Aaaaaargh! Comet!!!!

mishkanorman

whats in question here is should dammans friend be entitled to a refund as the Sat Nav didnt work, correct ??

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).

As far as you have told us Comet stated that they had to return it to the manufacturer for inspection first-not that they wouldnt deal with you or didnt believe you. A longer time had passed than was appropriate to issue a full refund(although it appears they could have given a refund when the first unit was returned-maybe your friend didnt want this option as he still wanted the unit??)

I cant see that a law has been broken, merely that the customer service didnt meet your expectations. And as i tried to point out to you earlier, they have this policy in place as for every damaged or faulty item there are probably 2 more than just arent being operated properly.

stugib,

firstly i dont work for comet, secondly, yes it is their responsibilty to deal with the customer, but in this case the way in which they are trying to remedy the problem is by involving the makers who are the experts at this particular piece of equipment. The law as it states is

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



EVERYTHING that I have said on here has been taken and twisted, when i said that i no longer wanted to argue as it was getting no-one any where that suddenly became that i was petty and only out to win ??? I couldnt give two hoots what comet get up to but I still believe that in the circumstances mentioned here they have followed the law.


mishka

Whits

smcaul wrote:

Get real, the police would tell you go away and stop wasting their time for a start. for 2nd's, if you were a spotty little oik and I described you as such then that is just a desription of a person. and lastly, and please read this bit carefully as I see you have problems reading threads, I never actually called the person that, I refered to them as one in this thread - so try reading the whole thread before chipping in and flaming someone.

Actually, I think you'll find calling me a 6 foot tall man is a description, spotty little oik is an insult and it is classed as "using threatening, INSULTING or abusive words or behaviour" and therefore, is illegal - that means it's against the law, not my law or glowy's law but the one that says you can't rob someones house:rolleyes:

Secondly, how can you know that I have problems reading threads? Do you know me? Do you know if my eyes don't work quite as well as they should? Or is it that you just like to belittle people?

smcaul

Whits wrote:

Actually, I think you'll find calling me a 6 foot tall man is a description, spotty little oik is an insult and it is classed as "using threatening, INSULTING or abusive words or behaviour" and therefore, is illegal - that means it's against the law, not my law or glowy's law but the one that says you can't rob someones house:rolleyes:

Secondly, how can you know that I have problems reading threads? Do you know me? Do you know if my eyes don't work quite as well as they should? Or is it that you just like to belittle people?

Sorry, but I strongly disagree, And I would be more then happy for it to be tested - calling someone a spotty little oik is not threatening or abusive, it may be mildly insulting, but not as much as to get to court - even our over zelous CPS would not let that get to court.

For your 2nd point, as you refered to me calling someone a spotty little oik to their face in the store proves that you do not read the thread - if you had you would have noticed that I referred to them as one as an adjective not called them one as a form of rebuke.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dammam

mishkanorman wrote:

whats in question here is should dammans friend be entitled to a refund as the Sat Nav didnt work, correct ??

(ONLY IN CAPS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN YOUR COMMENTS AND MINE - I'M NOT SHOUTING)

NO, NOT EXACTLY. A REPLACEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE. A REFUND WAS ONLY REQUESTED WHEN THE STORE SAID THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEND THE UNIT AWAY FOR INVESTIGATION.

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).

As far as you have told us Comet stated that they had to return it to the manufacturer for inspection first-not that they wouldnt deal with you or didnt believe you. A longer time had passed than was appropriate to issue a full refund(although it appears they could have given a refund when the first unit was returned-maybe your friend didnt want this option as he still wanted the unit??)

THE 28 DAYS HAD INDEED PASSED, BUT TS SEEM TO FEEL THAT THE 28 DAY 'RULE' IS NOT VALID IN LAW.
YES, HE STILL WANTED THE UNIT, THE REFUND WAS REQUESTED SO THAT HE COULD BUY ANOTHER ONE ELSEWHERE STRAIGHT AWAY.

