Consumer Rights: MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

manc29

Following on from post 485 with B&Q issue

I sent a letter to the Store and Head office as u suggested, this is the reply sent back from their Head office.

Thank you for you recent correspondence regarding the dehumidifier purchased from our Trafford Park store.

I am very sorry that you have had cause to complain on this occasion about this particular product and can appreciate your disappointment. Please be advised that we have received no similar complaints concerning this product.

I confirm that the guarantee is for 12 months from the original date of purchase, regrettably, on this occasion I can be of no further assistance to you.

Please accept my sincere apologies and I trust despite this disappointment that you will continue to shop at B&Q in the future.

Yours Sincerely
Cayleigh Jackson (Customer Services Advisor)


What would you suggest to do now??

Thanks in advance

Art_2

manc29 wrote:

Following on from post 485 with B&Q issue

I sent a letter to the Store and Head office as u suggested, this is the reply sent back from their Head office.

Thank you for you recent correspondence regarding the dehumidifier purchased from our Trafford Park store.

I am very sorry that you have had cause to complain on this occasion about this particular product and can appreciate your disappointment. Please be advised that we have received no similar complaints concerning this product.

I confirm that the guarantee is for 12 months from the original date of purchase, regrettably, on this occasion I can be of no further assistance to you.

Please accept my sincere apologies and I trust despite this disappointment that you will continue to shop at B&Q in the future.

Yours Sincerely
Cayleigh Jackson (Customer Services Advisor)


What would you suggest to do now??

Thanks in advance

If I were you I would go to the Small Claims Court. Your present unit is only a few months old and should have given you better service.

Regards,
Art.

manc29

The unit is 17 months old Art, not a few months.

U still think got a valid claim??

Art_2

manc29 wrote:

The unit is 17 months old Art, not a few months.

U still think got a valid claim??

Yes, you have a case. A unit of this value should have lasted longer than 17 months.

This is even more so as I guess it isn't in use all year round.

Go for it!!

Regards,
Art.

Matty007

Art wrote:

Matty,

Unfortunately, your friend should not have returned the iron to Domestic Home Appliances at the beginning.

I would suggest a visit to the retailer asking for the repair to be carrried out free of charge and pointing out they have failed to give the customer their statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act. It is also worth pointing out that if the iron fails again your friend will expect a refund or replacement.

If there is no joy with the retailer write, recorded delivery, to the head office.

As the iron will presumably be working when it is returned, it is difficult to suggest a successful claim in the Small Claims Court for anything other than the cost of repairs. This may be a good idea bearing in mind the large repair bills incurred.

Your friend is also outside the period where she can claim an inherrent fault in the iron without having to prove it. the onus is on her to prove an inherrent fault - not an easy thing.

Irrespective of the action your friend takes, she should write to the retailer, keeping a copy, pointing out that if a further problem occurs she will sue for a replacement or refund.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Art.

Thanks Art

Could you please explain the 'outside of the time period where she can claim an inherrent fault' without having to prove it. Then you advise that she should write to the retailer saying that if a further problem occurs she will sue for a replacement or refund.

Does that mean that the threat of legal action might be the only real pressure likely to work in this case, as any legal action might be extremely difficult to succeed unless she could PROVE to the court of an inherrent fault.

Where would the weaknesses in her case be.

Is it accepting and paying for the initial repairs or is it the 'reasonable time' this appliance should work is over 2 years for an item costing just in excess of £200.00.

I do not think she has any inclination to try and retreive the earlier costs, but feels she is at a point now where the item should at least be repaired this time at the retailers cost in the latest repair in light of earlier problems.

Looking fporward to hearing from you.

