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
On 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."
|
|
|