Some advise on my rights - Comet problem

nhails

Hi forum users

I bought a Samsung Blu-ray player from Comet around June the 20th (so no more than 2 months ago) which broke last night.

I returned it to the store this morning looking to get a replacement since it was nearly new. I was told by the manager (after starting to make a fuss) that they would not replace the unit only send it for repair as it was older than 30 days. What a joke! btw the unit is in perfect condition, well looked after etc etc, its just developed a fault.

Im now going to be without a player for up to 30 days... can they do that.

please advise as I am planning to go back in tomorrow and complain some more, searching around the web has only got me more confused as to my rights.


thanks

Esqui

You have the right to a remedy. Which is what they are doing. It must be done without causing significant inconvenience, but while being without a Blu-ray for 30 days is an inconvenience, I wouldn't say significantly. Besides, it will, in all probability, be much less than that.

So they are pretty much doing it as the law would prescribe.

Googlewhacker

Esqui is correct, you only have the right to a refund within a reasonable time period to check the product is working. However this is undefined and 2 months is over the reasonable time period and as such the company have the right to repair or replace as they see fit.

McKneff

Bet you wont be going into to Comet tomorrow then.
Its hardly the end of the world, they are going to remedy the situation so I would just be patient.

chasingsunshine_2

They wont budge I'm afraid. They have strict policies so you'll only get a repair

smcaul

Esqui wrote: »

You have the right to a remedy. Which is what they are doing. It must be done without causing significant inconvenience, but while being without a Blu-ray for 30 days is an inconvenience, I wouldn't say significantly. Besides, it will, in all probability, be much less than that.

So they are pretty much doing it as the law would prescribe.

Oh I don't know, I would say that an item spending (potentially) one third of its life so far in repair would qualify as "significant inconvenience", you buy an item to use it, not for it to spend 30 days being repaired!!

smcaul

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Esqui is correct, you only have the right to a refund within a reasonable time period to check the product is working. However this is undefined and 2 months is over the reasonable time period and as such the company have the right to repair or replace as they see fit.

Really!!

You seem to contradict yourself, first you say "However this is undefined", then you follow with "and 2 months is over the reasonable time period". So what one is it? If it is undefined then 2 months can not be over it?

Also the part in bold, can you please point me to the legislation that states this? This seems to be a common misconception on this board that the retailer has the right to choose, they do not, the consumer has the right to choose, the retailer can refuse if that choice would be disproportionate.

Comet and the like always try this one - now I admit to having stopped using Comet a good few years ago over a very similar argument with a DVD player, but I stood my ground in the store, got them to get the area manager on the phone, and would not leave until the unit was replaced. with scum like Comet you have to play them at their own games and be prepared to stick it out in the store with the manager!!!

Googlewhacker

smcaul wrote: »

Really!!

You seem to contradict yourself, first you say "However this is undefined", then you follow with "and 2 months is over the reasonable time period". So what one is it? If it is undefined then 2 months can not be over it?

Also the part in bold, can you please point me to the legislation that states this? This seems to be a common misconception on this board that the retailer has the right to choose, they do not, the consumer has the right to choose, the retailer can refuse if that choice would be disproportionate.

Comet and the like always try this one - now I admit to having stopped using Comet a good few years ago over a very similar argument with a DVD player, but I stood my ground in the store, got them to get the area manager on the phone, and would not leave until the unit was replaced. with scum like Comet you have to play them at their own games and be prepared to stick it out in the store with the manager!!!

You are correct on the first part, i forgot to put 'in my opinion' but regarding the second part the company effectively does choose as they see fit because they can decide what to do based on cost and choose the cheapest option whether this is replace or refund or they can choose a more expensive option depndant on other reasons (ie how good their customer service is).

So whilst legally you are correct for the sake of easiness on these boards the companies do choose as they see fit.

smcaul

I still disagree, the law gives the consumer the right to request the remedy, the retailer can only refuse, if they refuse as the remedy would be disproportionate (no mention of cost, so could also be time etc) then it would be for the retailer to prove that would it not? I would like to see Comet prove that replacing the item there and then was disproportionate to having it repaired!

I mean, it will take at least 2 courier journeys, then be looked at by a technician, then components ordered in, they have to be shipped, then tech to fit components etc, etc, etc.

I would love to see Comet break that cost down and display it in court!!!

smcaul

Esqui wrote: »

You have the right to a remedy. Which is what they are doing. It must be done without causing significant inconvenience, but while being without a Blu-ray for 30 days is an inconvenience, I wouldn't say significantly. Besides, it will, in all probability, be much less than that.

So they are pretty much doing it as the law would prescribe.

Also, I forgot to say, that the significant inconvenience may not just be related to not having use of the item, it could also be the inconvenience of having to return to the store at yet another time to collect the repaired item!!

Googlewhacker

smcaul wrote: »

I still disagree, the law gives the consumer the right to request the remedy, the retailer can only refuse, if they refuse as the remedy would be disproportionate (no mention of cost, so could also be time etc) then it would be for the retailer to prove that would it not? I would like to see Comet prove that replacing the item there and then was disproportionate to having it repaired!

I mean, it will take at least 2 courier journeys, then be looked at by a technician, then components ordered in, they have to be shipped, then tech to fit components etc, etc, etc.

I would love to see Comet break that cost down and display it in court!!!

I would disagree, if they replace a faulty machine with a new one then they send it of to be repaired etc and then sold as second hand they will not get the premium value that the new one they have swapped would have got. And I would have thought that the cost of getting something repaired (even if they paid for the carriage which I probably would think they wouldn't and the supplier would) it would be cheaper to get it repaired than lose 25-30% of the original value.

Hope I explained that right, might have rambled a bit