Regards
Matty007

Rhys_2-2

I bought two sony ericsson's from carphone warehouse one of which has developed a fault which is very intermittent where the external speaker gets garbled or the ringtone is barely audible,

I took this phone back on the second day and also today and asked for a exchange but was told that as the fault didn't show in the shop all they could do was to have the phone checked by a sony ericsson engineer which would take from 7 to 14 days,
I just wanted an exchange but the manager stated that that was up to the store in question as it was an intermittent fault,

To be honest i think he was more worried about their store quota than about customers,

He gave me a customer care number which i called and a person called patrick stated that this phone should be changed,he gave an extension number but as i was in the street i was unable to take note of it,
Went back to carphone warehouse and when i told the manager what i was told he stated this was wrong and tried to contact the patrick from customer care but told me that the person hung up on him and reiterated his previous
advice about a engineer check,

although this fault in very intermittent it is there and they should automatically exchange a faulty phone whether they can diagnose it or not

Where do i go from here

Art_2

Rhys wrote:

I bought two sony ericsson's from carphone warehouse one of which has developed a fault which is very intermittent where the external speaker gets garbled or the ringtone is barely audible,

I took this phone back on the second day and also today and asked for a exchange but was told that as the fault didn't show in the shop all they could do was to have the phone checked by a sony ericsson engineer which would take from 7 to 14 days,
I just wanted an exchange but the manager stated that that was up to the store in question as it was an intermittent fault,

To be honest i think he was more worried about their store quota than about customers,

He gave me a customer care number which i called and a person called patrick stated that this phone should be changed,he gave an extension number but as i was in the street i was unable to take note of it,
Went back to carphone warehouse and when i told the manager what i was told he stated this was wrong and tried to contact the patrick from customer care but told me that the person hung up on him and reiterated his previous
advice about a engineer check,

although this fault in very intermittent it is there and they should automatically exchange a faulty phone whether they can diagnose it or not

Where do i go from here

Take the phone back and tell them you are rejecting it as unfit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act as it has an inherrent fault and you want it replaced or a refund.

How much did the phone cost you?

Regards,
Art.

Art_2

Matty007 wrote:

Thanks Art

Could you please explain the 'outside of the time period where she can claim an inherrent fault' without having to prove it. Then you advise that she should write to the retailer saying that if a further problem occurs she will sue for a replacement or refund.

In the first 6 months the customer can claim a product has an inherrent fault without having to prove that it has. After 6 months the same claim can be made but the onus is then on the customer to prove the fault. Dependent on the item this could mean getting it tested etc which the customer will initially have to pay for. This does not prevent a Small Claim action on the grounds of the goods not being fit for purpose.

Does that mean that the threat of legal action might be the only real pressure likely to work in this case, as any legal action might be extremely difficult to succeed unless she could PROVE to the court of an inherrent fault.

If the retailer won't give ground then legal action is inevitable.

Where would the weaknesses in her case be.

Is it accepting and paying for the initial repairs or is it the 'reasonable time' this appliance should work is over 2 years for an item costing just in excess of £200.00.

No real weakness. If it goes to court they will take into account that it was the retailer who instructed you to go to the manufacturer. The court would make an assessment on how long the iron should have lasted and rule accordingly. Sometimes a pro-rata award will be made, that is to say if the court thinks an item should last for 7 years and you have had 2 years use from it (which you haven't because of the faults) it can award 5/7 of the claim.

I do not think she has any inclination to try and retreive the earlier costs, but feels she is at a point now where the item should at least be repaired this time at the retailers cost in the latest repair in light of earlier problems.

If it goes to court add the previous costs in. The court can always remove or lower them.


Hope this helps.

Regards,
Art.

deanos

Art wrote:

Take the phone back and tell them you are rejecting it as unfit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act as it has an inherrent fault and you want it replaced or a refund.

How much did the phone cost you?

Regards,
Art.

but the shop has the right to get the goods checked first if the fault does not show instore surely ?

Rhys_2-2

Art wrote:

Take the phone back and tell them you are rejecting it as unfit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act as it has an inherrent fault and you want it replaced or a refund.

How much did the phone cost you?

Regards,
Art.

Thanks for the reply Art

The phones cost £99.95 each so not a small sum

i mentioned to the manager that i wanted to reject the phone and he again stated that it would have to be inspected by an engineer he also said that it was up to them whether it was refunded,replaced or repaired as the fault was unable to be diagnosed,