I bought a PVR/DTR box a couple of years ago from a major high street 
retailer. While it was a boon to have, it had the odd annoying 'feature' 
that we gradually realised were bugs; not major ones though so we carried on 
regardless. After less than 6 months, some other bugs appeared, and more 
still... until shortly before the first year was up when I found my 'safely' 
stored receipt again, I decided it wasn't good enough - so I took it back to 
the store.

The store provided a refund, but I can't recall whether this was just an 
administrative step towards buying a replacement. That is, did I get a 
refund and choose to buy a replacement, or did they offer a replacement and 
just processed it in this way? I don't recall and it probably doesn't 
matter. Either way, I paid a little extra to get the next version up from 
the same manufacturer.

Within a couple of weeks, it appeared that some of previously-observed bugs 
were present; a bit of research revealed that this range were susceptable to 
these bugs - in fact they were quite prevalent. So I took the unit it back, 
and chose a 'better' unit from a 'better' manufacturer which inevitably cost 
a few quid more. Unfortunately, I then realised that in essence, the stores 
entire range of PVRs were based on the same internal hardware and software. 
I bought Thomson and Wharfedale products which I think were eseentially 
re-badged Digihome products.

This latest unit seemed to work ok though. After a while we noticed minor 
problems (failed recordings mainly, but sometimes the unit needed to 
resetting), but largely it was bearable.

I'm now nearly another year on, and I decided that I wasn't actually happy 
putting up with these problems although they are generally very minor. In 
addition, we've had a few additional problems that may simply be one-offs 
and I can't categorically prove they were definitely due to the box, but the 
suspicion is there.

From past experience, I'd learned to guard the receipt, but I made the 
mistake of putting the box and the receipt back inside the original bag. 
However, my wife seems to have thrown the 'unnecessary' bag, albeit keeping 
the box - so I'm without receipt.

Under SoGA, I might have a case for redress, even if the unit is beyond it's 
one year warranty period. But how does the loss of the receipt affect me? I 
might should be able to dig up a bank statement showing an appropriate 
purchase amount around that time.

What would be the expected life of a PVR box - I would assume a minimum of 3 
years(?).

Given my history with these devices (which are essentially re-badged 
clones), and given their reputation elsewhere, is there any case for a 
refund rather than a replacement? I really don't want one of these devices 
again - I was originally limited in choice because I was using the Top-Up TV 
option, but I'm not now, and I would rather buy a better brand.

Basically, what can I reasonably expect to achieve, and how do I go about 
it?

-- 
Peter Crosland
"CJM"  wrote in message 
news:7lafceF3cvs81U1@mid.individual.net...
>I bought a PVR/DTR box a couple of years ago from a major high street 
>retailer. While it was a boon to have, it had the odd annoying 'feature' 
>that we gradually realised were bugs; not major ones though so we carried 
>on regardless. After less than 6 months, some other bugs appeared, and more 
>still... until shortly before the first year was up when I found my 
>'safely' stored receipt again, I decided it wasn't good enough - so I took 
>it back to the store.
>
> The store provided a refund, but I can't recall whether this was just an 
> administrative step towards buying a replacement. That is, did I get a 
> refund and choose to buy a replacement, or did they offer a replacement 
> and just processed it in this way? I don't recall and it probably doesn't 
> matter. Either way, I paid a little extra to get the next version up from 
> the same manufacturer.
>
> Within a couple of weeks, it appeared that some of previously-observed 
> bugs were present; a bit of research revealed that this range were 
> susceptable to these bugs - in fact they were quite prevalent. So I took 
> the unit it back, and chose a 'better' unit from a 'better' manufacturer 
> which inevitably cost a few quid more. Unfortunately, I then realised that 
> in essence, the stores entire range of PVRs were based on the same 
> internal hardware and software. I bought Thomson and Wharfedale products 
> which I think were eseentially re-badged Digihome products.
>
> This latest unit seemed to work ok though. After a while we noticed minor 
> problems (failed recordings mainly, but sometimes the unit needed to 
> resetting), but largely it was bearable.
>
> I'm now nearly another year on, and I decided that I wasn't actually happy 
> putting up with these problems although they are generally very minor. In 
> addition, we've had a few additional problems that may simply be one-offs 
> and I can't categorically prove they were definitely due to the box, but 
> the suspicion is there.
>
> From past experience, I'd learned to guard the receipt, but I made the 
> mistake of putting the box and the receipt back inside the original bag. 
> However, my wife seems to have thrown the 'unnecessary' bag, albeit 
> keeping the box - so I'm without receipt.
>
> Under SoGA, I might have a case for redress, even if the unit is beyond 
> it's one year warranty period. But how does the loss of the receipt affect 
> me? I might should be able to dig up a bank statement showing an 
> appropriate purchase amount around that time.
>
> What would be the expected life of a PVR box - I would assume a minimum of 
> 3 years(?).
>
> Given my history with these devices (which are essentially re-badged 
> clones), and given their reputation elsewhere, is there any case for a 
> refund rather than a replacement? I really don't want one of these devices 
> again - I was originally limited in choice because I was using the Top-Up 
> TV option, but I'm not now, and I would rather buy a better brand.
>
> Basically, what can I reasonably expect to achieve, and how do I go about 
> it?

