nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Onus on the consumer to prove Televison Fault.

Boggles

Hi

Was reading the Currys forum and came across this post from the Currys rep on the forum.

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

I was flabbergasted to say the least, when I read this point.

"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."

The Rep is clearly stating that outside of their 12 month warranty or extened cover plans, if an item (in this case a television) was to develop a fault, it is down to the consumer by means of employing a third party technician to prove that the underlining fault existed at the time of purchase.

So my question, is what is stated correct and legal?

Because if so, I feel it is a complete game changer on how we give advice on this forum.

(Need to point out I'm not singling out the Rep of Currys, he seems a very decent chap, I will PM him that this thread exists)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Currys PC World: Declan

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.

Declan, the case above illustrates that the confusion over warranty and irish consumer rights largely stem from Currys and Currys staff.

It seems the advice you have been getting from your law department is misguided, at it heavily backs European Directive 1999/44/EC and seems to ignore the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, which supersedes it.

I know Currys are under no obligation to inform anyone of their consumer rights, but this lady tried to assert her rights and was fobbed off.

Currys have been present in Ireland for a long time, I find it hard to believe that warranty issues havn't been flagged before and a clear process of redress outlined.

My question really is Declan and I know you are going to talk with your Irish legal department, will be see a level of transparency when it comes to your stores and consumer rights within this state?

Because right now your policy forces everyone down the legal route.

As I said earlier in the thread I've raised this and am awaiting a reply, which may take a little time but I will certainly be getting one.

On the example you're quoting here, what statutory rights exactly was this person asserting ?

We're pretty clear on what our obligations are and we abide by them, and will never hesitate to abide by them. And we are not obliged to repair TV's that are more than a year old, unless it can be proven that the fault was present at the time of purchase.

Were it the case that we had to repair every faulty TV, every TV knackered by a power surge would be winging its way back to us.

The question is whether this is a correct policy and we're pretty sure it is. So there's no confusion being created on our side. I say this subject to the confirmation that I am seeking

Boggles

Currys: Declan wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread I've raised this and am awaiting a reply, which may take a little time but I will certainly be getting one.

On the example you're quoting here, what statutory rights exactly was this person asserting ?

We're pretty clear on what our obligations are and we abide by them, and will never hesitate to abide by them. And we are not obliged to repair TV's that are more than a year old, unless it can be proven that the fault was present at the time of purchase.

Were it the case that we had to repair every faulty TV, every TV knackered by a power surge would be winging its way back to us.

The question is whether this is a correct policy and we're pretty sure it is. So there's no confusion being created on our side. I say this subject to the confirmation that I am seeking

Declan

Have a look through this

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Faulty-goods/

Particularly point 11.

Bare in mind European Directive 1999/44/EC does not replace or supersede 'The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980'.

Cunning Alias

I recently had an issue with my 40" samsung tv dieing, details can be found in the currys forum.

The short story is that the tv was dieing, my research showed that it was a very common problem, pcworld/currys said they could do nothing, I contacted samsung and they repaired the tv for free, despite it being almost 4 years old.

My main issue is this: when I thought I would have to replace the tv I was shopping around for a replacement. When I asked how many hours the tv should last for, every store (currys, HN, Power city) said that it would last 40k+ hours (i was looking at the same model in each store).

This is the same amount of hours that my dieing tv should have lasted for, yet I was nowhere near that. Now luckily samsung accepted that it was a design fault. My point is that if a tv is sold with an advertised lifespan of over 40k hours, it should last that long if it is not mistreated.

Im sure some tv's will be mistreated, but any retailer should not be able to simply dismiss a customer if they are over 1 year and have not bought add on cover.

whiterebel

Lads, you don't honestly think Currys are going to agree that the SOGA will apply, do you? That would open the floodgates and they will be swamped with returns of products that break down after a year old. This is the place that one of their CS staff told me, when a top of the range microwave went kaput after 14 months "Oh, things aren't built to last anymore......" The Microwave is built for DSG (The company that owns Currys/PC World etc) and cannot be repaired.
Easy solution - don't buy in their stores.
Oh, and don't forget their other shining example of Customer Service - The disaster area that is Pixmania:rolleyes:

foggy_lad

Currys: Declan wrote: »

On the example you're quoting here, what statutory rights exactly was this person asserting ?

Those outlines here http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Faulty-goods/

We're pretty clear on what our obligations are and we abide by them, and will never hesitate to abide by them. And we are not obliged to repair TV's that are more than a year old, unless it can be proven that the fault was present at the time of purchase.

