Consumer Rights: MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

Art_2

deanos wrote:

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

No. The phone was returned within a day or so of purchase and the buyer can return it without any problem and without having to prove the phone is at fault.

Regards,
Art.

Art_2

Rhys wrote:

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,

Send a recorded delivery letter to:

Charles Dunstone,
Carphonewarehouse plc.,
1 Portal Way,
london W3 6RS

Tell him that his store doesn't seem to understand your rights under the Sale of Goods Act and you want him to replace the phone or give you a refund. Tell him if this hasn't been done within 7 days you will go to the Small Claims Court. Make sure he knows you bought 2 phones and tell him they were bought as a pair and if you go to court you will reject both of them.

Regards,
Art.

deanos

Art wrote:

No. The phone was returned within a day or so of purchase and the buyer can return it without any problem and without having to prove the phone is at fault.

Regards,
Art.

The buyer does not have to proove anything i agree, but the store has the right to check goods before giving a refund or otherwise people would be trying it on all the time ,

Art_2

deanos wrote:

The buyer does not have to proove anything i agree, but the store has the right to check goods before giving a refund or otherwise people would be trying it on all the time ,

With an inherrent fault this could be difficult for the store to do. Why should a customer make up a story? Within a short period of time the court would expect a replacement to be offered. They would not see it as reasonable to return the phone to the manufacturer. it's just a stalling technique by the retailer.

Regards,
Art.

deanos

Art wrote:

With an inherrent fault this could be difficult for the store to do.

Exactly so thats why they were sending it to there repair centre to test.

Art wrote:

. Why should a customer make up a story? Within a short period of time the court would expect a replacement to be offered.

Because people change there mind and try it on, im not saying in any way or form the OP is trying it on at all BTW

Art wrote:

They would not see it as reasonable to return the phone to the manufacturer. it's just a stalling technique by the retailer.
.

Its not going to the manafactuer, CPW have there own repair centres

Art wrote:

it's just a stalling technique by the retailer.

Possibly


Im not on the side of the retailer at all, but i had a similar problem with a camera from Currys 1 week old , i got trading standards involved as Currys wanted it to be tested as they could not find a fault instore and they (trading tandards) told me the retailer has the right to test the goods before refund or exchange , as the fault did not show up insore Currys sent it to there repair centre where they found a fault, i then got my refund a few days later

Art_2

[



Because people change there mind and try it on, im not saying in any way or form the OP is trying it on at all BTW

But what could OP or anyone in this situation expect to gain? He was simply asking for a replacement that worked.






Im not on the side of the retailer at all, but i had a similar problem with a camera from Currys 1 week old , i got trading standards involved as Currys wanted it to be tested as they could not find a fault instore and they (trading tandards) told me the retailer has the right to test the goods before refund or exchange , as the fault did not show up insore Currys sent it to there repair centre where they found a fault, i then got my refund a few days later[/quote]

You simply show how the law can be interpreted differently by different people. Another Trading Standards office could advise differently.

In the past 6 months I can recall a registrar at a County Court finding in favour of the plaintiff because he said it was unreasonable to expect him to be without the faulty item (a TV) whilst the company had it tested to see if it was faulty or not. Equally, if this was put to another judge the outcome may have been different.

When it comes to consumer law interpretation sometimes has to be tested in court and the result may vary from one court to another. This is partly due to lack of clarity in the law itself. Examples of this are 'satisfactory quality', 'reasonable expectation', 'reasonable time'. These are not defined, nor can they be, and sometimes need to be tested in court where individual circumstances can be taken into account. Once again as it is open to interpetation one court could find differently to another.

Regards,
Art.

morlandbanks

Has anyone pruchased REPLACEMENT PRODUCT COVER from Argos? I'm going to buy a breadmaker today and I very much doubt it will survive 3 years without conking out because we use it every day. We have to pay about £13 for the cover. The breadmaker is £80. I should imagine it will be worth the money because I can see me needing a replacement within the 3 years, but has anyone had any experience with them? Is it all as simple as they make out...Or will I have a fight on my hands when it comes to it. I know I'd be covered for the 1st year by warranty anyway, but with the insurance, they'd have to just exchange, rather than go through the 'repair' process which leaves me without a breadmaker!

SuperNashwan

Art wrote:

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.

Are you sure about that?

48A.

(1) This section applies if—

(a) the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
(b) the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.
[...]
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply if—

(a) it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;

(b) its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

My reading of that is that burden of proof it describes relates to whether a given fault was present at the time of sale, not whether it in fact exists or not?

Matty007

Dear Art

Had a surprise with my mobile phone contract.

I was contacted by an Orange third party company saying that they represented Orange and would like to know whether I would like to reduce my monthly tariff.

I agreed to their reduced tariff in return for an extended 18 month contract.

No problems until I was compiling my accounts for this year and realised that the company had debited £150 from my account, this was not part of the deal !!

I contacted Orange and they seemed aware of this problem and it seemed that this had happened to many many customers. Direct Debits beware !!!

They have agreed to credit my account for the amount taken out.

Would it be reasonable for me to ask for interest on this amount (how much should I charge ?) and I would want the contract terminated and have the opportunity to see what other tariffs may be available to me.

What do you reckon mate. PS Been an Orange customer for quite a few years.

Thanks in advance.

Matty007

Art_2

Matty007 wrote:

Dear Art

Had a surprise with my mobile phone contract.

I was contacted by an Orange third party company saying that they represented Orange and would like to know whether I would like to reduce my monthly tariff.

I agreed to their reduced tariff in return for an extended 18 month contract.

No problems until I was compiling my accounts for this year and realised that the company had debited £150 from my account, this was not part of the deal !!

I contacted Orange and they seemed aware of this problem and it seemed that this had happened to many many customers. Direct Debits beware !!!

They have agreed to credit my account for the amount taken out.

Would it be reasonable for me to ask for interest on this amount (how much should I charge ?) and I would want the contract terminated and have the opportunity to see what other tariffs may be available to me.

What do you reckon mate. PS Been an Orange customer for quite a few years.

Thanks in advance.

Matty007

Hi Matty,
It's worth asking Orange for some recompense but it would only add up to a few pounds and I wonder if it's worth the hassle. They may offer you something as a goodwill gesture though if they want to hold on to you - this is certainly worth a try.

If you prefer a 12 month contract you most certainly can ask for this to be done for you. You could ask them to match the offer you were given by the third party.

The worrying point in this is that Orange must have supplied your details to the third party, and may even own the company that contacted you. it's worth asking them to ensure your details are not passed on again.

Regards,
Art.