The time has long gone for rejecting the goods because you have had plenty 
of time to reject them. A receipt is not essential but you would need to 
provide some other proof of purchase. The bottom line in you will have a big 
struggle to convince the retailer and even more the court. Forget it, and do 
your research before you buy in future.

Peter Crosland

On 3 Nov, 10:40, "CJM"  wrote:
> I bought a PVR/DTR box a couple of years ago from a major high street
> retailer. While it was a boon to have, it had the odd annoying 'feature'
> that we gradually realised were bugs; not major ones though so we carried on
> regardless. After less than 6 months, some other bugs appeared, and more
> still... until shortly before the first year was up when I found my 'safely'
> stored receipt again, I decided it wasn't good enough - so I took it back to
> the store.
>
> The store provided a refund, but I can't recall whether this was just an
> administrative step towards buying a replacement. That is, did I get a
> refund and choose to buy a replacement, or did they offer a replacement and
> just processed it in this way? I don't recall and it probably doesn't
> matter. Either way, I paid a little extra to get the next version up from
> the same manufacturer.
>
> Within a couple of weeks, it appeared that some of previously-observed bugs
> were present; a bit of research revealed that this range were susceptable to
> these bugs - in fact they were quite prevalent. So I took the unit it back,
> and chose a 'better' unit from a 'better' manufacturer which inevitably cost
> a few quid more. Unfortunately, I then realised that in essence, the stores
> entire range of PVRs were based on the same internal hardware and software.
> I bought Thomson and Wharfedale products which I think were eseentially
> re-badged Digihome products.
>
> This latest unit seemed to work ok though. After a while we noticed minor
> problems (failed recordings mainly, but sometimes the unit needed to
> resetting), but largely it was bearable.
>
> I'm now nearly another year on, and I decided that I wasn't actually happy
> putting up with these problems although they are generally very minor. In
> addition, we've had a few additional problems that may simply be one-offs
> and I can't categorically prove they were definitely due to the box, but the
> suspicion is there.
>
> From past experience, I'd learned to guard the receipt, but I made the
> mistake of putting the box and the receipt back inside the original bag.
> However, my wife seems to have thrown the 'unnecessary' bag, albeit keeping
> the box - so I'm without receipt.
>
> Under SoGA, I might have a case for redress, even if the unit is beyond it's
> one year warranty period. But how does the loss of the receipt affect me? I
> might should be able to dig up a bank statement showing an appropriate
> purchase amount around that time.
>
> What would be the expected life of a PVR box - I would assume a minimum of 3
> years(?).
>
> Given my history with these devices (which are essentially re-badged
> clones), and given their reputation elsewhere, is there any case for a
> refund rather than a replacement? I really don't want one of these devices
> again - I was originally limited in choice because I was using the Top-Up TV
> option, but I'm not now, and I would rather buy a better brand.
>
> Basically, what can I reasonably expect to achieve, and how do I go about
> it?