I cant see that a law has been broken, merely that the customer service didnt meet your expectations. And as i tried to point out to you earlier, they have this policy in place as for every damaged or faulty item there are probably 2 more than just arent being operated properly.

VEY LIKELY. HOWEVER, THIS PROBLEM WAS OBVIOUSLY A SOFTWARE FAULT. I TOOK MY OWN SATNAV IN (USING TOMTOM SOFTWARE) TO SHOW WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AND THEN DEMONSTRATED WHAT HAPPENED ON THE ONE THEY SOLD.
WE WERE BOTH THEN MISINFORMED ON SEVERAL ISSUES OF CONSUMER LAW.

stugib,

firstly i dont work for comet, secondly, yes it is their responsibilty to deal with the customer, but in this case the way in which they are trying to remedy the problem is by involving the makers who are the experts at this particular piece of equipment. The law as it states is

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



EVERYTHING that I have said on here has been taken and twisted, when i said that i no longer wanted to argue as it was getting no-one any where that suddenly became that i was petty and only out to win ??? I couldnt give two hoots what comet get up to but I still believe that in the circumstances mentioned here they have followed the law.

TORFAEN TS DISAGREE.
TO BE HONEST, THE LAW OF IT ONLY COMES INTO IT BECAUSE I FEEL THE SERVICE WAS SO BAD. IF THEY ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW, THEY ARE CERTAINLY SKATING VERY CLOSE TO THE EDGE AND ARE NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. THE STAFF ARE EITHER IGNORANT OF OR DISMISSIVE OF THE SALE OF GOODS ACT AND THAT'S WHY I'LL NEVER SHOP THERE AGAIN.
IF YOU HAD EXPERIENCED WHAT I HAVE, YOU MIGHT FEEL THE SAME.


mishka

My replies in capitals above.

Dammam

Whits wrote:

Actually, I think you'll find calling me a 6 foot tall man is a description, spotty little oik is an insult and it is classed as "using threatening, INSULTING or abusive words or behaviour" and therefore, is illegal - that means it's against the law, not my law or glowy's law but the one that says you can't rob someones house:rolleyes:


But he didn't call YOU a spotty little oik - or anyone else for that matter. If you're 6 foot tall then a more appropriate description would need to be made :-)

Anyway, the law wouldn't count on Comets' shop floor as I always carry my own terms and conditions which override, but in no way affect, your rights. You're welcome to read them AFTER I issue the insult.:D

QUOTE]

smcaul

Dammam wrote:

Anyway, the law wouldn't count on Comets' shop floor as I always carry my own terms and conditions which override, but in no way affect, your rights. You're welcome to read them AFTER I issue the insult.:D

:T :T :rotfl: :rotfl: :T :T

Whits

Dammam wrote:

Anyway, the law wouldn't count on Comets' shop floor as I always carry my own terms and conditions which override, but in no way affect, your rights. You're welcome to read them AFTER I issue the insult.:D

Unless I ask for them prior to the event:rolleyes:

I think it's about time people realised that Comet may not have done the best job of forwarding the company image but I'm sure we can all agree, Comet sell enough gear without complaints that this is a tiny percentage.

Don't get me wrong here folks, I'd rather there were no comments on this board about my employers, I'd much rather see thousands of complaints about DSG group and their T's&C's:D

mr_flibble

A wonderful and very entertaining thread. Thanks to you all for making a hours reading simply fly by.

I didn't realise how they operated and the posts from those who work there have persuaded me not to buy from them again.

Customer service is so much more than knowing the law, statutory rights, or internal policies.

Customer service is about being valued and wanting to return to the store again and again.

Yes there are idiots who try it on and want to return the tv they threw in the garden pond saying it's not fit for purpose as it needed to be waterproof!!

Most people who return goods do so because there is a genuine or percieved fault. How they are dealt with from that point on is important.

It seems that at this point not all companies have the same respect for the customer who has a problem as they do for their money at the time of purchase.

