Can any help? - On Friday 17 August I purchased a new digital video recorder (model PVR 9300T / Serial number PVR 7105554) from the Comet electrical good retailer, located at 2 Woodside Avenue, Eastleigh Hampshire (17 miles away). Order Number 791-2063937 / Transaction number 02-9248 refers. On my return home that day I diligently followed the manufacturers instructions, but found that despite my fully functioning TV set being modern and capable of being connected to the recorder, it persistently failed to work when done so. I telephoned the number supplied by Comet for customer help and despite a lengthy series of attempts via telephone, guided by a technician to try and make it work, it failed to do so (call reference 7058236).
On Sunday 19 August I therefore returned the recorder, in its original packaging and with receipt, to the above store who sold it to me (indeed, the same assistant to start with), wishing only to exercise my rights as out in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, since the device did not appear to be of satisfactory quality and therefore did not conform to the contract when purchased. Providing I could demonstrate in the store that the recorder was faulty, I either wanted a refund, or an identical replacement device.
However, despite two assistants failing to make this recorder work satisfactorily in the store when connected to brand new TV (exhibiting the same faults), I was told, in no uncertain terms, by the assistant manager Mr Steve Brisom (and a less than friendly group of assistants who had gathered) that:
(A) the problem can only be resolved by the manufacturer (HUMA - who could not be contacted) and not the seller.
(B) Despite demonstrating the defective item to several staff, I was not entitled to either a refund or replacement product since it was not possible to contact the manufacturer.
(C) The manufacture might (?) decide to repair the item (despite my insistence that I did not want it repaired, preferring to exercise my right for a replacement or money back) and this decision was nothing to do with me.
(D) It was up to me, not them, to contact the manufacturer, but 'as a favour' to me they would do so the next day.
(E) That I did not understand the Sale of Goods legislation, which inter alia, he said absolved them of restorability, in favour of the manufacturer.
I therefore believe that I have been the victim of several flagrant breaches of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (I did point this out repeadtly) and morover, a victim of at least one significant breach of the Unfair Trading Regulations insofar I was deliberatly misled about my rights. These being criminal offences. I have no intention of letting this matter remain unresolved as I have experienced both inconvenience as well as embarrassment during this process, through no fault of my own. The defective recorder is presently with Comet.
Yours faithfully
Peter Powe
0 comments