So let's just summarise and make sure I have this correctly. You
bought a modestly priced PVR a few years ago, which had a few bugs
(and bugs seem de rigeur for electronic equipment these days - even my
Nokia E71 I seem to have to restart almost daily due to bugs and
crashes). You returned this, and were offered a free replacement, but
you made a small contribution in order to upgrade. The second box
developed similar faults, so you did the same again (namely, you were
offered a free replacement, and you paid a small contribution to
upgrade to a better model). A third box then developed the same
faults, and here we are now.

To be honest, I don't know how much you've spent overall, but it
sounds like you've been treated fairly by the retailer, and you've
had, what, 3 years of substantial use of a PVR for the money you
spent? Personally, I wouldn't bother going back and picking a fight
with the retailer, because I think overall you'd be quibbling over a
matter of pounds - you certainly aren't entitled to a full refund
after 3 years of use. I'd just flog the existing box on eBay, and then
go out and buy the new box you want at full price (hopefully one that
doesn't have these faults).

"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
news:_fudnXmngIqboG3XnZ2dnUVZ8hKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> Basically, what can I reasonably expect to achieve, and how do I go about
>> it?
>
> The time has long gone for rejecting the goods because you have had plenty
> of time to reject them. A receipt is not essential but you would need to
> provide some other proof of purchase. The bottom line in you will have a 
> big
> struggle to convince the retailer and even more the court. Forget it, and 
> do
> your research before you buy in future.
>
And if you want one that isn't a digihome , buy a Humax box



-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:6738b85b-a165-4634-92d1-a050e0022216@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> I'd just flog the existing box on eBay, and then
> go out and buy the new box you want at full price (hopefully one that
> doesn't have these faults).

This was going to be my fallback position, except for that fact that I don't 
want to lumber some other guy with a flawed design.

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in 
message news:hcplg0$4pi$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
> And if you want one that isn't a digihome , buy a Humax box
>

If I had to buy again, Humax would be one of the brands I would consider. I 
was thinking about getting Sky+, but recent use of someone elses box was 
'underwhelming' - it could be that their Sky+ box was coincidentally wobbly, 
but I was unimpressed with some aspects of it.

The other alternative I'm considering is building a HTPC, but I suspect the 
wife would consider that another gratuitous hobby project - which would be 
true!

"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
news:_fudnXmngIqboG3XnZ2dnUVZ8hKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...

>
> The time has long gone for rejecting the goods because you have had plenty
> of time to reject them.

I'm not rejecting them as such, I'm returning for replacement because they 
are faulty.

> Forget it, and do
> your research before you buy in future.
>

They were new units on the market. My research concluded that they were 
decent, popular and affordable units. It's only in time that a flurry of 
accounts for design flaws and longer-term unreliability came around. When I 
got the last one replaced, I chose the only other brand that the store sold 
that had the Top-up TV capability.  How was I to know that it was 
essentially  the same as the others.

I'm not sure I can be bothered with the aggro of a battle with the store, 
even if I had a good case. So I think I'll end up waiting for the box to 
fully fail before choosing an alternative.

"CJM"  wrote in message 
news:7ld75rF3d7pmnU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
> news:_fudnXmngIqboG3XnZ2dnUVZ8hKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>
>>
>> The time has long gone for rejecting the goods because you have had 
>> plenty
>> of time to reject them.
>
> I'm not rejecting them as such, I'm returning for replacement because they 
> are faulty.
>
>> Forget it, and do
>> your research before you buy in future.
>>
>
> They were new units on the market. My research concluded that they were 
> decent, popular and affordable units. It's only in time that a flurry of 
> accounts for design flaws and longer-term unreliability came around. When 
> I got the last one replaced, I chose the only other brand that the store 
> sold that had the Top-up TV capability.  How was I to know that it was 
> essentially  the same as the others.
> > I'm not sure I can be bothered with the aggro of a battle with the 
> > store,
> even if I had a good case. So I think I'll end up waiting for the box to 
> fully fail before choosing an alternative.


