How to progress "unfit for purpose" claim when seller refuses

chrisp030271

Hello all,

Quick summary - If you make a complaint to a company about something they sold being "not fit for purpose" and they refuse to entertain the claim, what is the next best step? Value of the item is £80. Been in my possession for 8 weeks.
Thanks, Chris. More details below for those with the time to read it.

I purchased on-line a set of £80 "V-Moda Vibe II" headphones for an iPhone from a company called "iheadphones". The headphones have an unusual feature in that the wire is covered in a woven cloth.
The unfortunate result is that when the cloth-covered-wire rubs against any item of clothing (which it will do constantly unless you stay stock still, or don't wear any clothes), it amplifies the rubbing noise into the headphones to the point where they become (in my opinion) unusable.
I bought the headphones in early March 2010, and used them for jogging. I noticed the rubbing noise but thought it was perhaps down to the excessive jostling. However today (29 April 2010) I used them for the first time while sat at my desk, working on my computer, and literally had to take them off and stop listening due to the annoying rubbing noise coming through the headphones.
I complained to the company citing the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the term "fit for purpose". After multiple emails back-and-forth with the vendor where they refused to discuss anything other than whether the item was faulty and their own Terms and Conditions, I finally stated that unless their next response was confirmation of a refund, that I would need to seek advise from Citizens Advice or Trading Standards. At all times I have remained polite and impersonal. Their response is pasted below:

"As you have had them for over 7 working days they are not returnable for a refund. This is a mass-manufactured product sold in many countries around the world. There has been no product-recall therefore nobody could possibly deem that they are not fit for purpose. The fact that you have used them for nearly 2 months would also not aid your claim that they are not fit for purpose. I'm sorry you feel that you need to take matters further but you could save yourself some time and effort and listen to us. My father volunteers to work for CAB in order to give something back and help others in need of it, quite an honorable thing to do in my opinion, it's such a shame that there people who waste his time when there are others that really do need help and advice.

Best regards,

Ben
iHeadphones"

Can anyone advise the next best course of action? Thanks very much for reading.
Chris.

4743hudsonj

The seems more like "free from minor defect" claim

after all they play music..........

chrisp030271

Thanks for the replies.

jdturk wrote: »

However under the sale of goods act if they are faulty you can take them back to retailer as faulty and they have the right to repair/replace/refund as they see fit.

They are not "faulty", as defined - I think it is a design fault due to the cloth covering on the wire, making them unbearable to use. There is nothing to repair, and I wouldn't want a replacement as they'd be exactly the same. I want my money back so I can buy some different ones that have a traditional plastic-coated wire.

4743hudsonj wrote: »

The seems more like "free from minor defect" claim

after all they play music..........

Yes, they play music. But unless you sit still, and I mean completely still, barely even breathing, then the noise of the cord rubbing against your clothing is amplified to literally a constant booming noise. I don't see how this can be classed as "fit for all the purposes for which such goods are commonly supplied".

Any more advice? Thanks for this.
Chris.

4743hudsonj

chrisp030271 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.



They are not "faulty", as defined - I think it is a design fault due to the cloth covering on the wire, making them unbearable to use. There is nothing to repair, and I wouldn't want a replacement as they'd be exactly the same. I want my money back so I can buy some different ones that have a traditional plastic-coated wire.



Yes, they play music. But unless you sit still, and I mean completely still, barely even breathing, then the noise of the cord rubbing against your clothing is amplified to literally a constant booming noise. I don't see how this can be classed as "fit for all the purposes for which such goods are commonly supplied".

Any more advice? Thanks for this.
Chris.

Im not trying to criticise, you definitely have a claim under the sales of goods act i just think it would be a lot more suited to quoting the above as the fact is, they paly music, which is their purpose, hence, they are fit for purpose. Cable noise is a defect, therefore "free from minor defects" applies.

Your next step is to write recorded delivery asking for a refund (as neither repair nor replace would solve the issue) quoting the act stating that if it is not resolved in 7 days you will take them to small claims court.

Its worth asking for a replacement of another headphone set as it may make your life alot easier and after al, you need headphones.

If they dont play ball, take them to court.

chrisp030271

Ok, thanks for the clarification, and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. I did suggest an alternative from their stock that they could supply me with, but so far they have ignored that suggestion, and seem more inclined to insinuate that I am one of "those people" :eek: who waste the time of his dear father working at the CAB. Commendable indeed, but I fail to see the relevance to my complaint.

I have left the door open to them to supply me with a refund or replacement (different) product - we shall see what they do next. If I get no joy, I shall send that recorded delivery letter as you suggest.

Thanks again.
Chris.

dfh

Keep us informed.

dfh

I am sure that the tone of the letter will not help the company if it goes to court.

chrisp030271

Purely for your interest / entertainment, the whole email dialogue so far is below. Warning, it's quite long, and if you're planning on reading it all, you should probably start at the bottom and work up. Enjoy.

