Customers buying electrical goods from stores are being advised to think carefully before taking out extended warranties.

West Yorkshire Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading say shoppers may find the warranties are not worth the extra money.

The warning comes after Bradford degree student Chris McGrath had to resort to direct action to get a replacement computer printer from a city store when his broke down.

He had to stand outside handing out leaflets outlining his complaint until he got a new machine.

When he bought the computer and printer in 1997 for £1,398, he paid an extra £420 for a three-year extended warranty which promised new-for-old replacement.

But he claims he was only offered a reconditioned printer after the original one was found to be irreparable.

But after a day leafleting customers about the problems he was having with the policy, he was offered a new printer. Mr McGrath, of Bowling, said: "The blurb on the front of the policy says: 'New for old replacement. If we cannot repair your product we will replace it, no matter how old it is, without any deduction for wear and tear. We will give you an identical or similar product.'

"But when they told me the printer was not worth repairing, they said they would give me a fully-reconditioned one as a replacement.

"I told them the policy said new for old and they pointed out one of the conditions, which says: 'We may choose to replace certain products with a fully-refurbished product'. But another of the conditions says: 'We may choose to replace the product with an identical or similar new product or, where no such product is available, pay you the equivalent'.

"So which is right? Do you get a new one for old or a refurbished one? I bought that policy on the strength of what it said on the front - new for old.

"There was no mention in that sentence of 'choosing' to replace with something reconditioned. I think it's disgraceful - new for old should mean new for old."

A Trading Standards spokesman said: "It would seem the two conditions are contradictory. "Generally, warranties bought with the product in the stores don't offer good value for money and you may find the manufacturer gives a warranty that is much cheaper than the one organised by the shop. It's also worth remembering your statutory rights last for six years.

"If you buy a £10 toaster you would not reasonably expect it to last five or six years but if you buy a state-of-the-art TV, you would.

"So if something went wrong with your TV within the six-year period, you would still be able to pursue a claim against the place you bought it - the other party in the contract.

"The extended warranty may give you rights over and above your statutory rights but it's a matter of deciding whether it's worth the extra money you will have to pay."

An OFT spokesman also advised customers to contact the manufacturers direct to find out what warranty they offered. "Electrical goods now are usually so reliable, you really do have to question whether you need a long, extended warranty because they don't often go wrong and the cost of repair may be less than the warranty.

"A warranty does give peace of mind - but you have to decide whether it is good value for money."

A spokesman for the company which issued the warranty said refurbished products, such as printers and fax machines, were generally given out if a customer could not do without the item.

But she added: "We do replace new for old - each case is judged on its own merits."

Slimming adverts are 'preying on vulnerable'

A company highlighted in Rights and Wrongs last month for its unwanted faxes has been taken to the High Court.

London-based Top 20 Ltd has been sending out faxes to companies in Bradford offering information on careers as part-time market researchers, Yummy Yum Yum Diets and a list of "Greatest Quotes of All Time".

Recipients obtain the service they want by dialling the appropriate number on their fax machine.

The information will then be sent to them by return fax costing £1 a minute and taking between four and nine minutes to be transmitted.

The Office of Fair Trading went to the High Court to obtain an interlocutory injunction under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 preventing the publication of adverts for the Yummy Yum Yum Diets in EU countries.

The Director General of Fair Trading, John Bridgeman, said the ads included claims that slimmers could lose specified amounts of weight within certain time periods and could eat as much of the recommended food as they wanted and still lose weight.

"Advertisements of this nature which offer false hope and prey on the vulnerabilities of people are particularly offensive," he said.

"This is not the first time I have been forced to go to court to stop misleading slimming ads and I fear it will not be the last."

Watchdog hits out at firm's lottery claims

An Amsterdam company sending out mailshots to West Yorkshire homes has been rapped by the national advertising watchdog.

The European Lottery Guild claimed the recipients of its "International Lottery Notification" were entitled to play "the richest lotteries on the Continent" because of changes in EU rules.

The company said they could join a special UK syndicate "eligible for up to £100 million in lotto prize money" at a cost of £13.

The mailshot - which arrived in an envelope with an imitation EU flag printed on it - also claimed the company had employed "an expert mathematician" to increase the chances of winning.

But two West Yorkshire householders contacted the industry watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority, claiming the mailshot gave the impression they had already won a prize.

The ASA upheld the complaint and challenged the impression that the lottery was officially EU sponsored and that the mathematician's system could increase the chances of winning.

The Authority told the firm to check future mailings with it before sending them out.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.