Thanks for the reply Hogan - that may be something I have to look in to!
Well, I finally got a reply from my letter in the form of a quick phone call. A copy of my letter is as follows:
Quote:
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Sony PRS -600 Touch Reader repair
I returned the above reader on Friday 12th February 2010 with a faulty screen. After providing proof of purchase I was told by Christine from Sony Central Service that my reader would be repaired under warranty with no cost from myself. However, a day later I received a letter stating the repair cost would be £216.82 as the engineer now deemed the unit to be damaged.
I contacted Sony Central Service immediately and spoke to Christine, who advised me that the warranty does not cover damage, only mechanical failure and yet she was unable to distinguish between the two definitions and eventually implied that I had caused the damage by physical impact. I was given the number to contact to escalate the matter: 08705111999.
I phoned this number and spoke to Michael, who claimed to be a supervisor. Michael contacted the engineer who examined the device and ascertained that there was damage to the sub-screen of the reader. The engineer did not know how this damage came about, so denied the warranty repair. Michael again implied physical impact, despite the unit suffering no scratches or evidence of impact. His final argument was that the unit can be dropped hard enough to shatter the internals of the device, yet not hard enough to cause any blemishes to the externals – I would imagine this feat requires a margin of error with an accuracy far beyond human action.
Michael also advised that unless I could prove beyond a doubt that I never damaged the reader, then the repair would not be under warranty. I suspect that it would be impossible to prove such a thing, and worry about the implications of this approach as this concept could be applied to deny all warranty claims.
On 25th February 2010 I contacted Trading Standards, Liverpool, and explained my situation at length. I was advised by them that under the Sales of Goods Act 1979, any appliance which develops a fault within the first 6 months of purchase can be deemed to be faulty before said purchasing. Furthermore, if Sony cannot prove unconditionally that it was I that caused the damage to the reader (via blemishes, evidence of bad treatment etc) then the reverse Burden of Proof lies with them. This is the polar opposite of what I was advised by Michael.
I therefore ask politely for categorical proof that I caused damage to the unit, and if proof cannot be produced I request that the unit be repaired and sent back to me. I am made aware of the fact that all calls are recorded and invite you to listen to these recordings if any facts in this letter are in dispute by any parties mentioned.
|
When I was called earlier today by Michael I was simply told that since it was deemed accidental damage then they wouldn't cover it, and I should phone Sony central service again. Seems I'm simply being bounced around different departments - I quoted the letter stating that by law they must prove I caused the damage, but their reply was still that I must prove I never damaged it!
My '505 will be here tomorrow anyway!