Weekend of torture without watching football

Q: At the beginning of 2004, I bought a plasma television for €4,425.81 (Lm1,900). Three-and-a-half years on, this television set started giving me problems. At the time I complained, and after a long time, my old television was replaced with a new one because the company had no spare parts available.

Just a few months later, the new set started giving me trouble. It was taken for repairs and after three days returned to my home in good working order. However, this company advertised on television and in newspapers that while TV sets were being repaired at its workshops as part of its service, it lends clients a replacement set. Moreover, it also guaranteed that spare parts were always in stock.

The story repeated itself about six months later in November 2008. I immediately reported the problem to the company which collected it a couple of days later. On this occasion, I asked for a replacement set, as advertised by the company, and was assured that my television set would be repaired and delivered within three days.

I was assured I would receive my set in time to watch the weekend football matches, knowing full well that I am extremely keen on football.

A day before my television set was meant to be delivered, I called the manager, who assured me that I would have my set as originally promised. He also said it was working properly and that no repairs were necessary.

Despite the promise, this did not take place. After numerous phone calls I was told it was impossible to have my television set delivered that day. After several heated discussions and arguments with the director, my television set was delivered to me six days later. In other words, I ended up without a television set for 10 days.

My question is: Should this new television set, which replaced my former one, have a new guarantee?

A: When a product is replaced during the guarantee period, there is no new purchase by the consumer and therefore the original guarantee still applies.

With regard to the provision of a replacement set while the consumer's television set was being repaired, if this was promised by the company it should have provided it.

If a company does not abide by what it promises in its adverts, it is misleading advertising. The consumer should have requested the replacement set at the very moment he called the company to report the fault, and if this request was refused, he had every right to report this to the Consumer and Competition Division.

If such a precaution had been taken, subsequent arguments with the company could have been avoided.

Consumers should bear in mind that angry behaviour will probably make things worse and can work against them.

Whenever they are unsatisfied with the way their complaint is being dealt with, it is advisable to stop communicating with the company and seek the assistance of the Consumer and Competition Division.

Ms Vella is senior information officer, Consumer and Competition Division.

customer@timesofmalta.com, odette.vella@gov.mt