If ye were clear on your obligations you would not have made this statement, the fault does not have to be present at the time of purchase

Were it the case that we had to repair every faulty TV, every TV knackered by a power surge would be winging its way back to us.

The question is whether this is a correct policy and we're pretty sure it is. So there's no confusion being created on our side. I say this subject to the confirmation that I am seeking

you are sure your own policy is correct because it suits your own profits and adds to sales figures when sales staff offer discounts after refusing to repair or replace a tv that should be repaired.

Currys PC World: Declan

Boggles wrote: »

Declan

Have a look through this

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Faulty-goods/

Particularly point 11.

Bare in mind European Directive 1999/44/EC does not replace or supersede 'The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980'.

Right, our Head of Business Standards has reviewed the entire thread as I asked him to and I've reprinted below. It's long but this is a complex area. I'll put my own comments at the end

Here's what he has said

The thread starts with a link to the rather lengthy post on European Directive 1999/44; originally posted in a thread about that Directive: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055984836 . The purpose of the post was to respond to the suggestion that the Directive entitled EU consumers to a two year guarantee.

With regard to the local law, the Directive was implemented by S.I. No. 11/2003 — European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003. It is essentially a cut & paste of the Directive. Naturally, it includes the text regarding the 6 month rebuttable presumption period and also the text relating to proving an item was faulty at the time of supply. Therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that these elements of the Directive have no standing in Irish law.

Other posters have quite rightly pointed out that the 2003 Regulations did not replace the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. The two pieces of legislation run in parallel.

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. It is generally accepted (although not specifically set out in the 1980 Act) that if an end user breaks their product or wears it out prematurely (e.g. commercially using a domestic appliance), they cannot claim the item is not of merchantable quality - this seems logical and reasonable but some may have differing views.

So under the 2003 Regs the test is: can it proven that the goods were defective at the time of supply. Whereas under the 1980 Act, the test is: can it be proven that the goods were/are not of merchantable quality due to a defect which was not caused by wear/tear or misuse.

Is there any difference between the two tests?

Do they both amount to the same thing in practical terms - i.e. not functioning when supplied or subsequently faulty due to a latent defect?

Whilst the 2003 Regs didn't replace the 1980 Act, some take the view that the former gives a strong indication to Judges on how the latter should be interpreted. To be more specific, if the 2003 Regs (a copy out of an EU Directive) contains the principle that latent defects will show themselves within 6 months, why wouldn't the same be true when considering the 1980 'merchantable quality' test?

The consumer benefit of the 2003 Regs was that the rebuttable presumption was written into law so consumers don't have to prove anything during the first 6 months. Whereas the 1980 Act does not have a rebuttable presumption and therefore the burden of proof sits with the consumer from day one; i.e. the standard position of "innocent until proven otherwise" applies, or, to put it another way, those who allege a breach of legislation have to prove it.

(http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Faulty-goods/ ) Several posters have referred to this site.

It seems to me that we agree with everything written there. Under Question 11 (I have a faulty good but my guarantee is out of date by one month. Is there anything I can do?) the answer, to paraphrase, is that any guarantee is in addition to your statutory rights and does not restrict those rights. We agree. The answer does not give any specifics on the question of consumer rights after 12 months - because, as we know, it's complex and will vary massively depending on the circumstances. This is in the context of a product which, it seems, has failed the merchantable quality test and is out of guarantee by just one month, let alone 6 or 12.

It certainly doesn't say what some people seem to be reading - 'you have rights after the guarantee expires'. You may do, you may not. Hence the vague text:

"Therefore you may, if the reasonable lifetime of a given product exceeds the time period of any warranty, pursue the seller in respect of your statutory rights - 'The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980'. If the trader refuses to offer redress for the faulty goods and you have exhausted all other options you may wish to pursue the matter with the Small Claims Court."

Interestingly, I don't think anyone has referred to Question 7 (Q7. In what circumstances might a seller refuse to offer redress for faulty goods?) where part of the answer is:

"Your legal entitlements may be diminished in the following circumstances:
If the goods complained about have been used for some time
If there has been an undue delay in making the complaint or returning the item
If there is reason to believe that the goods have been accepted in their faulty state
In these instances, you may only be entitled to a repair or partial refund or to no redress at all. There are no hard and fast rules as each case has to be considered on its merits."

A long answer admittedly but it is an area where there is a lot of detail, as well as vagueness and confusion.

