Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

Forums › Off topic › Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

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

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#433627 1-Feb-2011 12:03

A retailer is not expected to take every customer through a clause by clause reading of each and every warranty, that is pure nonsense and I am sure you as a shopper would become extremely irritated by the lines down the street when shopping just to buy a AAA battery.

There is onus on the buyer as party in the transaction to appraise themselves of the terms as long as the retailer has taken reasonable steps. Signs in the shop is reasonable steps and most products advise purchasers to read the warranty conditions.

Chainsaw

357 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433632 1-Feb-2011 12:13

BrentR:In regards to the device "Not being fit for the purpose it was sold for" if this was the case then I would expect a large amount more of the handsets coming through as they're all manufactured the same way as other 3120c handsets and go through the same stringent testing.

Just because most don't fail doesn't mean it's not a manufacturing fault. Even on the same production line in the same batch one item can be defective while the rest aren't.

BrentR

1315 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#433639 1-Feb-2011 12:26

I've sent BiDi a PM in regards to getting the handset sent directly to Nokia Care in Christchurch.

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433650 1-Feb-2011 12:49

KiwiNZ: A retailer is not expected to take every customer through a clause by clause reading of each and every warranty, that is pure nonsense

You may have missed my first point in my post at 433530. A retailer does not have to go through every clause because the CGA applies over the warranty. The warranty is essentially redundant - unless it is over and above the CGA (like a 5 year warranty on something we might expect to last two years) or there is a contract outside the CGA (like charging a fee to get something checked for repair).

and I am sure you as a shopper would become extremely irritated by the lines down the street when shopping just to buy a AAA battery.

No frustration - all the consumer needs to understadn is teh basic rights under teh CGA. Teh CGA does away with complex and many clauses so no lines ate the check out.

There is onus on the buyer as party in the transaction to appraise themselves of the terms as long as the retailer has taken reasonable steps. Signs in the shop is reasonable steps and most products advise purchasers to read the warranty conditions.

There is also an onus on retail to make sure their staff are properly trained. A basic understanding of the product/s, the CGA and Fair Trading would be a minimum. That of course would lead to the abandonment of selling extended warranties and better disclosure around offering 5 year interest free terms.

I agree, signs in a store would be a good start - how many $50 repair signs do you see at the checkouts or display stands at DSE and HN. I'd hazard a guess that the answer is none.

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#433652 1-Feb-2011 12:52

BrentR: I've sent BiDi a PM in regards to getting the handset sent directly to Nokia Care in Christchurch.

Much appreciated. I will be following up on this offer.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#433678 1-Feb-2011 13:38

minimoke:

You may have missed my first point in my post at 433530. A retailer does not have to go through every clause because the CGA applies over the warranty. The warranty is essentially redundant - unless it is over and above the CGA (like a 5 year warranty on something we might expect to last two years) or there is a contract outside the CGA (like charging a fee to get something checked for repair).

Extended warranties are still valid for business purchases, but I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to be sold for personal purchases, unless they offer extra protection over the CGA.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#433680 1-Feb-2011 13:42

mattwnz:
minimoke:

You may have missed my first point in my post at 433530. A retailer does not have to go through every clause because the CGA applies over the warranty. The warranty is essentially redundant - unless it is over and above the CGA (like a 5 year warranty on something we might expect to last two years) or there is a contract outside the CGA (like charging a fee to get something checked for repair).

Extended warranties are still valid for business purchases, but I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to be sold for personal purchases, unless they offer extra protection over the CGA.

They often do, in the form of "hassle-free replacement" cover. You know, where they look at it, say "buggrit", and just give you a new one? I've had that once with a laptop under an extended warranty.

Samsung

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

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433721 1-Feb-2011 15:28

They often do, in the form of "hassle-free replacement" cover. You know, where they look at it, say "buggrit", and just give you a new one? I've had that once with a laptop under an extended warranty.

ROFL: "hassle free replacement cover". You already get that with the CGA. The retailer is supposed to repair, replace or refund. How much more hassle free can you get than that.

The "Hassle free cover" is actually a promise to not make your life difficult like retailers do with their pleb customers who won't stump up with the extra cash.

That might seem an outlandish statement but manufactures and importers are required, under the CGA to have reasonable spare parts and repair facilities available for a reasonable time - unless the consumer is otherwise told. That should mean quick repairs - none of this dicking around you'll so often experience. A repair should already be hassle free. The only reason it isn't is because the retailers and their suppliers choose to make life difficult for the consumer. When you make life difficult the "Extended Cover" looks like a really good option.

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#433744 1-Feb-2011 16:01

minimoke: When you make life difficult the "Extended Cover" looks like a really good option.

In my experience (not specific to the Nokia phone being discussed), a retailer will try to sell the extended cover by warning the customer that CGA is a hard row to hoe. In my experience (specific to the Nokia phone being discussed), a retailer can make things difficult when you try to make a CGA request. Hence, the sales pitch can become self-fulfilling.

