CGA Part Deux

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › CGA Part Deux

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

2983 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 135

ID Verified

#623130 10-May-2012 19:23

mattwnz: I suspect many people don't know their rights when it comes to this.

yup that is why i think retailers resist CGA, bc most people will give up or not bother trying or are ill informed.

HTPC / Home automation (home assistant) enthusiast.

kiwijunglist

2983 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 135

ID Verified

#623135 10-May-2012 19:27

thecripplernz: Late call...

They are apparently more likely to use a sliding scale based on how much use you have had out of
said TV and offer some money, like $1000 provided you put in another $500 for a replacement.

Apparently the tribunal would rule the same way. The Manager apparently sat in on a tribunal hearing the other day and they ruled that way over a similar TV, that was 5 years old....... Seems like a reasonable guy, but grain of salt stuff

That sounds a bit iffy to me. But if TV was 5 years old and they paying 2/3rd of cost for a newer model (that old one wouldn't have freeview, doesn't sound too bad, as the alternative they suggest might be getting a 2nd hand TV with no freeview. However the new TV wouldn't come with warranty as it would be considered 5 yr of age straight of the bat.

The CGA says replacement / refund / repair , NOT discount. So I'm guessing based on what I have read that the other person just accepted the discount as a remedy, but probably didn't absolutely have to. I'd accept it too probably, just to get it over and done with.

HTPC / Home automation (home assistant) enthusiast.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#623278 10-May-2012 22:52

thecripplernz: Late call...

But, all the info has now made its way across the Tasman for someone to maybe make a decision.
Toshiba wanted my details and what I expect out of the situation. (Replacement TV would be good)

But apparently even that isn't as likely as you may think.

They are apparently more likely to use a sliding scale based on how much use you have had out of
said TV and offer some money, like $1000 provided you put in another $500 for a replacement.

Apparently the tribunal would rule the same way. The Manager apparently sat in on a tribunal hearing the other day and they ruled that way over a similar TV, that was 5 years old....... Seems like a reasonable guy, but grain of salt stuff

So basically if you didn't have any money to kick in for another TV, your 42 inch could soon become a 26 inch.

I don't think that is correct. If the fault is substantial, then it is your choice on the remedy. What you are talking about is what some insurance companies do, where they take the age into account and provide you with a prorata refund, but many have a new for old policy. But show me where in the CGA it states that sort of thing. It is possible that if it went to thr disputes tribunal, the adjudicator may do that, but then again they may not, it is hit and miss, and depends who you get and how good the case is on both sides. But then again tvs have decreased in price over 5 years, so you should get a higher spec tv for half the price anyway. You just want to be in the 'same' position you would be, if it hadn't failed. Not a better or worse position.

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#623281 10-May-2012 22:54

That's exactly right.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#623314 10-May-2012 23:56

I had an LCD TV that was 3 years old fail last year. I took it back to DSE and asked for a repair under the CGA, and they obliged.

They sent the TV away to their service agent (Hanlon's Tisco) who had it for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks they called me saying they had been trying to replicate the fault but couldn't. I accepted the fault may have gone away, and even paid their ~$90 'no fault' TV and they returned it to me.

The fault (which was intermittent) was still present, so I took the panel back into the store and asked for a refund. Because I had already given them a chance to repair it and they failed to, my interpretation of the law was I had the right to reject the goods. DSE of course disagreed, and having now verified the fault they said they had to negotiate with the manufacturer (Sony).

I of course told them no deal, CGA is between me and them etc. They weren't playing ball so I gave them a deadline of a week or so to refund me or I would file a claim with the CGA. They called me about 3 minutes before the deadline to say they had decided to try and repair the panel, but parts were going to take a while. Again I said no deal, so paperwork was filed with the DT.

They continued to stall and claim it was their choice to repair and I had to wait for the parts. By this stage they had had my TV for another month. My CGA claim was also for the $90something dollars I had to pay to get the panel back the first time.

It took a couple of weeks for the paperwork to arrive from the DT, but funnily enough, they rang me the same day it arrived to say that, as it turns out, the fault with my panel was a known fault with the model and it should have been replaced immediately.

They offered me a brand new panel, which was a higher spec than the one it was replacing so I accepted and withdrew the claim. They also refunded my $90something dollars.

In the end it was an OK result, but I was TV-less for 2.5+ months during the process and wasted hours and hours of my time. It was fairly obvious they were stalling and made continued misleading statements about my rights under the CGA to try and get me to drop it. I came close a couple of times because it was just so much effort to get them to comply - and sadly this seems to be the usual strategy.

Retailers might make low margins on these kinda things, but the law is there and if they don't like it, maybe they should sell something else or source better quality products.

Twitter: ajobbins

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#623316 11-May-2012 00:10

ajobbins: I had an LCD TV that was 3 years old fail last year. I took it back to DSE and asked for a repair under the CGA, and they obliged.

I have found the Ozzie branded retailers the most difficult to deal with when it comes to after sales service.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#623317 11-May-2012 00:12

mattwnz:
ajobbins: I had an LCD TV that was 3 years old fail last year. I took it back to DSE and asked for a repair under the CGA, and they obliged.

I have found the Ozzie branded retailers the most difficult to deal with when it comes to after sales service.

So then 'Good Guys' is a no go. Gotcha

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#623320 11-May-2012 00:19

ajobbins: I had an LCD TV that was 3 years old fail last year. I took it back to DSE and asked for a repair under the CGA, and they obliged.

They sent the TV away to their service agent (Hanlon's Tisco) who had it for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks they called me saying they had been trying to replicate the fault but couldn't. I accepted the fault may have gone away, and even paid their ~$90 'no fault' TV and they returned it to me.

