Have Consumer rights changed?

esuhl

Techhead wrote: »

You've misunderstood the OP and the quote.

Fair enough - I was a bit confused! The OP says that she was handed receipts, which said that cash refunds were not given. This appears to be illegal as it gives the impression that statutory rights are not being honoured...

But the replies centred on the quite different issue as to whether a refund would be given over and above your statutory rights. I wasn't sure if it was everyone else that was missing something... but no, it's me! :rotfl:

geordieracer

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Somewhat patronising?

If you say so.. I dont however.

fluffnutter

soolin wrote: »

If an item is faulty then you are entitled to a full refund in the same method you paid.

Not necessarily. You are entitled to a repair, exchange or refund. If the shop believes a repair to be possible, they're perfectly entitled to insist you take this option, rather than refund you although they shouldn't do this if it 'inconveniences' you. Likewise they can stipulate that you accept a replacement (like for like of course). Even if they do refund you, in certain cases it might be acceptable for them to reduce the amount refunded if they believe you've had some use from the item.

esuhl

fluffnutter wrote: »

Not necessarily. You are entitled to a repair, exchange or refund. If the shop believes a repair to be possible, they're perfectly entitled to insist you take this option, rather than refund you although they shouldn't do this if it 'inconveniences' you. Likewise they can stipulate that you accept a replacement (like for like of course). Even if they do refund you, in certain cases it might be acceptable for them to reduce the amount refunded if they believe you've had some use from the item.

Are you sure? This Consumer Direct web page states that "if one of your statutory rights is breached (i.e. that the item is damaged, of poor quality or not fit for purpose)... they have to give you your money back."

Perhaps the difference is whether you are deemed to have "accepted" the goods. I wouldn't expect to be offered a full refund if a fault became apparent after 3 years of ownership, but if an item was found to be faulty within 30 days of purchase, I certainly would. It's strange that the Consumer Direct website doesn't make this distinction on the page linked above...

(Ah, yes - just found this page, which confirms that your rights change when you "accept" the goods: http://whatconsumer.co.uk/my-responsibility/).

fthl

Nope... Birmingham Trading Standards are wrong.

If the receipts don't say that a consumer's statutory rights are unaffected then this might be an offence under the CPR.s

4743hudsonj

esuhl wrote: »

Are you sure? This Consumer Direct web page states that "if one of your statutory rights is breached (i.e. that the item is damaged, of poor quality or not fit for purpose)... they have to give you your money back."

Perhaps the difference is whether you are deemed to have "accepted" the goods. I wouldn't expect to be offered a full refund if a fault became apparent after 3 years of ownership, but if an item was found to be faulty within 30 days of purchase, I certainly would. It's strange that the Consumer Direct website doesn't make this distinction on the page linked above...

(Ah, yes - just found this page, which confirms that your rights change when you "accept" the goods: http://whatconsumer.co.uk/my-responsibility/).

Whether or not the goods have been "accepted" is the distinguishing factor.

If you have then its the standards remedies (repair/replace/refund/partial refund) if you havnt, then you have the right to a full refund.

Equaliser123

geordieracer wrote: »

If you say so.. I dont however.

Calling someone "pet" and suggesting that they leave their kids behind.

Very patronising.

neilmcl

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Calling someone "pet" and suggesting that they leave their kids behind.

Very patronising.

Howay man! He's from the North, "pet" is a term of endearment. Not patronising at all.

Equaliser123

neilmcl wrote: »

Howay man! He's from the North, "pet" is a term of endearment. Not patronising at all.

Suggesting that the children be left behind?