Why isn't retailer behaviour of this kind discouraged more actively? Why, in this case, does HN feel able to dig in its heals and demand $50, even when showed the Consumer Affairs website reference?

On my first visit to the store, Ben told me that the Disputes Tribunal route was likely to cost us more than $300. The fee turns out that to be a bit over $30, if I understand correctly. So, was he trying to make me think that there was too much at stake? It certainly felt like it.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#433751 1-Feb-2011 16:11

Disputes Tribunal is a wonderful vehicle. I've used it once and we won half the case. I ended up with $350 dollars that I would have been without if I'd just given up. I missed out on $350 which in my view should have been paid to me, but it's still better than nothing.

To answer your question about retailers, it's simply... not enough people are complaining. Have you called the consumers department and explained you're having problems and asked for advice?

I'm sure they won't tell you much that you don't already know at this stage, but your call gets counted and the more calls they get the more action you see happen.

As for Ben, well 'shame on you...", but I'm sure he's doing his job as well. I'm sure every warranty claim gets recorded there as well and the more they off set the less costs, more profit and higher his bonus is. That's fair.

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#433755 1-Feb-2011 16:22

BiDi:

On my first visit to the store, Ben told me that the Disputes Tribunal route was likely to cost us more than $300. The fee turns out that to be a bit over $30, if I understand correctly. So, was he trying to make me think that there was too much at stake? It certainly felt like it.

If a shop tells you any incorrect or misleading information regrading the CGA, you should contact the ministry about it. They should be trained in the CGA, seeing they deal with it everyday when selling stuff.

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#433757 1-Feb-2011 16:23

DonGould: Have you called the consumers department and explained you're having problems and asked for advice?

I'm sure they won't tell you much that you don't already know at this stage, but your call gets counted and the more calls they get the more action you see happen.

I have not called, but I have always intended to contact them at some stage and still do. I expected to contact them when I write my first letter (I feel that coming on).

DonGould: As for Ben, well 'shame on you...", but I'm sure he's doing his job as well. I'm sure every warranty claim gets recorded there as well and the more they off set the less costs, more profit and higher his bonus is. That's fair.

I don't want to make Ben out to be a villain. That's partly why I didn't mention his comment before, it seemed off-topic initially. I am mentioning it now because the discussion had shifted slightly.

My point is that the store tried to make us see the CGA option as being too difficult in this case. I see it as a symptom of the retailer's attitude, that's all.

There is another big question lurking here. Which are the 'good' retailers? Where should we go for our next purchase?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#433773 1-Feb-2011 16:34

Why do they insist on $50 simple dishonest customers. It cost to check to see if a fault meets warranty conditions.

I have received phones that are not working, the outside is very clean ,

I have asked the customer was the phone dropped? response no
Was the phone exposed to moisture ? response no

We take the phone the customer goes away and we commence our diagnosis. We dismantel the phone and discover
traces of mud and silt inside the phone...... Moisture damage.

We call the customer and the are still adamant that they have never dropped the phone in any water. The man hours
has already cost way more than the $50.

When you have seen many hundreds of non functioning cellphones you hear all the excuses under the sun.

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433775 1-Feb-2011 16:34

a retailer can make things difficult when you try to make a CGA request. Hence, the sales pitch can become self-fulfilling.

Once upon a time I bought an HP laptop with a Microsoft OS from Noel Leeming which did not work. After many visits to the repair shop and numerous phone conversations and being shifted from pillar to post I wasn't making any progress.

One day my tolerance snapped and I sent an email to the Noel Leeming Branch manager saying that if they did not resolve my problem by 12 noon that day I would be going to the Disputes Tribunal and lodging a claim against NL, MS and HP and would be CC'ing the NZ Managers as the parties to the dispute.

At 1.00pm I walked out of NL with a brand new lap top. If they tried calling my bluff that would have been $30 and a bit of time well spent on my part.

My life lesson there was to give the retailer one chance to fix the problem. If they didn't then I'm straight off to the Disputes Tribunal. When i have a problem I make the shop assistant aware of that.

Big Box retailers, in general employ minimum wagers who don't know (or choose to ignore) a consumers rights and are told to tow the morally reprehensible company line (sell extended warranties, interest free, insurance and no returns without a deposit). I largely blame the consumer for that since the consumer demands low price (so service has to be sacrificed), is generally ignorant of their rights and fails to complain when there are reasonable grounds to do so.

We reap what we sow.

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433781 1-Feb-2011 16:47

KiwiNZ: Why do they insist on $50 simple dishonest customers.

That is a lazy cop out. For some dishonest customers everyone has to pay - go figure!

If a supplier / repairer chooses not to charge a retailer for their time why does this become the consumers problem?

Stores already build dishonesty into their margins and this is no different.

The reason we have this ludicrous process is because the stores ultimate aim is to flog off extended warranties.

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