TV Servicing And Hire Purchase Attacked

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30431, 4 May 1964, Page 1

TV Servicing And Hire Purchase Attacked

Overcharging for television servicing and on hire-purchase agreements was alleged by the secretary of the Canterbury Televiewers’ Association (Mr J. M. McKenzie) at its annual meeting yesterday.

Most of the figures quoted drew exclamations from the attendance of more than 50 members.

All accounts and agreements Mr McKenzie produced were given to the reporter of “The Press” to scrutinise. Mr McKenzie produced a statement signed by a Justice of the Peace who stated he had read four accounts from three firms and felt there was evidence of gross over-charging. The association would not identify the firms at this stage, said Mr McKenzie, because the investigation was still being made—and further afield than Canterbury. When the association decided to drop a bomb, however, it would be a good one, he added.

Mr McKenzie produced several accounts which, he said, gave evidence of overcharging. Without mentioning names, he quoted details to the meeting. One concerned the replacement of a part costing Bd, the time taken being five minutes. The account was for £2 16s 6d. Another account was for the replacement of a valve costing 10s Hd, the total time involved, including travelling, being 15 minutes. The labour charge was £4. Yet another, said Mr McKenzie, claimed a minimum of

£1 10s for each service call, several calls being made for a minor repair. For the replacement of a line output transformer and resoldering a valve base, the charge was £l5 7s 6d. This account had not been paid, Mr McKenzie said, and the firm had been challenged to take the matter to Court. Mr McKenzie advised members to check a firm’s credentials before having servicing done. If they thought the bill was too high, they should tell the association. At the same time, Mr McKenzie added, it should be remembered that a man called out on Sunday or late in the evening deserved more for his services than if he came, say, at noon on Monday. Speaking on hire-purchase agreements, Mr McKenzie said the association was appalled at some of the malpractices in this field. The most blatant example brought to his notice, he said, concerned an agreement for a set costing £169 10s, bought by an elderly woman. The total repayment was £326. He produced a hire-pur-chase agreement for a set insured for £l5O, the cash sale price for which was not quoted on the form. They money paid over on a two-vear agreement was £212 195£62 £62 19s above the insured value.

Another agreement, he said, which was, incidentally, ille-

gal, covered the service contract and installation of an aerial, to a total value of about £2B. The repayment asked totalled £4B 3s. The association could claim to be doing more for television in Canterbury than was being done anywhere else in New Zealand, said the president (Mr J. Abbett) in his annual report. A national association was being discussed with interested persons in Auckland and Wellington.

The association would always be alert where servicing was concerned, Mr Abbett said. “But we are not out on a witch-hunt,” he added. “We have found that many of the claims of overcharging are quite baseless.”