In legal terms you are saying you want to reject them. You must have, or 
should, have known soon after you purchased them that they were faulty. The 
law does not allow you to use them for two years before claiming that they 
had inherent design faults which must have been apparent much sooner. Your 
original post suggest you can't really remember what happened or even if you 
got an exchange or a refund. You will get laughed out of court if you are 
foolish enough to pursue that course of action. I think the retailer would 
not be very helpful either. In future take some advice from independent 
sources and don't restrict your choice to a single retailer.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
news:w5OdnYjMr7Ce6GzXnZ2dnUVZ8r-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "CJM"  wrote in message
> news:7ld75rF3d7pmnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Peter Crosland"  wrote in message
>> news:_fudnXmngIqboG3XnZ2dnUVZ8hKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>>>
>>> The time has long gone for rejecting the goods because you have had
>>> plenty
>>> of time to reject them.
>>
>> I'm not rejecting them as such, I'm returning for replacement because 
>> they
>> are faulty.
>>
>>> Forget it, and do
>>> your research before you buy in future.
>>>
>>
>> They were new units on the market. My research concluded that they were
>> decent, popular and affordable units. It's only in time that a flurry of
>> accounts for design flaws and longer-term unreliability came around. When
>> I got the last one replaced, I chose the only other brand that the store
>> sold that had the Top-up TV capability.  How was I to know that it was
>> essentially  the same as the others.
>> > I'm not sure I can be bothered with the aggro of a battle with the
>> > store,
>> even if I had a good case. So I think I'll end up waiting for the box to
>> fully fail before choosing an alternative.
>
>
> In legal terms you are saying you want to reject them. You must have, or
> should, have known soon after you purchased them that they were faulty. 
> The
> law does not allow you to use them for two years before claiming that they
> had inherent design faults which must have been apparent much sooner.

You misunderstand me. The system worked fine when first installed. It is 
only in time that it develops the faults; initially they go unnoticed, but 
as they add up and become more frequent, it becomes a bigger issue.

For example,  recently I've found that when I play back a recorded program, 
for certain programs on certain channels, the playback is off a different 
program on at a different time on the same channel. The rate of recording 
failures was zero for the first few months, then it starts to miss one of 
two, then great swathes at a time. Increasingly, when you pause playback of 
a recorded program, when you re-start, the audio and video can lose sync, by 
up to half a second usually.

These faults were not their when the system was first purchased a year ago. 
They are there now and are getting worse. And by all accounts, my 
experiences are a shared by any number of other customers.

So I'm not belatedly rejecting them, I'm wanting redress because they have 
developed faults and are continuing to developed faults. I'd say that no 
faults were apparent for at least 6 months after purchase; at what time the 
erroneous behaviour became starkly apparent is a matter of debate - probably 
over the summer, so I haven't simply used a faulty system for two years (as 
you described) before deciding that it wasn't good enough.

On 3 Nov, 10:40, "CJM"  wrote:
[...]
>
> What would be the expected life of a PVR box - I would assume a minimum of 3
> years(?).
>
[...]

I've been asking myself the same question recently, since my Philips
unit stopped working properly at the time of the digital switchover.
By PVR I assume you mean a combined digital TV tuner and hard disk
recorder, without a DVD recorder.

The Which? Legal Service drew my attention to the RETRA (Radio,
Electrical and Television Retailers Association) site, where life
expectancy is given for a range of devices:

www.retra.co.uk/code-of-practice/code13.asp

For a "low priced DVD player/recorder" they say 2-5 years.  For a
"higher priced DVD player/recorder" 5-8 years.  I suppose these would
apply to a "PVR".  They say that "Life expectancy is the length of
time a product would reasonably be expected to be able to be
economically repaired or where the spare parts are available. Some
cosmetic parts may not be available for the same period of time as
functional parts.  It does not imply that goods should function for a
given period of time without going wrong or that the repairer should
not make a reasonable charge for a repair."