From the point of view of our business in Ireland on this question, what I would like to make clear is that we stand very firmly behind every customer that has experienced a problem with their TV or any appliance when that product has developed a fault which is related to how the product was manufactured or in its component elements. Within the warranty period ( which gives greater rights to customers than under the 2003 Regs or under SOGA ) we will fix things as a matter of course.

Outside of that warranty period, if a customer believes that a product has prematurely failed through component failure or a manufacturing defect, we will ask for some backup to that assertion in the form of an independent report. Take the example of poor soldering mentioned above. Of course we would take that one on board as it's a clear manufacturing issue which is easily verifiable. And once we verify we fix and then have whatever argument we want to have with the manufacturer, once we've sorted out our customer. And if a cusotmer has paid for an independent report that shows a manufacuring failure, we would of course reimburse that as well as fix the product

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.

When there's a disagreement on this, the logical place for it to end up is in the SCC. That's not to say that we are forcing or encouraging our customers into that particular forum, it's just that ( for whatever reason ) there is an expectation that TV's in particular will go on forever. And, while they are very reliable, they can fail.

foggy_lad

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Right, our Head of Business Standards has reviewed the entire thread as I asked him to and I've reprinted below. It's long but this is a complex area. I'll put my own comments at the end

Here's what he has said

The thread starts with a link to the rather lengthy post on European Directive 1999/44; originally posted in a thread about that Directive: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055984836 . The purpose of the post was to respond to the suggestion that the Directive entitled EU consumers to a two year guarantee.

With regard to the local law, the Directive was implemented by S.I. No. 11/2003 — European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003. It is essentially a cut & paste of the Directive. Naturally, it includes the text regarding the 6 month rebuttable presumption period and also the text relating to proving an item was faulty at the time of supply. Therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that these elements of the Directive have no standing in Irish law.

Other posters have quite rightly pointed out that the 2003 Regulations did not replace the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. The two pieces of legislation run in parallel.

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. It is generally accepted (although not specifically set out in the 1980 Act) that if an end user breaks their product or wears it out prematurely (e.g. commercially using a domestic appliance), they cannot claim the item is not of merchantable quality - this seems logical and reasonable but some may have differing views.

So under the 2003 Regs the test is: can it proven that the goods were defective at the time of supply. Whereas under the 1980 Act, the test is: can it be proven that the goods were/are not of merchantable quality due to a defect which was not caused by wear/tear or misuse.

Is there any difference between the two tests?

Do they both amount to the same thing in practical terms - i.e. not functioning when supplied or subsequently faulty due to a latent defect?

Whilst the 2003 Regs didn't replace the 1980 Act, some take the view that the former gives a strong indication to Judges on how the latter should be interpreted. To be more specific, if the 2003 Regs (a copy out of an EU Directive) contains the principle that latent defects will show themselves within 6 months, why wouldn't the same be true when considering the 1980 'merchantable quality' test?

The consumer benefit of the 2003 Regs was that the rebuttable presumption was written into law so consumers don't have to prove anything during the first 6 months. Whereas the 1980 Act does not have a rebuttable presumption and therefore the burden of proof sits with the consumer from day one; i.e. the standard position of "innocent until proven otherwise" applies, or, to put it another way, those who allege a breach of legislation have to prove it.

(http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Faulty-goods/ ) Several posters have referred to this site.

It seems to me that we agree with everything written there. Under Question 11 (I have a faulty good but my guarantee is out of date by one month. Is there anything I can do?) the answer, to paraphrase, is that any guarantee is in addition to your statutory rights and does not restrict those rights. We agree. The answer does not give any specifics on the question of consumer rights after 12 months - because, as we know, it's complex and will vary massively depending on the circumstances. This is in the context of a product which, it seems, has failed the merchantable quality test and is out of guarantee by just one month, let alone 6 or 12.

It certainly doesn't say what some people seem to be reading - 'you have rights after the guarantee expires'. You may do, you may not. Hence the vague text:

"Therefore you may, if the reasonable lifetime of a given product exceeds the time period of any warranty, pursue the seller in respect of your statutory rights - 'The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980'. If the trader refuses to offer redress for the faulty goods and you have exhausted all other options you may wish to pursue the matter with the Small Claims Court."

Interestingly, I don't think anyone has referred to Question 7 (Q7. In what circumstances might a seller refuse to offer redress for faulty goods?) where part of the answer is:

"Your legal entitlements may be diminished in the following circumstances:
If the goods complained about have been used for some time
If there has been an undue delay in making the complaint or returning the item
If there is reason to believe that the goods have been accepted in their faulty state
In these instances, you may only be entitled to a repair or partial refund or to no redress at all. There are no hard and fast rules as each case has to be considered on its merits."

