Help! Comet won't refund faulty satnav

Esqui

"Reasonable time" for a Sat Nav would likely be enough time to, say, make a long journey with it and ascertain it works correctly. By OP's admission, he uses it every day, so it's not like it's been hardly used.

They are within their rights to offer repair. Presumably Comet also offer some form of extra service plan which would get it replaced on the spot on small things.

Just sayin', y'know...

Blacksheep1979

Yes the op can request a refund - the shop doesn't have to give it to them. Once goods have been accepted then it is up to the retailer what remedy they choose. I think the exact wording in the legislation is along the lines of the customer cannot demand remedy that is disproportionate to another i.e. if it's going to cost the store more to repair then the store can replace/refund, if it's going to cost more to refund/replace then the store can repair etc - as long as the customer is made whole/gets what they paid for.

Helen_J_3

I don't know why people are saying 2 months is not a reasonable amount of time. The legislation covers goods for 6 years!

And why does it have to be proven that it was faulty at the time of purchase? If you bought a microwave and after 8 months it blew up due to a fault would the store refuse a refund because it didn't blow up at the time of purchase?

The goods should be fit for use for a reasonable amount of time. If the sat nav worked or not for the first two months is irrelevant. It doesn't work now and now is when the consumer wants a refund.

Also I would argue that the contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer, so don't let them fob you off with the 'we need to send it back to the manufacturer'. If Comet want to claim for money lost off the manufacturer they can do so, that's nothing to do with you your contract is with the retailer i.e. Comet

Anihilator

Helen_J wrote: »

I don't know why people are saying 2 months is not a reasonable amount of time. The legislation covers goods for 6 years!

And why does it have to be proven that it was faulty at the time of purchase? If you bought a microwave and after 8 months it blew up due to a fault would the store refuse a refund because it didn't blow up at the time of purchase?

The goods should be fit for use for a reasonable amount of time. If the sat nav worked or not for the first two months is irrelevant. It doesn't work now and now is when the consumer wants a refund.

Also I would argue that the contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer, so don't let them fob you off with the 'we need to send it back to the manufacturer'. If Comet want to claim for money lost off the manufacturer they can do so, that's nothing to do with you your contract is with the retailer i.e. Comet

To cover points.

It doesnt give you 6 years to reject the goods, it gives you upto 6 years of statutory rights. Rejection is only for a reasonable period.

Re the Microwave yes they could. In the first 6 months you dont need to prove anything, after which there is a reverse burden of proof for you to prove it didnt meet the SOGA.

As for the next bit the SOGA allows a repair, refund or replacement, this is for the retailer to choose. The customer cant demand anything outwith the rejection period. The customer used it daily for 2 months hence why wasnt it rejected sooner if it wasnt within the SOGA at the point of sale.

As for the next point. You cant expect Comet etc to have the expertise to repair items. They are dealing with it and are perfectly allowed to send it where they want for repair or replacement or whatever. Your argument would only make sense if they refused to send it off for the OP.

Frankly this thread proves why this site and its stupid leaflets with half an act on it are dangerous.

The OP and you have proven you dont know what your on about.

neilmcl

Helen_J wrote: »

I don't know why people are saying 2 months is not a reasonable amount of time. The legislation covers goods for 6 years!

And why does it have to be proven that it was faulty at the time of purchase? If you bought a microwave and after 8 months it blew up due to a fault would the store refuse a refund because it didn't blow up at the time of purchase?

The goods should be fit for use for a reasonable amount of time. If the sat nav worked or not for the first two months is irrelevant. It doesn't work now and now is when the consumer wants a refund.

Also I would argue that the contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer, so don't let them fob you off with the 'we need to send it back to the manufacturer'. If Comet want to claim for money lost off the manufacturer they can do so, that's nothing to do with you your contract is with the retailer i.e. Comet

Two Things - The SOGA covers goods and services upto 6 years and we're talking about the ability to completely reject the item for a full refund which needs to be done within a reasonable time of purchase, these are entirely two seperate things. Nobody is saying that the product had to be visibly faulty at the time of purchase, what is required is that the product had an inherent fault at the time of purchase - "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."

You are correct in stating that the contract is with the retailer but Comet are entirely within their rights, in order to prove, or otherwise, a fault by sending it off to the manufacturer for an assesment.

adouglasmhor

Maybe the OP did not have to use it on the M25 until a week ago, so the fault, which he did show to the Comet staff was not apparent until this point but was there at purchase.

gordikin

Helen_J wrote: »

I don't know why people are saying 2 months is not a reasonable amount of time. The legislation covers goods for 6 years!

And why does it have to be proven that it was faulty at the time of purchase? If you bought a microwave and after 8 months it blew up due to a fault would the store refuse a refund because it didn't blow up at the time of purchase?

The goods should be fit for use for a reasonable amount of time. If the sat nav worked or not for the first two months is irrelevant. It doesn't work now and now is when the consumer wants a refund.

Also I would argue that the contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer, so don't let them fob you off with the 'we need to send it back to the manufacturer'. If Comet want to claim for money lost off the manufacturer they can do so, that's nothing to do with you your contract is with the retailer i.e. Comet

You need to learn a whole lot more before posting any more of your nonsense!

Anihilator

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Maybe the OP did not have to use it on the M25 until a week ago, so the fault, which he did show to the Comet staff was not apparent until this point but was there at purchase.

Uh huh and what about the other fault he is reporting. Take that wasnt there either.

Just to clarify though. You are suggesting the OP lies and hence commits a criminal act?

I take you have finally conceded you are wrong then.

Helen_J_3

Anihilator wrote: »

To cover points.

It doesnt give you 6 years to reject the goods, it gives you upto 6 years of statutory rights. Rejection is only for a reasonable period.

Re the Microwave yes they could. In the first 6 months you dont need to prove anything, after which there is a reverse burden of proof for you to prove it didnt meet the SOGA.

As for the next bit the SOGA allows a repair, refund or replacement, this is for the retailer to choose. The customer cant demand anything outwith the rejection period. The customer used it daily for 2 months hence why wasnt it rejected sooner if it wasnt within the SOGA at the point of sale.

As for the next point. You cant expect Comet etc to have the expertise to repair items. They are dealing with it and are perfectly allowed to send it where they want for repair or replacement or whatever. Your argument would only make sense if they refused to send it off for the OP.

Frankly this thread proves why this site and its stupid leaflets with half an act on it are dangerous.

The OP and you have proven you dont know what your on about.

gordikin wrote: »

You need to learn a whole lot more before posting any more of your nonsense!

No, you need to read more carefully.
I'm suggesting arguments the OP could use. If statutory Acts were read like people on here are suggesting then there would be absolutely no need for any courts or tribunals at all, people would just follow the strict wording of the Act without any question.

adouglasmhor

Anihilator wrote: »

Uh huh and what about the other fault he is reporting. Take that wasnt there either.

Just to clarify though. You are suggesting the OP lies and hence commits a criminal act?

I take you have finally conceded you are wrong then.

What about it? Is one fault making it not fit for the purpose for which it was sold not enough? Where did I suggest he lies? I presented a scenario where the 2nd fault had not become apparent until recently, I used the word "maybe". If you can't understand a simple commonly used word like that no wonder you are !!!! poor at interpreting other written information.

!!!!!! off and learn some social skills sad person.