Disaster totally gutted

[Riocaz]

With the EU it can be a bit odd... While the laws are drafted by the EU the individual countries then have to enact the laws themselves which can lead to some drift in the exact wording and timing.

But essentially if it's an EU directive then it's EU wide. (sort-of... eventually... :-))

[TetraKM]

Erm - Just to put my pennies worth in Sony has only had them on sale for under a year in the UK - And Waterstones had them first. Go in and speak to the person who served you - if they are not there describe that person to another colleague. I agree don't give up. LCD are called LCD's because that is the acronym for the screen make up - this screen uses e-ink very different procedure. Very easy to tell the different as one is black and grey/white and the other is colour - where did they send this to get repaired?

If in doubt ring the freephone number for your waterstones card - as surely you added the points to it when you bought the reader

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Maybe in Sweden ... but that's definitely not universally true. Or, is that the case in the entire E.U.??

Yes, it is an EU rule.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, it is an EU rule.

With respect, Tommy, the law is implemented differently across the EU. In the UK, for example, I'm pretty sure that the retailer is only "responsible" for the product for 30 days after purchase. After that, the retailer is perfectly within their rights to tell the customer that they need to contact the manufacturer.

[gwynevans]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the UK, for example, I'm pretty sure that the retailer is only "responsible" for the product for 30 days after purchase. After that, the retailer is perfectly within their rights to tell the customer that they need to contact the manufacturer.

While not disagreeing with your main point, unless I'm missing something, this part is incorrect and it's still "within a reasonable time" where that's specifically not defined and will depend on circumstances. See the link in my earlier post, which links to the "Sale of Goods Act Fact Sheet" page on the "Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform" website.

[HarryT]

Thank you for the correction, Gwyn. As you say, though, the point is that it's not "mandated" to be six months; I think that most retailers would consider that to be rather more than "reasonable" .

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thank you for the correction, Gwyn. As you say, though, the point is that it's not "mandated" to be six months; I think that most retailers would consider that to be rather more than "reasonable" .

The point was that 6 months is the limit for when the burden of proof changes. I did not think EU regulations specified when it was not allowed to refer you to the manufacturer. I know that in Sweden they can refer you to the manufacturer if that does not cause extra cost or problems for the customer.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by gwynevans

While not disagreeing with your main point, unless I'm missing something, this part is incorrect and it's still "within a reasonable time" where that's specifically not defined and will depend on circumstances. See the link in my earlier post, which links to the "Sale of Goods Act Fact Sheet" page on the "Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform" website.

So if you look at

http://www.consumeradvice.net/pages/consumer.htm

it says

These new Regulations, which transpose the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees Directive (1999/44/EC) into UK legislation, will come into force on 31 March 2003.

On the face of it they will be a valuable addition to UK consumer rights giving new rights to replacement, repair, a reversed burden of proof, and enforceable guarantees.

Do you mean that the claim here that it was implemented in UK law 2003 is wrong?

[Riocaz]

If an item has a fault that was present at the time of sale, the consumer can seek redress once it is discovered.
However consumers cannot expect a legal remedy in respect of:

* misuse or accidental damage; or

They could argue accidental damage (in fact I suspect that exactly what Sony are claiming.

Who bears the burden of proof? The retailer does as it's within 6 months. However the consumer says it worked fine for a week.

It doesn't _sound_ like a broken substrate though (when have we seen a substrate that damaged only one corner. Everyone we have seen images of have been the entire screen.

But obviously without seeing it it's hard to be sure. But it sounds like the screen controller. Which would also match the timeframe (anyone else remember when it was recommended to leave a new computer plugged in for several hours on first use in case it burnt out?

[rtf1976]

If I had damaged it in anyway I would have just taken it on the chin and got it repaired or replaced but what narks me is that it was left on a stand overnight and not touched but yet Sony say it has been damaged. What gets me is that Sony want £27 for an engineer to look at it and then they will advise me of cost of repair. So If an engineer has not looked at it how can they say I have damaged it. Sony must be the only company that does not have any defective manufacturing procedures

What should I do? Just get it back from Sony and return to retailer or just claim on my house insurance under accidental damage even though no accident occurred?

[Patricia]

well, I wouldn't have sent it to Sony because your legal rights are against the retailer. Why not phone your local Citizens' Advice Bureau or your local Trading Standards Bureau for free advice?
there are some UK consumer resources listed here:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_res...nsumer_advice/

[Croker]

There's some contradictory and flat out wrong information in this thread about the situation in the UK, so here are the key points you need to know:

- Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

- Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

- Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

- It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

- If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

- For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

In short, if I buy a £10 toaster, and it breaks after 4 years, trying to force the retailer to replace or repair it would be seen as a ridiculous request, because that's a reasonable length of time for a £10 toaster to last.

However, what of a £220 piece of electronics hardware? Well, I think it could easily be argued that it would reasonable for such an item to last a period of years. If said item breaks within a week of purchase, then it is the retailer's responsibility to repair or replace it.

It would also be the responsibility of the retailer to prove that the item was not inherently faulty as it less than 6 months old. It's not for you to prove that. All you need to do is assert that the item is broken, nothing more than that.

This link explains it all clearly, anyway.

If you'd like to discuss this further, please drop me a line. As I said earlier in this thread, I had to fight Argos for similar reasons last year, and I won that one. Your case is even better than mine was, too!

Best of luck!

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Croker

It would also be the responsibility of the retailer to prove that the item was not inherently faulty as it less than 6 months old. It's not for you to prove that. All you need to do is assert that the item is broken, nothing more than that.

Ok, so let's pretend I live in the UK.

I buy a mirror.

I bring it back 3 weeks later and say it is broken now so I want it replaced.
I would of course say that I "did nothing to break it".

Are you going to say that I am entitled to that? Or is it entirely reasonable that glass can break?

BOb

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I bring it back 3 weeks later and say it is broken now so I want it replaced.
I would of course say that I "did nothing to break it".

Are you going to say that I am entitled to that? Or is it entirely reasonable that glass can break?

Well, most people do not lie. But what is your point? From the linked document:

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.

In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.

This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, most people do not lie. But what is your point? From the linked document:

My "point" is that a cracked glass screen on a portable device is most probably NOT a manufacturing fault or defect. So, even if it is the retailer responsibility to deal with issues for a "reasonable time".. that doesn't make a broken piece of glass a warranted item.

Even if it is, it would be very hard to prove this is so and would probably take a class action lawsuit to resolve.

BOb