Aaaaaargh! Comet!!!!

mishkanorman

I wasnt belittleing you I was asking you to consider your terminology rather than insult others !! ~( individual or not, doubt he would thank you for it )

You have backed up nothing, Im talking about outside evidence a website or detailed resource that shows actual facts not you and your mate repeating " i know my rights "

If its not reached court then its generally because of the financial implications and probably cos comet would rather get rid of a annoying person like you than waste their time and entertain your every winge. Management stupidly waste their time trying to please people like you who doing everything but stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la cant hear you.

Ive been management and I know its better to go against company policy, customer rights and sometimes law to try and resolve the matter at store level, and give the customer what they expect, rather than let it get to the ridiculus level of court action over electrical equipment. If comet havent done that for you perhaps if you adjusted your manner towards people you will have more success and wouldnt need to threaten court action.

smcaul

mishkanorman wrote:

Ive been management and I know its better to go against company policy, customer rights and sometimes law to try and resolve the matter at store level, and give the customer what they expect, rather than let it get to the ridiculus level of court action over electrical equipment. If comet havent done that for you perhaps if you adjusted your manner towards people you will have more success and wouldnt need to threaten court action.

You have absolutly no idea how I conduct myself in such situations - not once have I mentioned how any of the conversations between myself and Comet actually went - I have only detailed the facts of my case, as that was all that has been required - you are making some pretty drastic assumptions, from what I can tell you are assuming that I went storming into the store shouting and ranting at the sales assistants, well I can inform you that you are very much wrong. I always approach a situation with an open mind, now in the cases I have stated it is very clear that Comet were in the wrong, even Glowy posted what should have hapened and it was obvious this did not happen in my case. I suggest you go and re read the whole thread before making such flipent remarks. As for my employment, all yoiu need to know is what I have already stated, which is I have to deal with irate customers, but they are not joe public, they are multi nationals who need things done yesterday, so pleae don't presume to know how I conduct myself in tense situations.

smcaul

Here you go, straight from the DTI site - Enjoy.

Subject: Sale of Goods Act, Faulty Goods.

Relevant or Related Legislation: Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Key Facts:

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What is an inherent fault?
Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 [or some other number] days after purchase?
Q3. Do all goods have to last six (or five) years?
Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but how long is that?
Q5. After the "reasonable time has passed", what can I do?
Q6. Is it true that I have to complain to the manufacturer?
Q7. Do I have to produce a receipt?
Q8. Can I claim a refund on sale items?
Q9. Must I accept a credit note instead of a refund?
Q10. What can I do to claim damages or if the retailer will not honour my rights?
Q11. The retailer has claimed that a repair is "disproportionately costly" and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?
Q12. Neither repair nor replacement are possible. What can I do?
Q13. What will the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer

Q1. What is an inherent fault?

A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 (or some other figure) days after purchase?

No. Depending on circumstances, you might be too late to have all your money back after this time, but the trader will still be liable for any breaches of contract, such as the goods being faulty. In fact, the trader could be liable to compensate you for up to six years.

Q3. Are all goods supposed to last six (or five) years?

No, that is the limit for bringing a court case in England and Wales (five years from the time of discovery in Scotland's case). An item only needs to last as long as it is reasonable to expect it to, taking into account all the factors. An oil filter would usually not last longer than a year but that would not mean it was unsatisfactory.

Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but how long is that?

The law does not specify a precise time as it will vary for most sales contracts as all the factors need to be taken into account to be fair to all sides. The pair of everyday shoes may only have a few days before the period expires but a pair of skis, purchased in a Summer Sale, may be allowed a longer period by a court.

Q5. After the "reasonable time" has passed, what can I do?

You may seek damages, which would be the amount of money necessary to have the goods repaired or replaced. Frequently retailers will themselves offer repair or replacement. But, if you are a consumer (not making the purchase in the course of a business) you have the statutory right to seek a repair or replacement as an alternative to seeking damages.

Q6. Is it true that I have to complain to the manufacturer?

No. You bought the goods from the trader, not the manufacturer, and the trader is liable for any breaches of contract (unless he was acting as the manufacturer's agent).

Q7. Do I have to produce a receipt to claim my rights?

No. In fact the trader doesn't have to give you a receipt in the first place so it would be unfair to say that you had to produce one. However, it might not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase, so look to see if you have a cheque stub, bank statement, credit card slip etc., and this should be sufficient.

Q8. Can I claim a refund on sale items?

