Returning Sat Nav to Comet Question

BFG_2

Buy another one...only about £50 on ebuyer.

Then get your full amt back from Comet [small claims track of court]...job done and you'll be better off.

ihatecaptcha

Daisy_Duck wrote: »

Hello

Yes, I did read the page and was hoping that I could go somewhere with the fact that there is no stipulation that 28 days (or 30 days) is the defined 'reasonable time'.

Although the "reasonable time" for a consumer to demand their money back isn't defined, the examples given are instructive:

"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."

Presumably the reason a court would think it reasonable to allow longer for the skis is that they were bought in the summer but not used until winter. The "everyday shoes", on the other hand, might only be allowed a few days, presumably because that would be sufficient to show if they were totally useless. The criterion is not "how necessary is it" or "how long should it last without developing a fault" but "was it so unfit for purpose that it couldn't be used at all" (that's my interpretation, so be careful because I could be wrong).

Your satnav would be in the "everyday shoes" category, since you used it for a couple of months. You're well past the time when you could have demanded your money back. After that, under the SOGA, it's the retailer's choice whether to repair, refund, or replace. But in this case the repair is being done under the warranty, not the SOGA.

Oh well, worse things have happened at sea and all that!

Absolutely. Especially when they sailed without a satnav. :beer:

Daisy_Duck

ihatecaptcha wrote: »

Absolutely. Especially when they sailed without a satnav. :beer:

Indeed! :rotfl::rotfl:

DD

Anihilator

BFG wrote: »

Buy another one...only about £50 on ebuyer.

Then get your full amt back from Comet [small claims track of court]...job done and you'll be better off.

Except Comet will have no obligation to refund the OP.

If the OP can't survive without a Sat Nav for 3 weeks they should have more than one as IT and electrical equipment will never be foolproof from faults.

3 weeks for a repair isnt excessive and perfectly reasonable. The SOGA and warranty terms are both met here so the OP needs to accept it or realise they are going to be unhappy.

gregg1

Daisy_Duck wrote: »

Hello :wave:

I have a question that I hope someone can help me with...

I bought a TomTom Sat Nav from Comet in August. It has now stopped working... the light comes on but the unit will not turn on at all.
We've taken the unit back to Comet, they did various tests to it in the shop and also couldn't get it to turn on.

They have said that they will not refund or replace the unit as we've had it for more that 28 days. They will only send it away for repair. We've been told that this will take 3 weeks.

I said that it was not acceptable to leave us without a system for 3 weeks as my partner needs it for work every day... I needed a replacement or a refund so that we could buy one elsewhere.

I was told that on most items they will do this but not on Sat Navs as they do not hold the warranty, the manufacturer does and this is in their terms and conditions.

Is this true? Or can I insist upon a refund/replacement?

Thank you for any help! :beer:

DD

Had exactly the same problem with a tomtom bought from halfords in August which stopped working after 29 days (1 day after the cut-off). The refused to refund but I did manage to get them to replace it after a couple of phone calls to the manager BUT they did not have to do that. Under the Sale of Goods act they could have only offered to send it away for repair. I think in my case, the fact that was only one day out of the 28 day refund/replace, worked in my favour.

But they are within their rights to refuse to refund or replace I am afraid (although for the record I think it is wrong).

BFG_2

Anihilator wrote: »

Except Comet will have no obligation to refund the OP.

If the OP can't survive without a Sat Nav for 3 weeks they should have more than one as IT and electrical equipment will never be foolproof from faults.

3 weeks for a repair isnt excessive and perfectly reasonable. The SOGA and warranty terms are both met here so the OP needs to accept it or realise they are going to be unhappy.

You might well be 100% totally and utterly right, but do you really think Comet are going to defend a £75 case in the small claims court in the OPs home town??? Even just replying to the N1 form will cost them more than that...they'll either settle up pretty sharp or ignore everything and not turn up at court...job done.

So it's not always 'being right in the eyes of the law' that matters it's about 'cutting your losses'. Most businesses 'fob off' the first few letters because it costs them nothing to do so [well a lot less than giving a refund], but trust me, once they know you are serious about following through [and most people don't] they soon come around to a more conciliatory [and less expensive] approach.

Look at it this way, ...if you were a business owner, would you spend £700 to save £75??? If you answer yes to this question, I have some special black money and a cleaning dye for sale, and some magic pixies too. :D:D

Anihilator

BFG wrote: »

You might well be 100% totally and utterly right, but do you really think Comet are going to defend a £75 case in the small claims court in the OPs home town??? Even just replying to the N1 form will cost them more than that...they'll either settle up pretty sharp or ignore everything and not turn up at court...job done.

