- ---

 

Home | Councillors | Previous Articles | Plans | Public Opinion | Madness

 
LINK SELL-OFF
Dixons is considering the disposal of The Link, its mobile phone retail operation. The group is reviewing the future of the 300-strong chain following a “torrid Christmas trading period” with like-for-like sales falling by 9% in the four weeks to January 2005.

The review could lead to a sale of the business, which bankers believe is worth up to £200m. Chief executive John Clare is said to have contacted Peter Erskine, his counterpart at 02, which owns 40% of The Link.

Both parties have pre-emption rights which stop the other from selling to rivals. Dixons announced it is to sell The Link to O2 for £30m.
       


CUSTOMER SERVICE? - The Link

The LinkOn 16th November 2004, I purchased a mobile phone (LG U8120) at a cost of £149.99, on the 3 pay-as-you-go network from The Link in Derby. On 25th December 2005 the phone switched itself off, then back on again in Dutch! Also, several buttons no longer worked and there was no screen display. The phone continued acting in this way but I was unable to return it to the store as it was closed over Christmas.

On the 27th December I called at the store but it was "closed until further notice" according to an A4 notice on the door. The phone finally stopped working altogether but, due to illness, I was unable to visit the store until 17th January this year to return the item. The store manager, Mr Simon Smith, told me he could not give me a refund on the faulty item after 28 days as this was company policy. He even said that Trading Standards had confirmed this was correct!

This may well be "company policy" but this information is blatantly incorrect. As the item is faulty, which has been confirmed by the manager, the consumer can demand a full refund if this is within a "reasonable time" of the sale. Two months would seem to me to be a "reasonable time". The Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, which came into force in March 2003, all apply in this case.

Under the Sale of Goods Act, if there is a fault within the first six months of purchase, the law assumes it was inherent and the buyer is entitled to a full refund from the retailer from where the goods were bought. This item obviously fails to perform as it should, is not fit for the purpose for which it was purchased and, as such, does not conform to contract at the time of sale. Upon checking various forums on the internet, it seems that several other people have had the same fault with this particular handset.

I then e-mailed the Customer Services department on 17th January and received a reply from Paul A Bellamy who said, "I regret that it is not possible to offer a refund on your product. Our guarantee provides free of charge repairs for 12 months after purchase of the item, or, if the product cannot be repaired, a replacement product is provided."
I then wrote to Elizabeth Fagan, Managing Director of The Link, pointing out that the company were refusing to comply with the law and therefore, I would be taking further, legal action to enforce my legal rights.

Ms Fagan replied, "While our store and Customer Services have followed our company policy for repairs over 28 days of purchase, we have further responsibilities under the Sales of Goods Act. We have discussed your issue with the store manager and instructed him to offer you a refund for the product. Please accept my apologies for the poor level of service that you feel that you have received from the Derby store and for any inconvenience caused."

 

Home | Councillors | Previous Articles | Plans | Public Opinion | Madness

These articles have been collected from various sources. If you are the copyright owner of any of them contact us for either a credit and link to your site or removal of the article.