On 29 April 2010 23:09, Chris Phillips <chrisphillips001@gmail.com> wrote:
Please keep this conversation on-topic, and at a professional level. What your father does in his spare time, however honourable, is of no relevance to my complaint. And I resent your poorly disguised insult that I would be one of these "people who waste his time when there are others that really do need help and advice". Quite frankly, I am shocked at your behaviour in this matter, and would appreciate it if you could hand the matter over to another employee to deal with if you are unable to process my compliant in a professional and courteous manner.

To address your other points:

1. The 7-working days point is irrelevant, as this is not a case of me simply changing my mind in the "cooling off period". I have an issue with the goods not being fit for purpose, which is covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which has no specifically defined time period.

2. The fact that the product is mass-manufactured and that there has been no recall has no bearing on my statutory rights. And I am not alone in recognizing the problem of excessive noise caused by the cable. Searching on Google I found the following review - <url removed> - a very positive review of the product (indicative of the reviews I read prior to purchase), but with the following to say about the cable noise -
"While the Vibe IIs are relatively lightweight and will stay in your ears during exercise, the cables rubbing against your cheeks would generate an abundance of annoying low frequency noise."
"However, the "NVH" of the Vibe IIs seems to be pretty limited. (I borrowed the term -- NVH means Noise, Vibration, and Harshness in automotive lingo haha.) The sport earhooks reduces such -- and so does the shirt clip -- because when you are in motion without either, the V-MODA Vibe II's cord rubbing does provide excessive wire noise".
I have tried using the sport earhooks. The wire noise is reduced, but is still louder than from any another set of earphones with a traditional plastic wire. Also with the sport earhooks, the microphone now hangs just below the right ear, meaning you can't have a telephone conversation without having to dismantle the earhook (not fit for purpose, again). Thirdly, fitting the sport earhooks is very fiddly and time consuming, and they get in the way if you wear glasses, as I do. If I had wanted a set of over-the-ear headphones, I would have bought some - I didn't, I wanted in-ear buds, so don't see why I should have to then use ear hooks to make them usable.

3. I have previously stated that my initial use of the headphones was for jogging - I was aware of the wire noise but had not had an opportunity to investigate any further (I have a busy job and a family to look after) and thought perhaps it was just a symptom of the extra jogging motion. I have now discovered this is not the case - it is an inherent problem that occurs whenever you use the earphones when you are not completely still, for example today when I tried to listen to some music while working on my computer. Just the normal movement in a chair, while typing and using a mouse, causes the cable to constantly rub against shirt collar etc.. This situation, I think, most people would find a "reasonable" time period.

4. To quote you, "you could save yourself some time and effort and listen to us". Please please tell me how. I have been listening, you haven't been saying anything other than "A refund is not an option" (your opening words) and then trying to steer the conversation towards your T&C's so you can tell me again that "they are not returnable for a refund". What have I missed? Please tell me what your proposition is that will save me some time and effort? I certainly have no desire to be in this situation, and have no desire to "take matters further", it is painful for all concerned - I simply want some good quality earphones for my iPhone that are a pleasure to use. However I will not simply write-off £80 for goods which I consider to be unfit for purpose. I want a resolution to this - I even suggested an alternative set of earphones in one of my earlier emails, but you have not acknowledged that as an option. To quote from your own T&C's page :
"10.1 We warrant to you that any Product purchased from us through our site is of satisfactory quality and reasonably fit for all the purposes for which products of the kind are commonly supplied and free from defects for 6 months from the date of dispatch. If any Products do not conform to this warranty we will at our option:
10.1.1 replace any Products found not to conform to the warranty; or

10.1.2 take such steps as we deem necessary rectify such defects; or

10.1.3 take back the Products found not to conform to the warranty and refund the purchase price paid in accordance with clause 8."

So, will you now please bring this matter to a happy conclusion?
Regards,
Mr C M Phillips.

- Hide quoted text -

On 29 April 2010 19:19, Ben (iHeadphones) wrote:
As you have had them for over 7 working days they are not returnable for a refund. This is a mass-manufactured product sold in many countries around the world. There has been no product-recall therefore nobody could possibly deem that they are not fit for purpose. The fact that you have used them for nearly 2 months would also not aid your claim that they are not fit for purpose. I'm sorry you feel that you need to take matters further but you could save yourself some time and effort and listen to us. My father volunteers to work for CAB in order to give something back and help others in need of it, quite an honorable thing to do in my opinion, it's such a shame that there people who waste his time when there are others that really do need help and advice.

Best regards,

Ben
iHeadphones


On 29 Apr 2010, at 19:09, Chris Phillips wrote:

No.
I noticed the rubbing noise fairly early on while using the headphones for running - whilst I was concerned about the noise, I thought perhaps it was caused by the excessive movement and jostling. However today I have tried to use them while sitting at a desk working quietly at a computer, and literally had to take them off and stop using them due to the annoying rubbing noise.

I guess from your line of inquiry that you are going to say I have had them too long. Again from the much quoted Sale of Goods Act 1979, there is no set time limit, only that which a "reasonable person" would see fit.

I am unimpressed with how this matter has been dealt with - I have made a perfectly reasonable and polite complaint, and am requesting a refund for these goods, as is my right. If the next communication I receive from your company on this matter is not confirming the full refund and providing details of how I should return the goods to you, then I will have to seek advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau and Trading Standards about what to do next.