A long answer admittedly but it is an area where there is a lot of detail, as well as vagueness and confusion.

From the point of view of our business in Ireland on this question, what I would like to make clear is that we stand very firmly behind every customer that has experienced a problem with their TV or any appliance when that product has developed a fault which is related to how the product was manufactured or in its component elements. Within the warranty period ( which gives greater rights to customers than under the 2003 Regs or under SOGA ) we will fix things as a matter of course.

Outside of that warranty period, if a customer believes that a product has prematurely failed through component failure or a manufacturing defect, we will ask for some backup to that assertion in the form of an independent report. Take the example of poor soldering mentioned above. Of course we would take that one on board as it's a clear manufacturing issue which is easily verifiable. And once we verify we fix and then have whatever argument we want to have with the manufacturer, once we've sorted out our customer. And if a cusotmer has paid for an independent report that shows a manufacuring failure, we would of course reimburse that as well as fix the product

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.

When there's a disagreement on this, the logical place for it to end up is in the SCC. That's not to say that we are forcing or encouraging our customers into that particular forum, it's just that ( for whatever reason ) there is an expectation that TV's in particular will go on forever. And, while they are very reliable, they can fail.

in your reply above you refer a few times to the product guarantee/warranty period which may be of 1, 3 or 5 years but is nothing to do with the dealings between the retailer and the consumer as it is a manufacturer warranty and the consumer has NO contract with the manufacturer.

you also refer to the european directive regarding the 2 year period in which consumers have a right to reject goods but this has not been implemented in ireland as irish law already gives greater protection to consumers

goods have to be fit for purpose and reasonably durable so if a tv breaks within a few years and has been treated well a consumer has the right to suspect a product fault due to faulty manufacture or workmanship or poor quality materials. some faults do not present themselves immediately.

i would agree that as a tv or other product gets older the value of any replace repair or refund should lower but most small claims courts would say that such goods be replaced with similar models regardless of the value. Or that a refund be given in line with the time the product has been used, if i buy a tv for €1000 it does not reduce in value to €0 after 4 or 5 years. after 4-5years i may still be awarded several hundred euros by a small claims court who might see a tv as lasting upwards of 6 years

Our man in Havana

I wonder what Currys win rate in the SCC is? I wager it is very low.

Currys PC World: Declan

Haddockman wrote: »

I wonder what Currys win rate in the SCC is? I wager it is very low.

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.

Boggles

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.

Thats unambigous in fairness.

A more pertinent question would be how many times have currys been summoned to the SCC but decided instead to fulfil their contractual obligations?

Currys PC World: Declan

Boggles wrote: »

Thats unambigous in fairness.

A more pertinent question would be how many times have currys been summoned to the SCC but decided instead to fulfil their contractual obligations?

We really, really don't go to the SCC very often. And we always fulfill our contractual obligations to our customers.

I think the crux of the debate here is that many people feel that we have a contractual responsibility to repair any TV that has been in use for a period of time and has stopped working. We don't feel this is the case, our view being that we have a contractual responsibility to repair/ replace / refund TV's that have a latent defective which is provable by the customer and verifiable by us. This approach is consistent with the law.

It goes without saying that we will always try to be as flexible as we possibly can, this being a business where you want your customers to came back to you again and again, but there's a limit to what we can do and we feel we are supported in this by the law.

Boggles

Currys: Declan wrote: »

We really, really don't go to the SCC very often. And we always fulfill our contractual obligations to our customers.

That's not really what I was asking but nevermind.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

I think the crux of the debate here is that many people feel that we have a contractual responsibility to repair any TV that has been in use for a period of time and has stopped working. We don't feel this is the case, our view being that we have a contractual responsibility to repair/ replace / refund TV's that have a latent defective which is provable by the customer and verifiable by us. This approach is consistent with the law.

No one is suggesting your obliged to fix everything that comes through your door, each consumer issue on this forum is debated on it's merits.

See what I am finding hard to get my head around Declan, forgetting what I know about consumer law and my past experience in dealing with retailers and the SCC.

You are asking me to believe that 99% of the information given out on this forum relating to faulty electroncis and redress procedures is incorrect, according to you and your head of business.