The fault (which was intermittent) was still present, so I took the panel back into the store and asked for a refund. Because I had already given them a chance to repair it and they failed to, my interpretation of the law was I had the right to reject the goods. DSE of course disagreed, and having now verified the fault they said they had to negotiate with the manufacturer (Sony).

I of course told them no deal, CGA is between me and them etc. They weren't playing ball so I gave them a deadline of a week or so to refund me or I would file a claim with the CGA. They called me about 3 minutes before the deadline to say they had decided to try and repair the panel, but parts were going to take a while. Again I said no deal, so paperwork was filed with the DT.

They continued to stall and claim it was their choice to repair and I had to wait for the parts. By this stage they had had my TV for another month. My CGA claim was also for the $90something dollars I had to pay to get the panel back the first time.

It took a couple of weeks for the paperwork to arrive from the DT, but funnily enough, they rang me the same day it arrived to say that, as it turns out, the fault with my panel was a known fault with the model and it should have been replaced immediately.

They offered me a brand new panel, which was a higher spec than the one it was replacing so I accepted and withdrew the claim. They also refunded my $90something dollars.

In the end it was an OK result, but I was TV-less for 2.5+ months during the process and wasted hours and hours of my time. It was fairly obvious they were stalling and made continued misleading statements about my rights under the CGA to try and get me to drop it. I came close a couple of times because it was just so much effort to get them to comply - and sadly this seems to be the usual strategy.

Retailers might make low margins on these kinda things, but the law is there and if they don't like it, maybe they should sell something else or source better quality products.

I agree, I have been mislead of my consumer rights by every person I have spoken to. Pretty sure it's a breach of the fair trading act?

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#623361 11-May-2012 08:54

I think its their way of disuading people from relying on the CGA and "forcing" people into taking the extended warranties.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218

Trusted

#623363 11-May-2012 08:56

kiwijunglist:
thecripplernz: Late call...

They are apparently more likely to use a sliding scale based on how much use you have had out of
said TV and offer some money, like $1000 provided you put in another $500 for a replacement.

Apparently the tribunal would rule the same way. The Manager apparently sat in on a tribunal hearing the other day and they ruled that way over a similar TV, that was 5 years old....... Seems like a reasonable guy, but grain of salt stuff

That sounds a bit iffy to me. But if TV was 5 years old and they paying 2/3rd of cost for a newer model (that old one wouldn't have freeview, doesn't sound too bad, as the alternative they suggest might be getting a 2nd hand TV with no freeview. However the new TV wouldn't come with warranty as it would be considered 5 yr of age straight of the bat.

The CGA says replacement / refund / repair , NOT discount. So I'm guessing based on what I have read that the other person just accepted the discount as a remedy, but probably didn't absolutely have to. I'd accept it too probably, just to get it over and done with.

The consumer website is a good source for some of the most common questions. In response to your point that the TV would not come with warranty it still is fully covered by the CGA - so you can expect the replacement to last the appropriate length of time. This from consumer.org.nz;

Guarantees on replacement models
When a faulty product is replaced, any manufacturer's warranty on the product usually runs only from the original purchase date.

So, if a six month old washing machine is replaced because it is faulty, and there was originally a 12 month manufacturer's warranty on it, then this warranty will have six months to run on the new machine.

However, the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to the replacement, so you will still have all the rights you're entitled to when buying a brand new machine.

If I had to pay a portion of the cost to upgrade the TV then that I would consider that to be a new sale with full warranty.

The refund can be a sliding scale of how much you got out of the product against how long it should last. For exampleYou bought something for $2000, it should last 8 years but only lasts 4. You got 4 years trouble free use so your refund would probably be $1000. There have been a couple of rulings like this. See this stuff article;http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/6816866/An-end-to-extended-warranties - scroll to the bottom.

EDIT:formatting

Procrastination eventually pays off.

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#623378 11-May-2012 09:18

Read the article. It probably didn't help that the person bought a new fridge before gettin it sorted.
Although I'm aware you can't go without a working fridge for more than a day or so

That draft law sounds interesting

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#623537 11-May-2012 13:49

thecripplernz: Read the article. It probably didn't help that the person bought a new fridge before gettin it sorted.
Although I'm aware you can't go without a working fridge for more than a day or so

That draft law sounds interesting

I think the sliding scale thing is not a good idea, because how does anyone actually know what an expected life for a product should be, unless a manufacturer states it. Perhaps that is something manufacturers need to provide to the consumer in the litrature . Eg in the consumer mag they had 'expected' lives of average products, and for a fridge I think from memory it was 12-15 years. In that article it seemed that their interpretation was only 10 years. However if you buy some expensive european fridge, that costs 5 times as much as an average fridge, you would expect it to have a loner life, especially as the CGAs interpretation of 'reasonable life' is based on the value of it. eg a higher value device should last longer.
Although some things do go down in price, some things also go up over time

illicit

553 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 15

#623865 12-May-2012 01:27

Its like I never posted...

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#624989 14-May-2012 17:27

The retailer has put me in direct contact with Toshiba now, and they have made me an offer of $500 as a depreciated value...
If I took the offer I would be in a far worse position.

So I declined it. awaiting reply

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#624992 14-May-2012 17:34

thecripplernz: The retailer has put me in direct contact with Toshiba now, and they have made me an offer of $500 as a depreciated value...
If I took the offer I would be in a far worse position.

So I declined it. awaiting reply

$500, you can't buy a replacement for that can you, to the same specs? Are they aware of the CGA?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9