the 3Rs, that could mean a replacement TV which is 2 years old or a repair to your existing one, would you really be interested in buying either one at the end of the hire? Also, does the HP only become a HP after you agree to purchase, up to that is it just a rental/hire agreement?

I really don't know why you would want to buy this TV after the hire period, have to asked flexirent to just take it away when the 2 years is up and buy a better one, TVs like that are probably a lot cheaper two years on.

Potential-Monke

davo10 wrote: »

Did your solicitor give you any indication of how easy/difficult it may be to prove the TV isn't of merchantable quality after 2 years of use? Also op, you might want to consider that if flexirent do have to comply with the SOGASA, they would be entitled to offer the 3Rs, that could mean a replacement TV which is 2 years old or a repair to your existing one, would you really be interested in buying either one at the end of the hire? Also, does the HP only become a HP after you agree to purchase, up to that is it just a rental/hire agreement?

I haven't actually spoken to a solicitor yet, just the person who takes the details and passes it on. Hopefully i'll hear back this week. The onus is on them to prove that the defect was caused by misuse or something I did. They won't find that. Civil law is balance of probabilities, and unless there's glaring evidence that I tampered with or damaged the tv on purpose, the balance is on my side.

As for the 3 R's, I have no choice but to accept it. I don't think they'll try to repair it, as repairing modern tv screens is more expensive than getting a new tv. They might replace it, but i'll have no choice there either. The refund, I was thinking might be a viable option should it go to court, as I would have no guarantees after the termination of the agreement, and as such a refund would be the only "proper" option, but that's something i'll deal with if it comes to it.

It's not hire purchase at all. But there is a section under the Consumer-Hire Agreements in the Credit Consumer Act that Hire-Purchase sections apply to. As far as I can tell, it's never a HP, and the option to buy at the end is just an option, and does not make the Consumer Hire Agreement a Hire Purchase Agreement.

davo10 wrote: »

I really don't know why you would want this TV after the 2 year period, have to asked flexirent to just take it away when the 2 years is up and buy a better one, TVs like that are probably a lot cheaper two years on.

I would love to, but the reason I got it on FR is because I couldn't afford it at the time, but I could afford repayments. I would love to keep the tv after 2 years, but not in its current condition. I had a Sony that lasted me 8 years before the color started to dull. I was expecting more than 22 months on this to be honest. And a similar model now, in the same size with the same spec is about €1100. Which I don't have.

davo10

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I haven't actually spoken to a solicitor yet, just the person who takes the details and passes it on. Hopefully i'll hear back this week. The onus is on them to prove that the defect was caused by misuse or something I did. They won't find that. Civil law is balance of probabilities, and unless there's glaring evidence that I tampered with or damaged the tv on purpose, the balance is on my side.

As for the 3 R's, I have no choice but to accept it. I don't think they'll try to repair it, as repairing modern tv screens is more expensive than getting a new tv. They might replace it, but i'll have no choice there either. The refund, I was thinking might be a viable option should it go to court, as I would have no guarantees after the termination of the agreement, and as such a refund would be the only "proper" option, but that's something i'll deal with if it comes to it.

It's not hire purchase at all. But there is a section under the Consumer-Hire Agreements in the Credit Consumer Act that Hire-Purchase sections apply to. As far as I can tell, it's never a HP, and the option to buy at the end is just an option, and does not make the Consumer Hire Agreement a Hire Purchase Agreement.



I would love to, but the reason I got it on FR is because I couldn't afford it at the time, but I could afford repayments. I would love to keep the tv after 2 years, but not in its current condition. I had a Sony that lasted me 8 years before the color started to dull. I was expecting more than 22 months on this to be honest. And a similar model now, in the same size with the same spec is about €1100. Which I don't have.

Op, if this is a rental agreement, the only redress you may be entitled to is a refund on whatever you have to pay from the date you informed them of the problem, you certainly are not entitled to all the money you have paid over the last two years.

If this is not a HP, but just a straight forward run of the mill rental, what do you hope to gain from this bar a return of a month or two's rent until the term is up?

I think you said earlier the term is up next month and in your first post you said the tv is ok 99% of the time, why bother with the agro for the sake of a month, just tell them take it away. You would have to be mad to pay a solicitor when you don't have access to the SCC.

Send it back at the end of the term and maybe apply for a credit union loan to buy a tv, you'll get a better interest rate and as the buyer you would have much more rights under the SOGASA on the new tv.

vandriver

Yaretzi Disgusting Witticism wrote: »

No it's not. It's over two years, not one. Still a ridiculous rate to pay though.

If you don't grasp basic maths,then don't correct those of us who do.
I'll repeat,its an APR of 50%.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

vandriver wrote: »

If you don't grasp basic maths,then don't correct those of us who do.
I'll repeat,its an APR of 50%.

My apologies. I misread it.