This sits very uneasy with me.

themadhair

I’m reading this thread and, frankly, Declan’s comments have enraged me. Such a misleading description of basic Irish law is at best misguided, or at worst part of a deliberate business decision to mislead customers. Have to say that I find myself leaning towards the latter at the present time.

This is one example of misleading commentry that I find particularly egregious:

Currys: Declan wrote: »

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. It is generally accepted (although not specifically set out in the 1980 Act) that if an end user breaks their product or wears it out prematurely (e.g. commercially using a domestic appliance), they cannot claim the item is not of merchantable quality - this seems logical and reasonable but some may have differing views.
…
Whereas under the 1980 Act, the test is: can it be proven that the goods were/are not of merchantable quality due to a defect which was not caused by wear/tear or misuse.

Compare the above commentary with the following text from the 1980 act:
” 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.”

This is how the current situation looks to me. The 1980 act clearly and unambiguously defines the standard of merchantable to include durability with respect to reasonable use. What I see in this thread is a managing director of a company misleading people with regard to this standard.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

We don't feel this is the case, our view being that we have a contractual responsibility to repair/ replace / refund TV's that have a latent defective which is provable by the customer and verifiable by us. This approach is consistent with the law.

This just is not the case, as simply reading the text of the 1980 act shows. The 1980 act specifies the standard of merchantability to include the product being capable of enduring reasonable use for its intended purpose. If a TV that has been used reasonably stops working before a period of reasonable length has passed then, by the 1980 act’s standard, the TV has failed to meet merchantable quality. It is not up to the consumer to prove anything other than their reasonable use. The standard described by Declan is NOT the standard set in law.

Let me issue my final comments directly to you Declan.

You are managing director (assuming the boards.ie title is correct) of a company and you are flat out misrepresenting basic Irish consumer law. Over the years I have been involved in a few SCC cases, some of them involving televisions. The rulings in those cases as they relate to merchantability flat-out contradict what you have written here. I refuse to believe any person or entity that has consumer interest at heart would be making the mistakes that you and Curry’s appear to be making.

On a personal note, given your comments I will never purchase anything in your stores and will strongly encourage those that I know to likewise boycott. It appears clear to me that your comments reflect a deliberate business model designed to fob people off by misleading them regarding their rights as consumers. I have no doubt that you do indeed settle many of your SCC cases before a judgement since I find it hard to believe your company really is this uninformed on the legal matters involved. Fobbing consumers off to the point where they have to threaten SCC action, counting on many consumers giving up before then, is pure unadulterated scumbaggery of the foulest direst order.

Currys PC World: Declan

Boggles wrote: »

That's not really what I was asking but nevermind.

No one is suggesting your obliged to fix everything that comes through your door, each consumer issue on this forum is debated on it's merits.

See what I am finding hard to get my head around Declan, forgetting what I know about consumer law and my past experience in dealing with retailers and the SCC.

You are asking me to believe that 99% of the information given out on this forum relating to faulty electroncis and redress procedures is incorrect, according to you and your head of business.

This sits very uneasy with me.

I'll try again with the question above. If you were asking if we fix faulty products at a point when we are " threatened " with the SCC , the answer is that we don't. Maybe not the question you were asking but I don't want to appear to be ducking a question.

In fairness , I haven't looked at the advice you have been giving to people on problems with electronics. What I've done is taken the question you have posed on the thread and brought it to an area of our business that deals with consumer law day to day, that knows Ireland, has met and engaged with NCA and is a centre of expertise.

As I've said in earlier threads, we do get quite a number of people in our stores who ( quite aggressively ) assert rights that they don't have, so it's really in our interest in get the right information out there. I don't really mind if that right information places us under more responsibility or not, as long as it's more broadly known and it stops situations in our stores where our staff are bullied.

In this instance, I don't see us being that far apart in our view. You accept that we can't fix every broken TV that comes our way. I equally accept that each case comes on its own merits and needs looking at. Where I feel we might have a very different point of view is in our requirement that a latent fault in proven to us when a TV has passed the expiration of its warranty.

Boggles

Currys: Declan wrote: »

I'll try again with the question above. If you were asking if we fix faulty products at a point when we are " threatened " with the SCC , the answer is that we don't. Maybe not the question you were asking but I don't want to appear to be ducking a question.

Cheers, that is exactly what I was asking.

Edit: Actually not if a consumer threatened you with SCC, but if you got an order from the SCC that a claim has been lodged.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

In fairness , I haven't looked at the advice you have been giving to people on problems with electronics.

