Help returning Blu-Ray player

richardjoel

I did the full HD upgrade in April, TV, Blu-Ray, Surround Sound and all the extra bits, all from Comet.

Recently the Blu-Ray has stopped playing any disc. So I took it back and they sent if off for repair as I expected. They said it would take about a week, but it took three. The player worked for about two days before breaking down again, so this time I asked for an exchange or refund. But the manager said it was their policy to send it of for repair again, and could not do anything else about it.

Its been another two weeks since it went back for a second time. And when I get it back (if I ever do) the problem is still there, what can I do?

What rights do I have if they say it has to sent back for a third time. Can I demand an exchange or refund?

neilmcl

They can continue to repair so long as it isn't disproportionately costly to another remedy and, this is the important bit, that it doesn't cause a significant inconvenience. One could reasonably argue that having a machine repaired for the third time would be such an inconvenience. So you could insist on a refund or replacement. See what they come back with first.

Sodapop

Actually that is completely incorrect. I know from issues I had with a mobile phone and advice given to me by Trading Standards that legally a company can only insist on ONE repair. After that they are obliged to offer a refund or replacement - as Trading Standards told me, they cannot insist on an arbitrary number of repairs. Don't know where the above poster has got their information but this is a total breach of the supply of goods/services act. They can't "continue to repair" unless you want them to - after one repair you have the right to reject the product.

As it has unsuccessfully been repaired once, you can insist on either a refund or a replacement and if they refuse you would legitimately be able to take them to the small claims court.

Sandoval

Sodapop wrote: »

...legally a company can only insist on ONE repair. After that they are obliged to offer a refund or replacement - as Trading Standards told me, they cannot insist on an arbitrary number of repairs. Don't know where the above poster has got their information but this is a total breach of the supply of goods/services act. They can't "continue to repair" unless you want them to - after one repair you have the right to reject the product.

Actually a lot of what I've read on here over the last few months would indicate that a company can insist on repairing a faulty item over and over again.

If a person could legally demand a replacement item after a single repair I don't know why so many people post on here with experiences in stark contrast to this.

Sodapop

The reason that so many people post on here with experiences in stark contrast to this is because they believe the companies when they say "it's our policy". For example, Vodafone will insist that because you signed their customer contract, you opted out of the right to a replacement after only one repair and they can insist on doing it three times. Trading Standards says that they can't do this - you cannot opt out of having these rights, whatever you sign. The reason that companies insist on repairing faulty items over and over is because they say that's the case and customers don't question it. If you don't believe me, phone Consumer Direct and ask them.

It's a sad fact that people often do not understand their rights. Just because a lot of people think something, doesn't mean it's true. You could take a case like this to small claims - and win.

gordikin

Sodapop, do you have a link that proves what you say is true?

Sandoval

Are you saying that all these posters popping up in the Consumer Rights forum saying that their (for example) laptop has been taken back a number of times for repair by Currys or Comet or whoever, have the legal right to demand a new product after their first repair and that Currys or Comet or whoever are breaking the law by repairing it a second time in favour of replacing it?

Sodapop

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I had three long conversations with Trading Standards about this and they were very clear on the matter. If the item is faulty, it does not conform to contract - this is presuming that the fault is because of something wrong with the item, rather than the customer doing something to it (dropping it, filling it with jam, whatever). Trading Standards officers told me the law is very clear on this but most people don't know their rights. There are a lot of urban myths around consumer rights - I know a lot of people who believe you can't return a faulty item without a receipt, or have to accept credit for it, for example.

I can't post a link because I'm a new user and when I tried in another post it said I couldn't so you will just have to search for Trading Standards and consumer rights. The right to have the item repaired was actually introduced as an extra remedy to help CONSUMERS not sellers and gives you the right to ask for A REPAIR. If the item has been unsuccessfully repaired you can still reject the goods. The retailer/seller/whatever can't insist on an arbitrary number of repairs as the law doesn't make provision for this. I'm sorry I can't find a webpage to back up this exact info but this is what Trading Standards officers told me. If you would rather believe what a lot of customers have been told by unscrupulous retailers, well, that's your lookout.

Here is some information from the BIS website:

"It is important to note that, within the reasonable period after the sale (see "Remedies" on page 4 and "Rejection of Goods" on page 11), buyers (both consumers and business buyers) do not lose their right to reject the goods/require their money back merely by agreeing to let the retailer try to repair them. This is made clear by s.35(6) of the Sale of Goods Act.

If the buyer returns the goods as not conforming to contract, and asks for his money back within a reasonable time, he may decide/be persuaded to let the retailer make an attempt at repair. After he had given the retailer a reasonable time to complete this, with no success, he could fall back on requiring the return of the price paid. This might be because the repair was not carried out promptly enough or because it was not repaired to an adequate standard."

Trading Standards says this means there is provision for the supplier to ask to repair the item once - but not multiple times. If you don't believe me ask them yourself.

neilmcl

Sodapop wrote: »

Actually that is completely incorrect. I know from issues I had with a mobile phone and advice given to me by Trading Standards that legally a company can only insist on ONE repair.

That's rubbish I'm afraid, unless you'd like to quote the exact bit of legislation that backs this up.

smcaul

Sodapop wrote: »

Actually that is completely incorrect. I know from issues I had with a mobile phone and advice given to me by Trading Standards that legally a company can only insist on ONE repair. After that they are obliged to offer a refund or replacement - as Trading Standards told me, they cannot insist on an arbitrary number of repairs. Don't know where the above poster has got their information but this is a total breach of the supply of goods/services act. They can't "continue to repair" unless you want them to - after one repair you have the right to reject the product.

As it has unsuccessfully been repaired once, you can insist on either a refund or a replacement and if they refuse you would legitimately be able to take them to the small claims court.

Actually, that's completely incorrect. A company can NOT insist on repair at all. The customer gets to choose, the company can only refuse the remedy chosen by the customer on grounds of it being disproportionate. The legislation is quite clear on this point.

Sodapop

neilmcl wrote: »

That's rubbish I'm afraid, unless you'd like to quote the exact bit of legislation that backs this up.

For crying out loud, I am quoting what Trading Standards officers told me. You think I'm wrong because I can't cut and paste something to back this up? I have got my information from a reliable source - Trading Standards. If you don't believe it, that's your choice, but I think it's quite rude to tell me it's "rubbish" when I have actually spoken to people who know what they are talking about rather than looking on Google.

I did post some information above but I guess you chose not to read it.