I paid £250 in the 2007 January sales for a unit which normally
retailed for a lot more (so I'd regard it as a "higher priced"
device).  It included a DVD recorder as well as a hard disk.  It had
both analogue and digital TV tuners but when we had our digital
switchover in September and the analogue signal was turned off, the
EPG (and associated features) stopped working.  It transpired that the
device used the analogue tuner to download program details and the
manufacturers tell me that it ain't gonna work again without an
analogue signal.

I expected (I think reasonably) the thing to work for 8 yrs plus.  I
could have lived with the possibility of repair bills during yrs 5 to
8 but I won't accept failure after 32 mths because of a design feature
which failed to allow for an expected event like the digital
switchover.  So I'm about to launch a claim under SOGA at
moneyclaimonline (having got no satisfaction from the retailer or the
credit card company) on the grounds that it wasn't of satisfactory
quality from day 1, being bound to fail at the digital switchover.  It
isn't capable of repair and the retailer refused to replace it
(they've offered £75 as a goodwill gesture) so I reckon I should be
entitled to a reduction in the purchase price (ie, a refund) based on
a life expectancy of 96 mths and an actual life of 32 mths - about
£160.  Advice welcomed...

--
Nogood Boyo

"Nogood Boyo"  wrote in message 
news:09bbdbb2-3f16-4487-9a8a-4881f5d5d0c5@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On 3 Nov, 10:40, "CJM"  wrote:
[...]
>
> What would be the expected life of a PVR box - I would assume a minimum of 
> 3
> years(?).
>
[...]

I've been asking myself the same question recently, since my Philips
unit stopped working properly at the time of the digital switchover.
By PVR I assume you mean a combined digital TV tuner and hard disk
recorder, without a DVD recorder.

The Which? Legal Service drew my attention to the RETRA (Radio,
Electrical and Television Retailers Association) site, where life
expectancy is given for a range of devices:

www.retra.co.uk/code-of-practice/code13.asp

For a "low priced DVD player/recorder" they say 2-5 years.  For a
"higher priced DVD player/recorder" 5-8 years.  I suppose these would
apply to a "PVR".  They say that "Life expectancy is the length of
time a product would reasonably be expected to be able to be
economically repaired or where the spare parts are available. Some
cosmetic parts may not be available for the same period of time as
functional parts.  It does not imply that goods should function for a
given period of time without going wrong or that the repairer should
not make a reasonable charge for a repair."

I paid £250 in the 2007 January sales for a unit which normally
retailed for a lot more (so I'd regard it as a "higher priced"
device).  It included a DVD recorder as well as a hard disk.  It had
both analogue and digital TV tuners but when we had our digital
switchover in September and the analogue signal was turned off, the
EPG (and associated features) stopped working.  It transpired that the
device used the analogue tuner to download program details and the
manufacturers tell me that it ain't gonna work again without an
analogue signal.

I expected (I think reasonably) the thing to work for 8 yrs plus.  I
could have lived with the possibility of repair bills during yrs 5 to
8 but I won't accept failure after 32 mths because of a design feature
which failed to allow for an expected event like the digital
switchover.  So I'm about to launch a claim under SOGA at
moneyclaimonline (having got no satisfaction from the retailer or the
credit card company) on the grounds that it wasn't of satisfactory
quality from day 1, being bound to fail at the digital switchover.  It
isn't capable of repair and the retailer refused to replace it
(they've offered £75 as a goodwill gesture) so I reckon I should be
entitled to a reduction in the purchase price (ie, a refund) based on
a life expectancy of 96 mths and an actual life of 32 mths - about
£160.  Advice welcomed...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't waste your money as there is a strong probability that you will lose 
if the retailer decides to fight. It does not seem that the retailer could 
have known that it would become obsolete so quickly. In any case trying to 
pro-rata the cost over a hypothetical life of eight years is nonsense. After 
couple of years the second-hand value would be about what the retailer 
offered. I would say the retailer has made a generous offer even though they 
have no liability.