Regards,
Mr C M Phillips.


On 29 April 2010 18:57, Ben (iHeadphones) wrote:
Thank you. So the functionality of them has not changed or deteriorated since you first had them?

Best regards,
Ben
iHeadphones


On 29 Apr 2010, at 18:43, Chris Phillips wrote:

There is nothing visibly broken, such as a damaged wire. When you plug them in and play some music, sound comes out of both speakers. The microphone works. If that is your definition of whether they are faulty or not, then I shall let you come to your own conclusion about how to deal with the supplier. I do not work for V-Moda, I do not know what criteria they use for defining whether their headphones are faulty.

From my perspective as a consumer, they are not of satisfactory quality / fit for purpose, as defined in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Any reasonable person would expect to be able to use a set of £80 headphones, while walking, running and even sitting quietly at a desk without a hugely annoying scratching noise every time the wire rubs against an item of clothing.

Regards,
Mr C M Phillips


On 29 April 2010 18:30, Ben (iHeadphones) wrote:
Yes we'll come to that later, initially I just want to establish one simple thing, for the third and final time - are they faulty? Yes/No?

Best regards,
Ben
iHeadphones


On 29 Apr 2010, at 18:25, Chris Phillips wrote:

Whether they are faulty or not is irrelevant to my complaint. I am stating that the headphones are not fit for purpose, the point being that if you send me a replacement set of the same make & model, then it is highly likely that I will experience the same problem, due to the cloth covering on the wires.

So this is not about your stated Terms and Conditions, and whether the goods are faulty or not. This is about the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which are "statutory rights", and of which there is an extract below:

(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability.

Can you therefore please make arrangements to refund the cost of the item (£79.99) and provide me with details for return of the goods.

Regards,
Mr C M Phillips.


On 29 April 2010 16:38, Ben (iHeadphones) wrote:
I'm not trying to be funny at all, I'm simply asking you if they are faulty, could you please give me a yes or a no to that answer?

Best regards,
Ben
iHeadphones


On 29 Apr 2010, at 16:33, Chris Phillips wrote:

Are you trying to be funny? I don't find this funny. I have spent £80 on headphones which I cannot use for the reasons I have now stated twice.

They are not "fit for purpose" per the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I respectfully request that you give this matter the attention it deserves.

I am going to return the headphones and expect to receive a refund of the full cost plus your original cost of P&P.

Regards
Mr C M Phillips


Chris Phillips

On 29 Apr 2010, at 16:09, "Ben (iHeadphones)" wrote:

Are we getting our wires crossed here? I'm very confused, are your headphones faulty?

Best regards,

Ben
iHeadphones


On 29 Apr 2010, at 16:03, Chris Phillips wrote:

Thank you for your prompt response.

However I am not satisfied with the proposed resolution. Per the Sales of Goods Act 1979, amongst other things, goods must be "fit for purpose". These headphones are NOT fit for purpose for the reasons I have already stated below (the rubbing noise of the cloth-covered wires) - it is not possible to enjoy listening to music with these headphones (which is their purpose) unless you are either naked or sit completely still, barely even breathing (neither of which a reasonable person would find acceptable).

I'd appreciate your cooperation in this matter, ideally with a replacement by another make/model of headphones suitable for an iPhone (with a mic) and a refund of the difference in price. After looking at your website, it seems the most suitable option would be the "Comply NR10i for iPhone" headphones at £59.99, meaning a refund of £20.00. I presume there will be no delivery charge as I will cover the cost of returning the V-Moda headphones to you.

I look forward to your reply.
Regards,
Mr C M Phillips.

On 29 April 2010 14:53, <url removed> wrote:
Thank you for your interest in iheadphones

Below is the answer to your question submitted on 04/29/2010

QUESTION:
Order number 93507.
I would like to return these headphones (V-Moda Vibe II) and either receive a refund, or replacement with another brand / model (happy to receive your recommendation for alternative iPhone headphones).
These headphones are not fit for purpose due to the cloth covering on the wires - when the wires rub against your collar or any other part of your clothing, the cloth covering picks up and amplifies the sound straight into your ear, delivering a near-constant scratching which ruins all reasonable attempts at use.
Please advise, thank you.
Mr C M Phillips.

ANSWER:
A refund is not an option but an exchange will be possible if they are faulty. Please fill out the returns request form which is located here:


Please feel free to get back to us for any further assistance.

Best regards,

iheadphones
PO BOX 9657, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 9HA

pendulum

That's a really good example of how not to communicate with a seller. I was on your side until I heard how you began communicating.

chrisp030271

pendulum wrote: »

That's a really good example of how not to communicate with a seller. I was on your side until I heard how you began communicating.

What specifically do you see as the problem with what I have said? I haven't been insulting or rude, I've stated the facts and my position, and made a reasonable request..?

Chris.

Hintza

chrisp030271 wrote: »

I've stated the facts Chris.

You have stated the facts as you see them and the seller disagrees.

I don't think this is an open and shut case and it looks like the seller is willing to fight the case. So it will now be up to you to prove to the satisfaction of the courts that they are not fit for purpose.