It depends on why you want to return them. The Sale of Goods Act still applies, but you are not entitled to a refund if you were told of the faults before purchase, or if the fault should have been obvious to you. Also, you are not entitled to a refund if you simply change your mind about liking the goods.

Q9. Must I accept a credit note instead of a refund?

It depends on why you want to return the goods.

• If you have changed your mind, then the shop doesn't have to do anything.

• But if the goods are faulty, incorrectly described or not fit for purpose, then you are entitled to your money back (provided you act quickly), and you certainly don't have to take a credit note

• If you do accept a credit note in these circumstances, watch out, as there may be restrictions on their use.

• If the shop displays a sign stating they only give credit notes instead of refunds, they might be breaking the law and you could report them to your local Trading Standards Department.

Q10. What can I do to claim damages or if the retailer will not honour my rights?

The Small Claims Court procedure provides the means to bring a claim, for up to £5000 (in England and Wales), at modest cost and without the need for a solicitor. Your local Citizens Advice Bureau can advise on how to make a claim.

Q11. The retailer has said that a repair is "disproportionately costly" and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?

Yes, and vice versa if you request a replacement and this is "disproportionately costly". However, remember any remedy has to be carried out "without significant inconvenience" and within a "reasonable time" for the consumer. Remember that you could also seek damages instead.

Q12. Neither repair nor replacement of the goods are possible. What can I do?

You may either pursue the old route of damages or a partial or full refund. Probably either would give you exactly the same amount of money. You would seek a full refund in scenarios such as those where you had enjoyed absolutely no benefit from the goods. If you had benefited from them then you would seek a partial refund as a fair remedy. This is exactly the reasoning that would be employed if you sought damages.

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.

In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.

This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

stugib

mishkanorman wrote:

If the people who "know there rights" so well could back it up with some kind of evidence for us who disagree ( as i tried to do !! ) it would solve this thread argument.

But mishka, you posted the evidence (in anecdotal form) yourself in post #38 - it was all there, albeit you missed the bit about rejection, and smcaul has listed it from the horse's mouth. I'll add Consumer Direct's version (http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/your-rights/fs_c04.shtml):

Rejecting faulty goods

You have a right to 'reject' faulty goods. If you tell the seller promptly that the goods are faulty and you don't want them, you should be able to get your money back. As long as you have not legally 'accepted' the goods, you can still 'reject' them - that is, refuse to accept them.

One of the ways you accept goods is by keeping them after you've had a reasonable time to examine them, and without clearly saying that you want to return them. What is 'reasonable', however, is not fixed - it depends on the circumstances. Normally, you can at least take your purchase home and try it out. But if you delay in examining what you've bought or in telling the seller that you wish to reject the goods, then you might lose your right to reject.

If you agree to let the seller try to put faulty goods right, this also does not affect your rights. Make it clear that if the repair fails, you will be rejecting the goods and seeking a refund.

Refunds

You are entitled to your money back if there is a fault with the goods, or they are any of the following:

* Unsatisfactory quality
* Not fit for their purpose
* Misdescribed (not what they are supposed to be)

Even if you have used the goods a few times, you are probably still entitled to a refund. However, if you have had some use from the goods, the trader may make a reduction from the original price when refunding the money.

If you have not had a reasonable opportunity to check the goods, you could possibly be entitled to a refund if you complain at a later date.

However, since the 31st March 2003, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations give you parallel or alternate rights. Instead of a refund, you may choose to ask for a replacement or a repair. Goods which do not conform to the contract within the six months after they were delivered are presumed to have been faulty when you got them. In these cases, you do not have to prove the fault was present when the goods were sold. Instead, the trader must prove that the fault was not present when the goods were sold. The burden of proof is on the trader.

Repairs

You are entitled to a repair of the goods if they are faulty, as an alternative to a refund or a replacement. The repair must be all of the following:

* It must restore the goods to a satisfactory condition.
* It must be done within a reasonable period of time.
* It must not cause you any significant inconvenience.

If the goods cannot be repaired economically, you are entitled to a refund or replacement. You may also be entitled to compensation if the repair is unsatisfactory.

Replacements

You are entitled to a replacement of the goods if they are faulty and cannot be repaired economically. If a replacement is not possible (for example, if the goods you require are no longer in stock), you are still entitled to a refund for faulty goods.

Guarantees

A manufacturer's guarantee is useful when your statutory rights no longer apply. Provided you claim within the guarantee period, there shouldn't be a problem.

