Help returning Blu-Ray player

wealdroam

Sodapop wrote: »

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.

Clearly people, me included, do not believe you.

We have heard what you say and have asked for some proof. Simply because we all have other ideas about what is correct.

Why should anyone believe anything a random poster posts?

I understand you cannot post links, but there are ways round that.

Without a link, have a look at this document...
www . berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

I cannot see anything there that says only one repair. Can you?

Again, please give concrete proof.

wheeliebin_2

wealdroam wrote: »

Clearly people, me included, do not believe you.

We have heard what you say and have asked for some proof. Simply because we all have other ideas about what is correct.

Why should anyone believe anything a random poster posts?

I understand you cannot post links, but there are ways round that.

Without a link, have a look at this document...
www . berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

I cannot see anything there that says only one repair. Can you?

Again, please give concrete proof.

Have a look at the legislation Sodapop quotes or even read the link you put up.

' If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time"'

ie consumers do not have to have even *one* repair - they can insist on their money back.

further on it says '• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement'.

*a* repair can only mean one repair and as Sodapop points out it is at the customer's choice.

Somehow both the electronics and software industries have become adept at insisting on what *their policies* are - flatly ignoring the legislation.

Insist on your rights when things go wrong. My approach is to explain that I want an immediate replacement or my money back and show them the Sale of Goods Act. I then explain that if they do not comply I will go to one of their competitors and purchase an equivalent product from them and then take them to the small claims court to claim for the damages that the legislation allows for as well as all the costs involved.

wealdroam

Sigh..........

Esqui

Chin up, wealdroam. There's always hope. There have been times in the past, on this board, where Trading Standards have given dubious advice to people. It's a rarity, as you might expect, but it does happy.

Oh, and wheeliebin...
[quote=Wheeliebin[/quote]*a* repair can only mean one repair and as Sodapop points out it is at the customer's choice.[/quote]
If you are going to read it like that, then the whole act does not apply to this. A blu-ray player is a singular 'good', and this is the Sale of Goods Act.

unholyangel

Not to mention that law is usually always open to interpretation.

This is why neil probably asked for proof........as is anyone asked when they state something. The best proof usually being previous cases that have been heard and found to support your claims.

End of the day, consumers can insist all they want, as can retailers. It all comes down to who the small claims would side with. And this is (AFAIK) usually based upon who has the most supporting evidence.

You need to give the retailer "reasonable" opportunity to remedy the situation and fufill their side of the contract as it should have been. SOGA use the term "reasonable" quite a few times.

And always keep in mind that any refund can be partial. So if you got a particularly good deal, a repair or replacement may be in the consumers best interests.

Sandoval

So what's the deal here then?

Is Sodapop talking out of his/her hat or after one repair you can you indeed demand a replacement product under the law?

Sodapop

Personally I trust Trading Standards more than an ability, or not, to cut and paste from the internet. I am not talking out of my hat, but the reason nobody believes me is that it's so common for companies to insist otherwise.

The point is that the retailer/supplier cannot insist on an arbitrary number of repairs. Like I said, ring Consumer Direct yourself and ask them.

Sandoval

Sodapop wrote: »

Personally I trust Trading Standards more than an ability, or not, to cut and paste from the internet. I am not talking out of my hat, but the reason nobody believes me is that it's so common for companies to insist otherwise.

The point is that the retailer/supplier cannot insist on an arbitrary number of repairs. Like I said, ring Consumer Direct yourself and ask them.

To be honest your repeated 'you were told this by Trading Standards' and 'go and ask them yourselves if you don't believe me' comments are not particularly helpful.

Being able to copy and paste things from the internet is not the issue.

I don't think it's unreasonable when opinions differ for people to expect a link to the appropriate piece of legislation or something in 'black and white' to back up a statement.

For example I could claim that Trading Standards 'once told me' that legislation states that when an item is faulty then the retailer is legally obliged to replace the item and come and wash my car as compensation.

Without a link to that piece of legislation or something to back it up then it's reasonable for people to take it with a pinch of salt.

vyle

Of course, one thing that everyone is forgetting is:

If you're returning the item under the terms of Comet's warranty, they can insist on anything they want.


If you're returning it under your consumer rights, then that's another matter entirely. If they're returning it under SOGA, OP is lucky that they are within 6 months as they can force Comet to prove that the item isn't faulty. At the moment, they've been following comet's procedure which bypasses that because they're under warranty.

If OP is saying, "your warranty be damned, these are my rights," then there's going to be a lengthier process to follow to do everything within the letter of the law.

vyle

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.

Also, just remembered, they may have told you that when referring to a mobile phone, as continually having to have a phone repaired could be seen as a much more significant inconvenience than being without a blu ray player.

Being without a player, in the eyes of a court, for even a month will be considered pretty trivial. being without a mobile phone, which could save one's life and be a lifeline to business deals, is a far larger inconvenience.