Quick questions on Consumer Rights
Options
Comments
-
I've received a letter today saying that there is variation in batches and this is allowed but there is a definite colour difference and no one mentioned there could be when I placed the order.0
-
missymouse wrote: »I've received a letter today saying that there is variation in batches and this is allowed but there is a definite colour difference and no one mentioned there could be when I placed the order.
"this is allowed" is the key phrase. This might be allowed by them but that's irrelevant. Is it allowed by law? Well that depends - if it varies significantly then it isn't acceptable.
Again we're into definitions. You would argue that it's significant. They may argue otherwise.
Send them a letter telling them there is a significant difference in what they provided as a sample and what they supplied and you are rejecting them.
You may have to end up in court where a judge will.....judge whether they think it's "significant".0 -
Thanks, I think they are trying to fob me off. I will escalate a complaint via email. I hope it wont come to court.0
-
I am confused about the 30 days ruling Right to Reject of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I have seen on several Websites (including Moneysaver) that:
1. if a Consumer exercises their Short term Right to Reject faulty goods within 30 days of purchase then the Consumer has the option of a full refund which must be paid within 14 days.
2. if a Consumer makes their claim after the 30 day period but within the following 6 months then the Consumer is obliged to allow the retailer one opportunity to prove a fault exists.
3. if a Consumer makes a claim after the 30 days and after the following 6 months it is for the Consumer to prove a fault exists.
I need clarification of the criteria at No 1. At this stage is the Consumer obliged to allow the retailer the opportunity to prove/disprove that a fault exists.0 -
I need clarification of the criteria at No 1. At this stage is the Consumer obliged to allow the retailer the opportunity to prove/disprove that a fault exists.
In the first 30 days:
If the consumer insists on a refund then the onus is on them to prove the fault was inherent. In other words the retailer can require the consumer to prove (on the balance of probability) that the fault was not caused by their misuse/neglect etc.
However if the consumer is willing to accept a refund or repair or replacement (at the retailer's option) then the retailer must provide this remedy unless they can prove the fault was caused by the consumer's misuse/neglect etc.0 -
Please can someone help me. I sold a piece of fabric. The lady started to sew it, then found a mark. The fabric is now no longer resalable or in original condition. Legally what do I have to do as the retailer?0
-
Please can someone help me. I sold a piece of fabric. The lady started to sew it, then found a mark. The fabric is now no longer resalable or in original condition. Legally what do I have to do as the retailer?
Is she a consumer or is sewing her profession/craft/did she purchase as a business?
Is the mark permanent or is it just a dirty mark that may easily be removed in the wash?
When did she purchase it and when did she first contact you to make you aware?You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
I received a refund so was 😊. It's a pity as I really liked the colour of the swatch but the made article was not the same.0
-
Lady is a consumer. Fabric bought in person, then she commenced to sew the fabric straight away in the next room whilst on a retreat. Approx couple of hours later she refolded the piece (around 3 metres) and found a small mark. Looks like the mark was made by sticky tape and will probably be able to be removed.0
-
Lady is a consumer. Fabric bought in person, then she commenced to sew the fabric straight away in the next room whilst on a retreat. Approx couple of hours later she refolded the piece (around 3 metres) and found a small mark. Looks like the mark was made by sticky tape and will probably be able to be removed.
If it is possible to easily remove it then the goods won't necessarily conform to contract - granted it was originally established under the sale of goods act that dirt that could be easily removed wouldnt give consumers the right to reject the goods and SoGA has now been replaced by Consumer Rights Act but I can't see any reason the finding (about dirt that could be easily removed not being a fault) wouldn't continue to apply under current legislation.
If it couldnt be easily removed then the law basically states if goods fail to conform at any time within the first 6 months, its assumed to be inherent unless the retailer proves otherwise or applying that rule would be inconsistent with how the goods fail to conform. Further complicated by the fact if the consumer exercises the short term right to reject (as opposed to repair/replace) in the first 30 days then its up to the consumer to prove the goods were inherently faulty.
If you're unsure of your obligations as a retailer, get in contact with your local trading standards, they should have some resources available to help point you in the right direction.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards