Carphone Warehouse refusing refund on 9-day-old faulty phone

sminkers

Hi there,

I'm looking for some advice on the next steps my friend should take in trying to obtain a refund on a faulty BlackBerry Curve.

He bought the phone (Pay-as-you-go on Orange) from Carphone Warehouse, Westfield London on Friday 13th May (unlucky for him). On Saturday (21st May), the phone froze, and after following all the steps suggested by BlackBerry support to reset the device, still nothing worked.

Today, Sunday (22nd May), he took it back to the store. Carphone Warehouse acknowledged the device was faulty, but refused a refund saying it was more than 7 days after purchase. They offered a repair or exchange, but he does not wish to accept this as he has lost faith in the device.

My friend stated that he believed their 7 day refund policy can only apply to unwanted items and not faulty items, and he told the store he 'rejected the item' in line with his consumer rights, and wished to receive a refund.

The Carphone Warehouse store then referred my friend to their call centre in Preston who deal with complaints. The person in the call centre refused to consider the issue and denied a refund, saying he should just contact trading standards.

So some advice would be welcome... what step should my friend take next? I personally feel 9 days is not too long a time to reject a phone as faulty.

Thanks!

wealdroam

sminkers wrote: »

Hi there,

I'm looking for some advice on the next steps my friend should take in trying to obtain a refund on a faulty BlackBerry Curve.

He bought the phone (Pay-as-you-go on Orange) from Carphone Warehouse, Westfield London on Friday 13th May (unlucky for him). On Saturday (21st May), the phone froze, and after following all the steps suggested by BlackBerry support to reset the device, still nothing worked.

Today, Sunday (22nd May), he took it back to the store. Carphone Warehouse acknowledged the device was faulty, but refused a refund saying it was more than 7 days after purchase. They offered a repair or exchange, but he does not wish to accept this as he has lost faith in the device.

My friend stated that he believed their 7 day refund policy can only apply to unwanted items and not faulty items, and he told the store he 'rejected the item' in line with his consumer rights, and wished to receive a refund.

The Carphone Warehouse store then referred my friend to their call centre in Preston who deal with complaints. The person in the call centre refused to consider the issue and denied a refund, saying he should just contact trading standards.

So some advice would be welcome... what step should my friend take next? I personally feel 9 days is not too long a time to reject a phone as faulty.

Thanks!

What's all that stuff about "losing faith in the product"?

Things do go wrong occasionally.

In my opinion, it is perfectly reasonable for them to offer a replacement.

smcaul

wealdroam wrote: »

What's all that stuff about "losing faith in the product"?

Things do go wrong occasionally.

In my opinion, it is perfectly reasonable for them to offer a replacement.

Fantastic, can you oblige us, and tell us exactly what other laws (consumer or otherwise) have been based on your opinions?

paddyrg

Take the replacement - it is a legal and fair offer. The phone was clearly good enough only a few days ago.

visidigi

http://selfhelp.carphonewarehouse.com/SelfHelp/request.do?view()=c{4dcdb9e0-ce05-11de-e56d-000000000000}

That doesn't say there is any limit on the returns period strangely...

wealdroam

smcaul wrote: »

Fantastic, can you oblige us, and tell us exactly what other laws (consumer or otherwise) have been based on your opinions?

Please take a moment to tell us how your response helps the OP.

TeddyBear_2

sminkers wrote: »

Hi there,

I'm looking for some advice on the next steps my friend should take in trying to obtain a refund on a faulty BlackBerry Curve.

He bought the phone (Pay-as-you-go on Orange) from Carphone Warehouse, Westfield London on Friday 13th May (unlucky for him). On Saturday (21st May), the phone froze, and after following all the steps suggested by BlackBerry support to reset the device, still nothing worked.

Today, Sunday (22nd May), he took it back to the store. Carphone Warehouse acknowledged the device was faulty, but refused a refund saying it was more than 7 days after purchase. They offered a repair or exchange, but he does not wish to accept this as he has lost faith in the device.

My friend stated that he believed their 7 day refund policy can only apply to unwanted items and not faulty items, and he told the store he 'rejected the item' in line with his consumer rights, and wished to receive a refund.

The Carphone Warehouse store then referred my friend to their call centre in Preston who deal with complaints. The person in the call centre refused to consider the issue and denied a refund, saying he should just contact trading standards.

So some advice would be welcome... what step should my friend take next? I personally feel 9 days is not too long a time to reject a phone as faulty.

Thanks!

OP, your friend does not have to accept a replacement. Please see this link, in particular the item I have quoted below:-

Proving goods are faulty

If you bought the item within the last six months, it’s the trader’s responsibility to prove the item wasn’t faulty when you bought it.
If you bought your item over six months ago, you may have to prove the fault was not caused by accidental damage or wear and tear. You can do this by getting a second opinion from an independent expert.

TeddyBear_2

visidigi wrote: »

http://selfhelp.carphonewarehouse.com/SelfHelp/request.do?view()=c{4dcdb9e0-ce05-11de-e56d-000000000000}

That doesn't say there is any limit on the returns period strangely...

Your point is irrelevant what the Carphone Warehouse's returns policy is and your link does not work either; acquaint yourself with the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended (link in my previous post) and you will understand why.

smcaul

wealdroam wrote: »

Please take a moment to tell us how your response helps the OP.

It doesn't in the slightest, but then i was not trying to give the OP advice based on "my opinion" rather then English law!!!!

But getting back to the OP, the SOGA states that the item must be of satisfactory quality, in this instance it seems it is not. The consumer then has the right to ask for either a refund, repair or replacement it is the CONSUMERS choice which one they request, the retailer can refuse the remedy if that remedy would be disproportionate (please note that money is not mentioned in the sentence). But I would ask the retailer to prove this, which would be neigh on impossible for them!!

But the great come back for the consumer is that what ever remedy is decided upon it must not cause the consumer "significant inconvenience", that is the card to play against them, that and asking them to prove what is disproportionate.

There, that about covers it - anything else you want clarifying??? Would just like to say that the above is taken directly from the SOGA and is not in any way based on opinion!!

withabix

smcaul wrote: »

The consumer then has the right to ask for either a refund, repair or replacement it is the CONSUMERS choice which one they request, the retailer can refuse the remedy if that remedy would be disproportionate (please note that money is not mentioned in the sentence). But I would ask the retailer to prove this, which would be neigh on impossible for them!!

Go on then, show me where it says that in the Act.

It is the retailer's choice, not the consumer's.

withabix

smcaul wrote: »

Eh?!?!? really not sure what planet you are on, or even if you read what you have written to totally contradict yourself!

You have misinterpreted the wording of the Act.

You can ask for whichever remedy you like, but it is up to the retailer to decide which he is going to provide.

The retailer can insist on an exchange or a repair. The consumer can't inisist on a refund for something that has become faulty ONCE. It is the retailer's CHOICE.

Repeated failure will change your rights however.