What I've done is taken the question you have posed on the thread and brought it to an area of our business that deals with consumer law day to day, that knows Ireland, has met and engaged with NCA and is a centre of expertise.

In fairness to me Declan, the question I posed originally was more directed to the community than yourself.

Boggles wrote: »

So my question, is what is stated correct and legal?
Because if so, I feel it is a complete game changer on how we give advice on this forum.

I stumbled across your response in the Currys thread by complete accident, I invited you along because I qouted you and it was only fair for you to expand. And full credit goes to you for doing so. Well done, many wouldn't.

As for engaging with the NCA, you don't expand. Have they totally endorsed your after sales practices?

Because if they have they have blatantly lied to me on more than half a dozen occasions.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

As I've said in earlier threads, we do get quite a number of people in our stores who ( quite aggressively ) assert rights that they don't have, so it's really in our interest in get the right information out there. I don't really mind if that right information places us under more responsibility or not, as long as it's more broadly known and it stops situations in our stores where our staff are bullied.

I would never condone people who get aggressive in stores. At the end of the day it's pointless and upsets all parties.

But as this thread continues to prove, confusion on consumer law just isn't one sided.

Currys: Declan wrote: »

In this instance, I don't see us being that far apart in our view. You accept that we can't fix every broken TV that comes our way. I equally accept that each case comes on its own merits and needs looking at. Where I feel we might have a very different point of view is in our requirement that a latent fault in proven to us when a TV has passed the expiration of its warranty.

Well I'm really only confused by this statement.

"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."

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.

Elessar

themadhair wrote: »

I’m reading this thread and, frankly, Declan’s comments have enraged me. Such a misleading description of basic Irish law is at best misguided, or at worst part of a deliberate business decision to mislead customers. Have to say that I find myself leaning towards the latter at the present time.

This is one example of misleading commentry that I find particularly egregious:

Compare the above commentary with the following text from the 1980 act:
” 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.”

This is how the current situation looks to me. The 1980 act clearly and unambiguously defines the standard of merchantable to include durability with respect to reasonable use. What I see in this thread is a managing director of a company misleading people with regard to this standard.

This just is not the case, as simply reading the text of the 1980 act shows. The 1980 act specifies the standard of merchantability to include the product being capable of enduring reasonable use for its intended purpose. If a TV that has been used reasonably stops working before a period of reasonable length has passed then, by the 1980 act’s standard, the TV has failed to meet merchantable quality. It is not up to the consumer to prove anything other than their reasonable use. The standard described by Declan is NOT the standard set in law.

Let me issue my final comments directly to you Declan.

You are managing director (assuming the boards.ie title is correct) of a company and you are flat out misrepresenting basic Irish consumer law. Over the years I have been involved in a few SCC cases, some of them involving televisions. The rulings in those cases as they relate to merchantability flat-out contradict what you have written here. I refuse to believe any person or entity that has consumer interest at heart would be making the mistakes that you and Curry’s appear to be making.

On a personal note, given your comments I will never purchase anything in your stores and will strongly encourage those that I know to likewise boycott. It appears clear to me that your comments reflect a deliberate business model designed to fob people off by misleading them regarding their rights as consumers. I have no doubt that you do indeed settle many of your SCC cases before a judgement since I find it hard to believe your company really is this uninformed on the legal matters involved. Fobbing consumers off to the point where they have to threaten SCC action, counting on many consumers giving up before then, is pure unadulterated scumbaggery of the foulest direst order.

Can we keep things civil please, there is no justification for a written attack of that kind. Like being aggressive or rude in a store, it'll get you nowhere and make you out to be a complete a**.

Thanks for replying Declan, I will post up a response when I have the time. I have to agree though, Currys is bending the law to fit its own understanding of it.

themadhair

Elessar wrote: »

Can we keep things civil please, there is no justification for a written attack of that kind.

I completely reject this characterisation of my post. I quoted the relevant section of the law and explained its discrepancy with the interpretation offered by the Curry’s representative. I explained why I was angry and what I intended to do about it.

What part of any of that was not ‘civil’?

axer

themadhair wrote: »

What part of any of that was not ‘civil’?

The aggressive tone of your post.

While I don't agree with Curry's take on the law I commend Declan for persevering to answer people's questions here.

Currys PC World: Declan

Boggles wrote: »

Cheers, that is exactly what I was asking.

Edit: Actually not if a consumer threatened you with SCC, but if you got an order from the SCC that a claim has been lodged.

In fairness to me Declan, the question I posed originally was more directed to the community than yourself.

