Views Conflict On TV Repairs

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30393, 18 March 1964, Page 3

Views Conflict On TV Repairs

The controversy over charges for repairs and servicing of television sets yesterday brought forth a series of conflicting statements.

The controversy was begun by the results of an inquiry by the Canterbury Televiewers’ Association published in “The Press” on Monday.

The association made a deliberate minor fault in a set, otherwise running perfectly, and sent it to four repair and service firms, making the same fault again each time.

The bills for repairs ranged from £5 19s 3d to £35 9s—and the association maintained that the fault could have been repaired for a maximum charge of £1 ss.

“Without seeing the invoices concerned, it is impossible for me to comment specifically on the situation which has arisen,” said the chairman of the CanterburyWestland Retailers’ Federation’s home appliance, radio and television group (Mr L. M. Hawes) in a statement supplied last evening. “I would, however, draw attention to the fact that this type of apparent exploitation is falling into the same pattern as has been experienced overseas in other fields as well as television. It points to the advisability of the public dealing with recognised retailers and service organisations.

“People who are likely to suffer from unfortunate experiences such as those instanced are in the main those who have no access to service from normal channels because in many cases the sets have been purchased from other than recognised retail sources, or at special prices. Service Contracts “All recognised retailers feature service contracts at reasonable charges and are also happy to stand behind their own customers by doing casual service work at charges which are reasonable for the service offered,” Mr Hawes said.

Replying to this statement, the honorary secretary of the Canterbury Televiewers’ Association (Mr J. M. McKenzie) said that the names of the firms the “test” set was sent to would not be disclosed.

“My association has made this decision partly because the bills have now been met by the association, although a great deal less has been paid out than what was demanded by the bills; and partly because this inquiry into television repairs has by no means been concluded and it would be unfair to name any particular firm when all firms operating in Christchurch have not been tested,” Mr McKenzie said. “Hundreds of Cases” “It is ridiculous for Mr Hawes to suggest that the “test’ set was sent to firms that were not ‘reputable,’ as he infers, because sets have been bought by association members on the side—at cheaper than ‘recognised’ retail prices (which include the very substantial mark-up). “We have had hundreds of complaints from members concerning over-charging. Does Mr Hawes suggest al) have bought sets from other than ‘recognised’ retail sources?

“Does Mr Hawes seriously suggest that the first three firms we picked on at random to send the “test’ set to were all not ‘recognised’? One of them is a large firm with branches throughout New Zealand, and does contract and casual work for many retail television shops and department stores,” Mr McKenzie said.

He said that yesterday his association had been invited to examine the books of a branch of a television repair

and service firm in Christchurch. “We were informed that this branch has done more than 5000 repair jobs in the last eight months, and that the average price has been less than £2 10s. More than 95 per cent of the repairs, both on service contracts and casual jobs, were done in homes. We will be delighted to inspect this firm’s books,” Mr McKenzie said. Not Over £l5

His association had yesterday been invited to visit a Christchurch television repair and service firm which had informed the association that in three years’ of repair work it had never charged more than £l5 for repairing any one set, apart from broken picture tubes. , “Again, we will be pleased to visit this firm. We are informed by another firm that its basic charge on being called out to repair a television set is 30s, and that this charge covers one hour’s work. We have been invited to look at the books of this firm. The firm, the manager told us, does not care

where the owner bought the television set—as long as it is not stolen property. “We say that our inquiry has shown that three television repair firms in Christchurch have been charging exorbitant prices and doing repairs which we think are unwarranted. Inquiry Continues “Our inquiry is proceeding in Christchurch, and facts such as labour costs and trade certification, are being collected from other parts of the world for comparative purposes,” Mr McKenzie said.

The managing-director of a television repair firm’s branch yesterday told “The Press” that, in his opinion, there were only four firms operating in Christchurch which were fully competent to do television repair work. Many more were operating, but many employed technicians who were not certificated tradesmen. These men took much longer to find faults, did repairs of a low standard and, consequently, the costs to the television set owners were very high.