Please help - parrot mini kit slim

S77CEY

I ordered a 'plug and play' hands free kit on Amazon's Marketplace after checking it was compatible with my phone. The first unit I received didn't work with my handset. They sent me a replacement
and I had the same problem. I requested a refund which was denied as apparently the unit is not 'faulty'. They have had it for nearly 3 months and after numerous 'tests' they can't find a problem. I really want a refund as I was not at fault. So far they have offered to refund me £30 as it's been 'used' (I opened the packaging, turned it on and tried to use the unit for a day) - I paid £50 and find this wholly unacceptable.

What are my rights???

TonyMMM

S77CEY wrote: »

after checking it was compatible with my phone.

How did you check ..?

If it was stated as compatible with your exact phone on the listing, or if they responded to an enquiry confirming it was compatible then you may have a case ....

S77CEY

Thanks for your reply Tony,

I checked the parrot website before i bought the unit. I've tried going in with the distance selling rights but no joy!

TonyMMM

Did you buy from the Parrot website or another supplier through Amazon ?

Unless it is faulty or misdescribed they may not have to do more than they have already, which is why it is important to establish if the actual suppliers have at any time confirmed that the unit will work with your phone.

Unless the supplier stated it is compatible, or your phone is listed on the packaging, I think you will have difficulty forcing them to refund.

Why didn't you succeed under the DSR regs ?

S77CEY

I bought it through Amazon but it was a marketplace company called Modern Tech.

They have apparently tested my unit since I returned it on the relevant handset.

The Parrot website said it was compatible but not Modern Tech or the packaging.

I wrote the following to them -
I have taken legal advice and consulted the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the
Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 and under the
Distance Selling Regulations the following applies: "Under the distance
selling regulations, you are quite within your rights to change your mind at
any time within the first seven days, return the goods and get a full
refund. This means without financial penalty of any kind – such as a
cancellation charge or a ‘restocking’ fee. The supplier must also refund any
delivery charges paid by you, and any other costs related to the contract.
Refunds must be made within 30 days from cancellation, whether or not the
goods have been sent back. Any related credit agreements will also cease to
exist."

And received this back -
"
The Regulations you quote are not relevant to this case - this regulation is
relating to an unwanted order which, as stated, can be returned at any point
within 7 days of receipt. However, the goods must be in their original
condition and unused. You are able only to open the package to view the item
before deciding whether to accept it or not. Once the goods have been used
they have effectively been "accepted" and so are no longer subject to the
quoted regulation.

You have returned your goods as you believe them to be faulty. The
regulation relating to this states -
"If you buy a product that turns out to be faulty, you can choose to
'reject' it: give it back and get your money back. However, the law gives
you only a 'reasonable' time to do this – what is reasonable depends on the
product and how obvious the fault is. However, even with something like a
car, you usually have no more than three to four weeks from when you receive
it to reject it."

However, this is also irrelevant since the returned goods are not faulty.

You may wish to contact Trading Standards or Consumer Direct before
instigating Court proceedings which may prove costly and timely. Having
spoken to Trading Standards myself, I am advised that the first action that
will be required of you, should you choose to place a County Court claim, is
for you to appoint an independent company to test the goods and confirm that
a fault does exist. This will obviously be rather costly and, should it be
proven that a fault is not evident, will cause the fee for both testing and
the court case itself, to be charged to you."

Do I have a leg to stand on?

RadoJo

I think their definition of 'unused' is a little narrow and probably not in the spirit of the regulations as surely there is no way to know whether you would want to accept or reject the item without trying it to some extent beyond just looking at it. As an example, with clothing bought under the DSR, you would expect someone to try it on briefly before accepting or rejecting it, rather than just unpacking it and looking at it.

Are you actually within the 7 days? I'm guessing not seeing as you mentioned that they had been testing it for three months, and that will affect your ability to return it under that element of the DSR though, so I suspect that might be a dead end.

Fortunately, as I understand it, the element of it being 'faulty' means that so long as you are within 6 months of purchase, it's up to them to prove it's not faulty but if they are already claiming that it's not, then they will probably put up a fight on that front. The only way I can see to get them to admit the fault is either to demonstrate it to them (do they have physical stores?) or get an independent report to say that the unit doesn't work with your phone, but them I would assume they would want proof that it's not your phone causing the problem, so you would need to be sure that it isn't before spending any money pursuing it.

Could you test another kit on your phone to make sure it's just this model that doesn't work?

DVardysShadow

Taking the wrong tack. It is not 'faulty', it is 'not as described' in that the website claims it will, but it won't.