Peter Crosland

On 5 Nov, 21:40, "Peter Crosland"  wrote:
[...]
>
> Don't waste your money as there is a strong probability that you will lose
> if the retailer decides to fight. It does not seem that the retailer could
> have known that it would become obsolete so quickly.

What's the relevance of that?  It doesn't relieve him of the
obligation to supply goods of satisfactory quality.

> In any case trying to
> pro-rata the cost over a hypothetical life of eight years is nonsense. After
> couple of years the second-hand value would be about what the retailer
> offered.

What's the relevance of second-hand value?  The retailer has an
obligation to reduce the purchase price by an appropriate amount.
What's wrong with a pro rata reduction based on reasonably expected
life and actual life?

> I would say the retailer has made a generous offer even though they
> have no liability.

Why do you say they have no liability?  The goods weren't of
satisfactory quality...

--
Nogood Boyo (IANAL)

"Nogood Boyo"  wrote in message 
news:a80aa475-0dc1-458a-8f7a-59e1851a7c43@j19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Nov, 21:40, "Peter Crosland"  wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Don't waste your money as there is a strong probability that you will 
>> lose
>> if the retailer decides to fight. It does not seem that the retailer 
>> could
>> have known that it would become obsolete so quickly.
>
> What's the relevance of that?  It doesn't relieve him of the
> obligation to supply goods of satisfactory quality.
>
>> In any case trying to
>> pro-rata the cost over a hypothetical life of eight years is nonsense. 
>> After
>> couple of years the second-hand value would be about what the retailer
>> offered.
>
> What's the relevance of second-hand value?  The retailer has an
> obligation to reduce the purchase price by an appropriate amount.
> What's wrong with a pro rata reduction based on reasonably expected
> life and actual life?
>
>> I would say the retailer has made a generous offer even though they
>> have no liability.
>
> Why do you say they have no liability?  The goods weren't of
> satisfactory quality...


When the goods were sold they were, as far as the retailer, and yourself, 
quite OK. Just because a third party decided to change the transmission 
details making the goods obsolete does not suddenly change the situation 
when the goods were sold. You would have to prove, under oath, that the 
goods did genuinely have an expected life of eight years. Furthermore it is 
well established goods do not depreciate at a constant rate over their full 
lifetime. Depreciation is much faster early on in the expected life as you 
well know. You really have a very small change of winning in court unless 
the retailer does not defend the action. Judges don't like having to waste 
their time with hopeless claims.

Peter Crosland

On 5 Nov, 22:35, "Peter Crosland"  wrote:
>
> When the goods were sold they were, as far as the retailer, and yourself,
> quite OK. Just because a third party decided to change the transmission
> details making the goods obsolete does not suddenly change the situation
> when the goods were sold. You would have to prove, under oath, that the
> goods did genuinely have an expected life of eight years. Furthermore it is
> well established goods do not depreciate at a constant rate over their full
> lifetime. Depreciation is much faster early on in the expected life as you
> well know. You really have a very small change of winning in court unless
> the retailer does not defend the action. Judges don't like having to waste
> their time with hopeless claims.
>

I still don't see the relevance of depreciation.  As I see it, the
issue isn't the value of the item at the time of failure - it's the
true value of the thing at the time of sale, taking account of the
latent shortcoming which later revealed itself and the use obtained
compared with the use expected.  The Act provides for a reduction in
the purchase price.  If someone else could help with this, I'd be
grateful.

And I still think the item was not of satisfactory quality, as it
didn't meet the standard that a reasonable people would regard as
satisfactory.  RETRA give a life expectancy of 5-8 yrs (with a
possible need for repair during that time).  The failure to cope with
digital switchover after 32 mths (which was known about at the time of
sale) was a shortcoming in design, not shared by any other similar
item as far as I can establish.  As to proving "under oath, that the
goods did genuinely have an expected life of eight years", I can say
what I expected and I can produce what RETRA say...  That seems to me
to be what a reasonable person might regard as satisfactory.

Everything I've read, inc the Act and the guides produced by BERR and
various consumer organisations, suggests that I've got a good claim.
I'd appreciate comments by others...

