Comet & a DVD recorder

hjb123

Ivan,

Thats very useful what you have found there, have copied and saved it to computer for possible future use - if a sales assistant gets that quoted to them bet it wouldnt take them long to back down!!

rchddap1

Very useful information Ivan. I am going to use your last underlined point by saying that I have requested a replacement, so please prove that the goods conformed when sold.

We'll see what happens.

stugib

From my understanding, and I've also posted similar info to Ivan's from the DTI's and Consumer Direct websites (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=1505100&postcount=18), what Comet say is correct. I wish Martin could arrange a consumer rights expert to join these boards for a day to clarify this one way or the other because the general consensus of opinion on these boards seems to be that if anything goes wrong within the first six months you're entitled to a refund, and although I think there's some ambiguity in the different UK and EU laws, I don't think that's correct.

I think the way it works is:
1. you have time to inspect the goods, and reject them if they don't meet the contract. The example the DTI give is this is ~2 days for a pair of shoes, but could be a few months for a pair of skis if you can't try them until it next snows. You are entitled to a refund when you reject the goods.
2. If the goods develop a fault after you've accepted the goods you are entitled to damages, which means repair or replacement, but I'm not sure who decides whether it's repair or replacement. You have up to 6 years to claim damages for goods that haven't lasted as long as they should (this doesn't mean all goods should last 6 years!), but within the first 6 months it's assumed the fault was there at time of sale, unless the retailer proves you did the damage yourself, so they have to repair/replace. You're not entitled to a refund once you've accepted the goods.
3. If repair or replacement isn't cost-effective, possible or causes unreasonable inconvenience then you're entitled to a partial refund if you've had some benefit or a full refund if no benefit.

That's how I read it from the factsheets and seeing the advice different people have been given from Trading Standards. Now, where I think there is confusion is that the <6 month=assumed inherent fault could lead you to believe that the contract hadn't been met at the time of sale so you're entitled to reject within the first 6 months and get a full refund, but I've never seen any case to back that up.

Stuart

rchddap1

This is part of our problem.....people assume that we want a refund....we don't. All we want is a replacement. Nice and simple replacement.

I have given it one more go...we'll see what they say this time.

stugib

I think that's worth spelling out again to Comet (for clarity, I wasn't particularly saying _you_ were demanding a refund, just that it tends to be the first response on here to questions like this, which sets expectations too high, and I'm not sure is correct).

However, I think that's another ambiguity in the law - who decides whether a refund or replacement is the preferred option? In either case, I think the retailer should be entitled to a little time to validate that the damage hasn't been caused by misuse though.

Stuart

Fuzzy_2

I keep a copy of the summary in my handbag, very handy. Was in a queue at PC world, just after Christmas, to return faulty goods, bloke in front of me was having a complete mare, so I gave him the summary to have a look at. He got sorted with a refund immediately after that, and strangely enough so did I, although I had to put up with some filthy looks during the procedure, and they deliberately took ages to do it, just to make the point!!