I stumbled across your response in the Currys thread by complete accident, I invited you along because I qouted you and it was only fair for you to expand. And full credit goes to you for doing so. Well done, many wouldn't.

As for engaging with the NCA, you don't expand. Have they totally endorsed your after sales practices?

Because if they have they have blatantly lied to me on more than half a dozen occasions.

I would never condone people who get aggressive in stores. At the end of the day it's pointless and upsets all parties.

But as this thread continues to prove, confusion on consumer law just isn't one sided.

Well I'm really only confused by this statement.

"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."

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.

I think we'll end up talking to the NCA too. I've met them at senior level on a number of occasions, as have people at a more senior level than me within our business. I find them straightforward to deal with. It will be an interesting question for them.

I'm interested in the advice that you have given previously on consumer electronics and where it differs from what I am saying here. Are there particular threads I should look at or can you summarise the key points ?

Boggles

Currys: Declan wrote: »

I think we'll end up talking to the NCA too. I've met them at senior level on a number of occasions, as have people at a more senior level than me within our business. I find them straightforward to deal with. It will be an interesting question for them.

I'm interested in the advice that you have given previously on consumer electronics and where it differs from what I am saying here. Are there particular threads I should look at or can you summarise the key points ?

Just a quick search yeilded this, it's tesco and a tv about 19 months old.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056075904

Will get you a few more examples when I have time.

Currys PC World: Declan

Elessar wrote: »

Can we keep things civil please, there is no justification for a written attack of that kind. Like being aggressive or rude in a store, it'll get you nowhere and make you out to be a complete a**.

Thanks for replying Declan, I will post up a response when I have the time. I have to agree though, Currys is bending the law to fit its own understanding of it.

If I felt that our application of the law was a bending of it as such, I wouldn't do it. We want to be fair and there's no doubt that this is difficult when the perception ( in my view ) is that our obligations are far greater than we believe them to be. I'd really appreciate when you're thinking of a reply if you could outline what you think we should do in these cases. A lot of the discussion here is short on examples and we're faced with different examples from real people every week.

themadhair

Boggles wrote: »

Just a quick search yeilded this, it's tesco and a tv about 19 months old.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056075904

From the thread:

Oirish31 wrote: »

I contacted the consumer agency again to check about the engineer and they have agreed that if Tesco want an engineer to look at it then they pay for it.

This has been my experience with both NCA advice and the SCC.

themadhair

Not a TV but a PS3, but close enough to represent the law accurately for the purposes of this thread:

Slick50 wrote: »

Thanks for the good luck wishes, they seem to have paid off. The manager from the local Smyths turned up to contest the case, but the judge agreed that it is reasonable to expect more service from such an expensive piece of equipment. The result being that he ordered Smyths to pay €355.00, the current price of the 250gb PS3. I had applied for a full refund, I think it would have compensated to some degree for my day off work, but I'm happy with the result.
In the end the case was straight forward enough, it hinged on the "reasonable expectation" clause. Other factors which seemed to sway the judge were.. that sony would not repair "my console for me" (they wanted me to accept somebody elses repaired machine).. that other retailers, like extravision and gamestop, would have replaced my console free of charge.
I did not get into trying to explain why my console stopped working. I told the judge I did not know why, as I was prevented from opening the console under the terms of warranty, and that I would have no case if I had broken the security seal, which he also accepted.
The judge recommended to Smyths that they review their customer service policy, so keep on their case.

I bolded the above portion which flatly contradicts what the Curry's representative has said regarding the consumer having to demonstrate the existence of a fault.

Currys PC World: Declan

themadhair wrote: »

Not a TV but a PS3, but close enough to represent the law accurately for the purposes of this thread:

I bolded the above portion which flatly contradicts what the Curry's representative has said regarding the consumer having to demonstrate the existence of a fault.

I'm afraid I don't understand how the bolded portion contradicts the point I made. In this case the claimant said he would invalidate the warranty if he opened the product. We have no such provision and this thread is only referring to out of warranty products in any case.

Currys PC World: Declan

Boggles wrote: »

Just a quick search yeilded this, it's tesco and a tv about 19 months old.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056075904

Will get you a few more examples when I have time.