--
Nogood Boyo

Nogood Boyo  wrote in
news:96fcf001-1346-4c99-b56e-b71dcd4effb6@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
: 



> 
> Everything I've read, inc the Act and the guides produced by BERR
> and various consumer organisations, suggests that I've got a good
> claim. I'd appreciate comments by others...
> 

I believe you have a good claim against the retailer for selling you 
something that would be substantially less useful after the much-
heralded digital switchover.  If they didn't know, then they should 
have done, and they might conceivably (but I doubt it) have a case 
against the manufacturer, depending how the goods were described to 
them (contract law here rather than SOGA).

-- 
Percy Picacity

On 6 Nov, 10:05, Nogood Boyo  wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 22:35, "Peter Crosland"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > When the goods were sold they were, as far as the retailer, and yourself,
> > quite OK. Just because a third party decided to change the transmission
> > details making the goods obsolete does not suddenly change the situation
> > when the goods were sold. You would have to prove, under oath, that the
> > goods did genuinely have an expected life of eight years. Furthermore it is
> > well established goods do not depreciate at a constant rate over their full
> > lifetime. Depreciation is much faster early on in the expected life as you
> > well know. You really have a very small change of winning in court unless
> > the retailer does not defend the action. Judges don't like having to waste
> > their time with hopeless claims.
>
> I still don't see the relevance of depreciation.

Neither do I, and in fact I agree that depreciation is totally
irrelevant here.


> As I see it, the
> issue isn't the value of the item at the time of failure - it's the
> true value of the thing at the time of sale, taking account of the
> latent shortcoming which later revealed itself and the use obtained
> compared with the use expected.  The Act provides for a reduction in
> the purchase price.  If someone else could help with this, I'd be
> grateful.

The starting point for any calculation is the sale price. We then
deduct for the use that you've had. So for example, if the thing cost
£100 and you've had 2 and 1/2 years of a 5 year reasonable lifetime,
then you'd probably be looking at a £50 refund.



> And I still think the item was not of satisfactory quality, as it
> didn't meet the standard that a reasonable people would regard as
> satisfactory.  RETRA give a life expectancy of 5-8 yrs (with a
> possible need for repair during that time).  The failure to cope with
> digital switchover after 32 mths (which was known about at the time of
> sale) was a shortcoming in design, not shared by any other similar
> item as far as I can establish.  As to proving "under oath, that the
> goods did genuinely have an expected life of eight years", I can say
> what I expected and I can produce what RETRA say...  That seems to me
> to be what a reasonable person might regard as satisfactory.
>
> Everything I've read, inc the Act and the guides produced by BERR and
> various consumer organisations, suggests that I've got a good claim.
> I'd appreciate comments by others...

Yes, I certainly agree that you have a good claim. The question is of
what counts as a reasonable bare-minimum lifetime. If you have
materials that suggest the typical life expectancy is 5-8 years, then
I think a court would be satisfied that 4 or 5 years is a bare minimum
life expectancy.

Percy Picacity wrote:
> Nogood Boyo  wrote in
> news:96fcf001-1346-4c99-b56e-b71dcd4effb6@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> Everything I've read, inc the Act and the guides produced by BERR
>> and various consumer organisations, suggests that I've got a good
>> claim. I'd appreciate comments by others...
>>
>
> I believe you have a good claim against the retailer for selling you
> something that would be substantially less useful after the much-
> heralded digital switchover.  If they didn't know, then they should
> have done, and they might conceivably (but I doubt it) have a case
> against the manufacturer, depending how the goods were described to
> them (contract law here rather than SOGA).


I'm totally perplexed. I have a very cheap DVR that does Freeview - it cost 
£30 IIRC. The software is flaky, but a reboot of the software sorts that 
out. When the channels changed recently, I had to rescan. Why is the Op's 
machine different from this?



-- 
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.

On 6 Nov, 19:25, "GB"  wrote:
>
> I'm totally perplexed. I have a very cheap DVR that does Freeview - it cost
> £30 IIRC. The software is flaky, but a reboot of the software sorts that
> out. When the channels changed recently, I had to rescan. Why is the Op's
> machine different from this?
>
Depends what you call a DVR. There seems to be a range of devices with
varying features.