Kel.

mishkanorman

Damman,
"THE 28 DAYS HAD INDEED PASSED, BUT TS SEEM TO FEEL THAT THE 28 DAY 'RULE' IS NOT VALID IN LAW.
YES, HE STILL WANTED THE UNIT, THE REFUND WAS REQUESTED SO THAT HE COULD BUY ANOTHER ONE ELSEWHERE STRAIGHT AWAY."


On the department of trade and industries website the amount of reasonable time for a refund is actually not specified but instead is given as "varying depending on the product" but they offer the guideline of a week, stating that this is could be even shorter for something like an ice cream which obviously wouldnt last that long. By law they only had to offer a replacement after inspection. If it was to make it to court that is when the 28 day rule would be looked at on a item by item basis.


You have had bad service and to be honest I dont think that could ever change, they are reasonably priced because they dont have staff that earn more than £6 per hour (estimate) If that was to increase and every member of staff knew consumer law-inside out-the prices would un-doubtedly have to rise and you wouldnt shop there for that reason !! Its ok to say they should know the basics but there are so many variables to take into account that its not worth the training expense. The best thing you can do is be FULLY aware of your rights, obtain product information from specialist stores and then buy from comet anyway

As for the spotty oik comment, its a bit below the belt and is generalising people who work in retail in a demeaning manner. Its akin to calling all barmaids "darling" and all accountants "square" I have refused to serve customers in the past who I found offensive and after having it pointed out to them they have apologised and felt quite bad, sometimes being the 'face 'of a company can make you faceless and an easy target.


mishka

Dammam

mishkanorman wrote:

Damman,
"THE 28 DAYS HAD INDEED PASSED, BUT TS SEEM TO FEEL THAT THE 28 DAY 'RULE' IS NOT VALID IN LAW.
YES, HE STILL WANTED THE UNIT, THE REFUND WAS REQUESTED SO THAT HE COULD BUY ANOTHER ONE ELSEWHERE STRAIGHT AWAY."


On the department of trade and industries website the amount of reasonable time for a refund is actually not specified but instead is given as "varying depending on the product" but they offer the guideline of a week, stating that this is could be even shorter for something like an ice cream which obviously wouldnt last that long. By law they only had to offer a replacement after inspection. If it was to make it to court that is when the 28 day rule would be looked at on a item by item basis.


You have had bad service and to be honest I dont think that could ever change, they are reasonably priced because they dont have staff that earn more than £6 per hour (estimate) If that was to increase and every member of staff knew consumer law-inside out-the prices would un-doubtedly have to rise and you wouldnt shop there for that reason !! Its ok to say they should know the basics but there are so many variables to take into account that its not worth the training expense. The best thing you can do is be FULLY aware of your rights, obtain product information from specialist stores and then buy from comet anyway

As for the spotty oik comment, its a bit below the belt and is generalising people who work in retail in a demeaning manner. Its akin to calling all barmaids "darling" and all accountants "square" I have refused to serve customers in the past who I found offensive and after having it pointed out to them they have apologised and felt quite bad, sometimes being the 'face 'of a company can make you faceless and an easy target.


mishka

That's fine apart from 4 points.

1. He didn't ask for a refund, just a replacement. The refund request was from me after I too asked for a replacement.

and

2. 39 days was not an unreasonable time to discover that a Satnav didn't recognise Birmingham, unless a Birmingham trip had been scheduled within 28 days.

3. I don't expect a £6 per hour semi-skilled employee to know the ins and outs of consumer law (although it appears that som believe they DO know it), but by the time I had escalated the matter to store manager level I would have expected a modicum of knowledge, not to mention a degree of understanding of the importance of customer retention.

4. The 'spotty oik' comment which a few people have a hang-up about, was never made to anyone! It was used as a description here, but as the possible recipient wouldn't realise it was aimed at him even were he here then I would suggest that people are either using it as a smokescreen to take the subject away from Comets' shoddy service or there is a huge vat of political correctness that several people have fallen in to.

Mr Fibble is right, there's MUCH more to customer service than simply knowing consumer law. I hope that this thread has helped him avoid the grief that others have had.