No excuses

The law says it's up to the seller to deal with complaints about defective goods or other failures to comply with your statutory rights. Don't accept the excuse that "It's the manufacturer's fault," although you might also have additional rights against the manufacturer under a guarantee.

glowy, 2 quick things:
- you still haven't answered my question - are you aware of the differences between statuatory rights, retailers terms and manufacturer's guarantees, and which take precedence and when each apply?
- a quick lesson in logic. Person 1 says 'X', person 2 disagrees with 1, person 3 disagrees with 1. This doesn't mean person 2 and 3 agree! Just because zorber disagrees with marks87's interpretation of the law doesn't mean your interpretation is correct!

mishkanorman

thankyou, all you needed to do was back up your argument,
• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

this point is something that has been argued over, it states the purchaser has to prove the fault.


• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

so the OP can only hope for a partial refund ??

• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

some posters here seemed to be under the impression full refund or replacement, not repair

Q5. After the "reasonable time" has passed, what can I do?

You may seek damages, which would be the amount of money necessary to have the goods repaired or replaced. Frequently retailers will themselves offer repair or replacement. But, if you are a consumer (not making the purchase in the course of a business) you have the statutory right to seek a repair or replacement as an alternative to seeking damages.

Is this not the case with the OP ??



In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.

This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.


Ive put in bold what i consider to be a relevant points, they will offer a remedy, which as far as i can see comet did, ok they took their time but it says nowt about immediately,

Anyway im too tired to argue with you any more lets just agree to disagree.

Its gone on for pages and short of me rolling up my sleeve and saying " arm wrestle " it aint ever gonna end. I think your wrong you think Im stupid.

mishka

smcaul

mishkanorman wrote:

thankyou, all you needed to do was back up your argument,
• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

this point is something that has been argued over, it states the purchaser has to prove the fault.

If you read it a little bit further down you will see your reply is not strictly correct - the purchaser only has to prove a fault if after 6 months, it states the only exception to this is if the item is under 6 months old.

The law is not very clear, which makes it difficult for both sides - but Comet (that is who this thread is about after all) do sail very close to the wind - and they know it, I am sure it would only take a test case to go against them and it would cost them dear, that is what they try to avoid.

zorber

glowy69 wrote:

the co-op are a rip off anyway, did you by per chance check the model against our website? Almost certain it will be cheaper..

Whilst i have been supporting you through this thread, i have noticed your lack of attenion to detail. You have merely presumed you will be cheaper and have slagged off the coop for no reason. As it happens it takes 30 second to search your web site to find comet are the same price as john lewis which as i stated earleir was close to £50 more expensive than the Coop. This makes the coop cheaper and comet a rip off !!!!!

zorber

mikemoate wrote:

Still quite an interesting debate however my conclusion after reading what glowy and zorber says is - to avoid Comet like the plague - they have participated in this debate in a similar manner to what any poor customer service operative would do in real life - punch and counter punch. I would reall y expect a cso to try to find some middle ground and leave it at that.

Some one else who doesnt know what they are on about. I have tried to keep to fact in this debate, i am not here to defend comet i am trying to make sure people go away with acurate position on the law and not being miss lead by people who think they know the law. As for poor customer service i dont think you can make that assumption from this thread. I dont work in customer service for a start. there is no middle ground the customer is either right or wrong, they are either entitled to some thing or not there is no middle ground in these debates

mikemoate

zorber wrote:

Some one else who doesnt know what they are on about. I have tried to keep to fact in this debate, i am not here to defend comet i am trying to make sure people go away with acurate position on the law and not being miss lead by people who think they know the law. As for poor customer service i dont think you can make that assumption from this thread. I dont work in customer service for a start. there is no middle ground the customer is either right or wrong, they are either entitled to some thing or not there is no middle ground in these debates

I dont work in customer service for a start

Thank goodness.

steady__eddie

I would like to thank all concerned for a very lively and interesting debate, the last few posts I found to be exceptionally informative. I.M.O. I doubt if the forthcoming local government elections will provide half as much thought provocation.
I have in the past been a Comet casualty myself and class myself to be wiser for the experience. I am aware that this thread is aimed at one specific retailer but I would suggest that this source of consumer annoyance may be starting to percolate through retail industry with Staples following in Comets footsteps.
I really must dash now as I can see the dog trying to open the drawer on the d.v.d.