--
Nogood Boyo

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:4af47776$0$2478$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I believe you have a good claim against the retailer for selling you
>> something that would be substantially less useful after the much-
>> heralded digital switchover.  If they didn't know, then they should
>> have done, and they might conceivably (but I doubt it) have a case
>> against the manufacturer, depending how the goods were described to
>> them (contract law here rather than SOGA).
>
>
> I'm totally perplexed. I have a very cheap DVR that does Freeview - it 
> cost
> £30 IIRC. The software is flaky, but a reboot of the software sorts that
> out. When the channels changed recently, I had to rescan. Why is the Op's
> machine different from this?
>

I'm perplexed why you are perplexed.  :)

I (the OP) have a machine that is progressively faulty. Nogood Boyo has a 
machine that worked fine, but isn't suitable for post-switchover signals. 
Which are you comparing yourself to?

CJM wrote:

>> I'm totally perplexed. I have a very cheap DVR that does Freeview -
>> it cost
>> £30 IIRC. The software is flaky, but a reboot of the software sorts
>> that out. When the channels changed recently, I had to rescan. Why
>> is the Op's machine different from this?
>>
>
> I'm perplexed why you are perplexed.  :)
>
> I (the OP) have a machine that is progressively faulty. Nogood Boyo
> has a machine that worked fine, but isn't suitable for
> post-switchover signals. Which are you comparing yourself to?


I was just asking whether you have rebooted the machine? It's a software 
reset (at least it is on mine, accessed via the menu system), and it 
certainly would be reasonable to expect you to do that. These machines are 
small computers and they may need a reboot from time to time. You haven't 
said whether you have downloaded updated firmware, etc.

Nogood's case is clearly different, especially as he has gone into the 
technical side and can say what is wrong with his machine and where the 
design fault lies. You have been much vaguer.




-- 
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:4af8030e$0$2522$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> I was just asking whether you have rebooted the machine? It's a software
> reset (at least it is on mine, accessed via the menu system), and it
> certainly would be reasonable to expect you to do that. These machines are
> small computers and they may need a reboot from time to time. You haven't
> said whether you have downloaded updated firmware, etc.
>
> Nogood's case is clearly different, especially as he has gone into the
> technical side and can say what is wrong with his machine and where the
> design fault lies. You have been much vaguer.
>

I don't mean to sound snotty (genuinely), but of course I've hard-rebooted. 
In fact, it is powered down most nights (unless recording something). 
Firmware updates are automatic, and have been applied successfully. I do 
appreciate the sentiments, but the problem was a legal one and not a 
technical one - yes, I know I might have missed something and a little 
technical advice might just save the day - but I'm fairly confident that I'm 
up to speed on the technical side.

The problem is with this entire family of products (which appear under 
various badges). Although they are not cheap, they simply aren't very good. 
This may be symptomatic of any lower-mid-range PVR, but I believe I have a 
right to expect that the kit should work correctly & consistently for well 
in excess of two years. In each of the 3 cases, the kit has started to 
'misbehave' inside of a year.

I wasn't to know with my first purchase; but when I exchanged it for the new 
model by the same manufacturer I hoped for a better experience - whereas in 
fact it was worse (returned inside a month). The third time, I paid extra to 
upgrade to a 'better' brand, but the better brand was in fact the same kit 
rebadged with a bigger HDD - and some of the same problems.

If the first unit had failed quickly, I'd may have taken my refund money 
elsewhere. But after 11 months, I'm only entitled to repair or replacement, 
so I effective had to buy into more of the same. In fact, every top-up tv 
model sold by this retailer (typically 3-5 models at any one time) was based 
on the same hardware & software; slightly different capacities and different 
casing & pricing, but the same kit in essence.

I feel that I deserve better, and I *think* I have a case - but convincing 
the retailer to give me a refund (especially since I've lost the latest 
receipt) is an entirely different matter.