Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone.

 

I am posting this question on behalf of my Mother & Father in law who are both pensioners and don't really understand consumer rights etc.

 

OK, they bought a Sony 60" TV from Currys less than a year ago.   Over the weekend they noticed a sound problem and they switched it off hoping that would fix it.   Upon turning it back on the screen developed lines etc distorting the picture.

 

Not really knowing what to do they phoned Sony helpline and provided photos of the screen.   Sony came back saying their technical staff assessed the problem as being caused by "physical" damage, ie, TV being dropped or similar.   My in laws categorically deny this and i believe them.

 

What I want to know is that obviously the TV is within manufacturers 1 year warranty but Sony seem to absolving themselves of responsibility by fobbing the in laws off basically saying they damaged the TV themselves without even physically checking the TV and forming an opinion from an emailed photo!

 

I would welcome any advice as to their rights in a case like this.   I firmly believe that the TV has developed a fault and not been deliberately or accidentally damaged.   Do the in laws have a case against Currys?

 

Regards

 

Gary

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • garygumps changed the title to Sony TV faulty within a year, who is responsible.

currys are your target

as this outside of 6mts, they will have to pay for and get a report done 

 

forget any warranties, they mean nothing.

 

i would also research the same TV and see if any others have had the same issues.

 

it is weird that supposed physical damage caused an initial sound issue.

it smacks to me that this is most probably a power supply fault that is what has caused both the  screen and sound problems.

these are the most regular reasons for sony TV failure.

 

dx

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just thought I'd keep you updated with this.

 

So Currys would not entertain anything insisting that because it was still within manufacturers 1 year warranty period that I should contact Sony.

Duly did this again and again they insisted that the tv was deliberately damaged.  They referred me to a local service centre (who I have used before actually and trust them) who assessed the fault by way of photograph and agreed that the TV screen had suffered from some sort of impact.  They also said that it could not be repaired as Sony did not supply the required parts!

 

So looks like we are at a dead end with this and just have to write it off.

The parents are insisting that they didn't damage the TV

Unless, of course there is any other course of action?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

time to start the court claim process then.

you'll win easy against curry's with consumer rights act 2015 behind you.

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx

 

Claim for what exactly?  Unsatisfactory quality?

 

But surely it is our word against 2 experts (Sony and the repair shop) as to the cause of any "damage".

I just can't see any court going against them unfortunately 😐

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx

 

That claim link in your post seems to be about being the defendant in a small claim?

 

Are you suggesting I issue a small claim against Currys?  Even though expert evidence is suggesting that the TV was deliberately or accidentally damaged, although the owners vehemently deny this.

 

Gary

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 20/03/2023 at 22:00, garygumps said:

Hello everyone.

 

I am posting this question on behalf of my Mother & Father in law who are both pensioners and don't really understand consumer rights etc.

 

OK, they bought a Sony 60" TV from Currys less than a year ago.   Over the weekend they noticed a sound problem and they switched it off hoping that would fix it.   Upon turning it back on the screen developed lines etc distorting the picture.

 

Not really knowing what to do they phoned Sony helpline and provided photos of the screen.   Sony came back saying their technical staff assessed the problem as being caused by "physical" damage, ie, TV being dropped or similar.   My in laws categorically deny this and i believe them.

 

What I want to know is that obviously the TV is within manufacturers 1 year warranty but Sony seem to absolving themselves of responsibility by fobbing the in laws off basically saying they damaged the TV themselves without even physically checking the TV and forming an opinion from an emailed photo!

 

I would welcome any advice as to their rights in a case like this.   I firmly believe that the TV has developed a fault and not been deliberately or accidentally damaged.   Do the in laws have a case against Currys?

 

Regards

 

Gary

 

I had the same issue so many calls after calls eventually i got through to someone but still no luck I found this phone number on a post on another Forum someone called Nathan apparently head of service 30 minutes later I was sorted and item exchanged !!! 07921633673 , he was angry i had his number but it got me sorted :)

Mine was DPD related but sure he will help

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...