So it's not always 'being right in the eyes of the law' that matters it's about 'cutting your losses'. Most businesses 'fob off' the first few letters because it costs them nothing to do so [well a lot less than giving a refund], but trust me, once they know you are serious about following through [and most people don't] they soon come around to a more conciliatory [and less expensive] approach.

Look at it this way, ...if you were a business owner, would you spend £700 to save £75??? If you answer yes to this question, I have some special black money and a cleaning dye for sale, and some magic pixies too. :D:D

Or they send a letter by registered delivery copying in the court stating they will repair the good inline with the SOGA and then the OP won't win whether they show up or not as Comet have met their legal obligations.

Some people need to take a reality check. The SOGA does exist but it isnt as clear cut as people claim

ihatecaptcha

Anihilator wrote: »

Or they send a letter by registered delivery copying in the court stating they will repair the good inline with the SOGA and then the OP won't win whether they show up or not as Comet have met their legal obligations.

Is this an accepted way of responding to an impending court action? It would be useful to know more about this, if you happen to know of any guidance anywhere that mentions it.

yorksrabbit

neilmcl wrote: »

:rolleyes: It's a shame you haven't taken your own advice and read and understood the rules you've posted. Comet are completely abiding by the law in this instance by offering a repair.

Thanks for that helpful tip.

It is indeed "a shame" when posters refer to something they've neither read nor understood themselves: your certainty that Comet is "completely abiding by the law in this instance" has definitely opened my eyes.

By way of mitigation, I can only say that I was previously unaware of this provision in the legislation:

"If within six months of purchase a fault or faults renders goods unfit for purpose and so cannot be deemed to have conformed to the conditions of contract at the time of sale, then the seller is legally entitled to refuse to offer any replacement to the customer."

And this one:

"Notwithstanding the expectation of a reasonable person in regard to the durability of the particular goods sold, a seller is legally entitled to determine what level of inconvenience a purchaser shall endure as a consequence of the goods being removed from the purchaser's possession and sent off for repair for a period that is solely of the seller's choosing."

I'm presuming, these are the provisions Comet knows about, the paragraphs which prove why Comet is "completely abiding by the law"?

Oddly enough though, The Department of Business Innovation & Skills seems unaware of 'em. And The Office of Fair Trading-funded Consumer Direct, likewise. Consumer Direct, for example, states:

The best practice is to take action and report the problem and ask for a refund as soon as you discover the fault.

Consumer Direct also states:

If you have had some use from the goods or have had them for a while before you take them back you could ask for a repair or a replacement item. You, as the consumer, have the option of which solution you would like.

Obviously, Consumer Direct doesn't know what it's on about.

So I now appreciate why the OP has no choice but to be dispossessed of goods that were specifically purchased for daily useag. . . but which will be absent her/his ownership for as long as a repair may take, there being no guarantee by the seller of the actual return date.

Significant inconvenience to the customer? Nah. What does that count in Law? Where's that mentioned in SOGA?

I also now appreciate that the OP has got it all wrong throughout: not only is it distinctly bad practice for any customer to ask any seller for a refund of monies paid for goods inherently faulty at the time of purchase, such a customer must be totally doo-lally if he/she thinks the Law entitles her / him, rather than the seller, to stipulate whether replacement or repair should be the legal remedy.

In light of which, I don't know why Consumer Direct is in business. It could just pack up and leave everything to posters on MSE who understand SOGA better than it does.

As for Comet, well. . .

It's now clear that this company's appreciation of SOGA provisions whose existence is unbeknownst to all but a select few is the reason why its expensive legal team is able to defend itself so vigorously and so successfully against an aggreived customer in the Small Claims Court:

http://www.nvidiadefect.com/comet-t48.html


Er, then again, perhaps not.

ihatecaptcha

yorksrabbit wrote: »

Consumer Direct also states:

If you have had some use from the goods or have had them for a while before you take them back you could ask for a repair or a replacement item. You, as the consumer, have the option of which solution you would like.

That's only half the sentence. The full sentence reads:

"You, as the consumer, have the option of which solution you would like, however you must not require the trader to repair or replace the goods if this would be too costly, as compared to another remedy."

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/SGAknowyourrights/

I could be wrong but what I think it means is that if you've had some use from a product, the retailer might prefer to give you a partial refund, as that might be cheaper for them than either replacing or repairing. In the OP's case the satnav is only two months old so they wouldn't be able to reduce the refund by a whole lot. So they are offering repair instead, under the manufacturer's warranty.