Great. A practical example. How this would work with us is quite straightforward. The product is indeed out of warranty and we would need to see that it has ceased to function as a consequence of component failure / manufacturing fault rather than misuse / wear and tear. It is just as likely to be the former as than the latter given that this product has been in use for 19 months. We would require the owner to commission an independent engineer's report, which we would reimburse once we see that the problem is component / manufacturing. Assuming this is the case we would then fix it. If it were not the case and was found to be misuse / wear and tear we can't intervene at that point.

themadhair

Currys: Declan wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't understand how the bolded portion contradicts the point I made. In this case the claimant said he would invalidate the warranty if he opened the product. We have no such provision and this thread is only referring to out of warranty products in any case.

Are you joking? The entire reason this thread exists, as you can see clearly from the OP, is to question this comment you made:
""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.""

The bold flat out contradicts that.

Currys PC World: Declan

themadhair wrote: »

Are you joking? The entire reason this thread exists, as you can see clearly from the OP, is to question this comment you made:
""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.""

The bold flat out contradicts that.

Maybe it might help if you outlined a hypothetical example of an out of warranty TV fault and what you think we should do, as I'm still at a bit of a loss.

Boggles

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Great. A practical example. How this would work with us is quite straightforward. The product is indeed out of warranty and we would need to see that it has ceased to function as a consequence of component failure / manufacturing fault rather than misuse / wear and tear. It is just as likely to be the former as than the latter given that this product has been in use for 19 months. We would require the owner to commission an independent engineer's report, which we would reimburse once we see that the problem is component / manufacturing. Assuming this is the case we would then fix it. If it were not the case and was found to be misuse / wear and tear we can't intervene at that point.

Really?

What happened in the real life example I provided on this thread so?

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.

Also in the recent example I gave you the OP contacted the NCA and received this response.

Oirish31 wrote: »

Small update.

No movement from Tesco on this. Or rather there has been a change in the stores response. They have gone from "out of warranty, sorry" to "Nothing to do with us, wait and see what the OTM dept decides"

I contacted the consumer agency again to check about the engineer and they have agreed that if Tesco want an engineer to look at it then they pay for it.

I have issued a formal letter addressed to the store manager today, sent by registered mail giving him 10 working days to respond.

Nothing about commissioning his own engineer and or seeking refund for the engineers report if the fault was actually there at time of purchase, it would striker me as odd that they wouldn't at least have mentioned this. No?

3 days later

Oirish31 wrote: »

Final update.

Tesco contacted me today and offered to replace the television with one of the same model. I was more than happy to do that so all has been resolved.

Thank you all for your advice.

I know your not affilated with Tesco and as such can't speak for them, but why would they replace the television without question for a finish if they were not legally required to do so.

Also I can't find anything in Irish consumer law where it states a fault has to be inherent, I have written to the NCA and hopefully one way or another they can answer it.

foggy_lad

Currys: Declan wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't understand how the bolded portion contradicts the point I made. In this case the claimant said he would invalidate the warranty if he opened the product. We have no such provision and this thread is only referring to out of warranty products in any case.

Can you put your manufacturers warrentys aside please and concentrate on the sale of goods act and the protections it offers consumers in Ireland?

The warrentys you keep mentioning are worthless and irrelevant to irish consumers who wish to deal with Currys.

If i buy a television for €1000 my contract of sale is with Currys, not any manufacturer! If the tv stops working after 11 months or even 36 months I can bring it back to the Currys store it was bought, But I just know the staff will tell me they dont repair the televisions they sell and I must contact the manufacturer. But as my contract is with Currys i can refuse to deal with any third party.

In that situation i would see Currys having an obligation to provide after sales care by taking the television back from me for free repair or replacement and any responsibility of returning it to manufacturer lies with Currys.

They could also provide the obligatory care by arranging a repair service to examine the set free(no call out charge as is the case with washing machine repairs) in my home and forward their report to Currys. If the repair person claims a fault then Currys could have the tv repaired free or at a charge if customer damaged.

foggy_lad

Currys: Declan wrote: »

Great. A practical example. How this would work with us is quite straightforward. The product is indeed out of warranty and we would need to see that it has ceased to function as a consequence of component failure / manufacturing fault rather than misuse / wear and tear. It is just as likely to be the former as than the latter given that this product has been in use for 19 months. We would require the owner to commission an independent engineer's report, which we would reimburse once we see that the problem is component / manufacturing. Assuming this is the case we would then fix it. If it were not the case and was found to be misuse / wear and tear we can't intervene at that point.

It is unreasonable on the common consumer to expect them to have to commission engineer reports on common household products!

Smyths toys tried this very same stunt when trying to get out of repairing or replacing Playstations that were faulty but afaik they were shot down in the small claims court by many people including a few on these forums.