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

smcaul

withabix wrote: »

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.

Repeated failure will change your rights however.

WRONG, deduct 10 points and do not pass go!!

Please go and read fully the SOGA where it quite clearly states that it is the consumers choice to ask for the remedy of their choosing, the retailer can refuse but only if that remedy is deemed to be disproportionate to another remedy, but the retailer can certainly not force any remedy on the consumer, it is the consumers choice.

smcaul

48CReduction of purchase price or rescission of contract

 
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may—

(a)require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or

(b)rescind the contract with regard to those goods,

if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.
(2)The condition is that—

(a)by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or

(b)the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

(3)For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him



Hmmm, seems pretty unambiguous to me!! "the buyer has required", "the buyer rescinds" etc etc etc, no mention anywhere that it is the retailers choice!!!

withabix

smcaul wrote: »

WRONG, deduct 10 points and do not pass go!!

Please go and read fully the SOGA where it quite clearly states that it is the consumers choice to ask for the remedy of their choosing, the retailer can refuse but only if that remedy is deemed to be disproportionate to another remedy, but the retailer can certainly not force any remedy on the consumer, it is the consumers choice.

Wrong. Go and read the Act.

'Disproportionately costly' refers to repair or replacement and specifically to the situation where the consumer demands that the item is repaired or replaced and the retailer refuses because the item is too costly to repair or replace and the retailer insists on refunding.

If the consumer chooses to request a refund, the retailer can refuse and either repair or replace AT HIS CHOICE. The retailer does not have to have a reason.

If the item fails repeatedly with multiple faults or repetition of the same fault, THEN the consumer can demand a refund on the basis of the item not being 'fit for purpose'.

smcaul

I have read it many many times

withabix

smcaul wrote: »

I have read it many many times

In which case you will know that Clause 48C(2) relates to Clause 48B(3) and only applies as an excusing clause for the seller, such that they cannot be forced to repair or replace an item on the grounds of disproportionate cost to the seller and hence the seller can choose to refund.

It does not provide additional rights to the buyer to insist on a refund over a repair or replacement.


There are probably hundreds of thousands of Blackberry Curves in existence and I doubt the have an inherent fault that makes them lock up. A percentage of every product made will be faulty. The retailer can replace, repair or refund at his choice.

smcaul

I never said the buyer can insist, I stated throughout that it is the buyers choice, and that the seller can refuse that remedy on the grounds of it being disproportionate, but, to refuse on those grounds you as the buyer would be well within your rights to ask the seller to validate that claim.

No where in the act does it give the seller the right to choose, being able to refuse is very different from them being given the ability to choose a remedy. That choice is firmly given to the buyer.

CoolHotCold

Lets see where this is going.


But hey ho, in all seriously, consumers have a reasonable timeframe to inspect and reject if faulty. For a mobile phone it may be a case that its in constant use so the reasonable time frame may be a matter of days/week instead of month/months for vacuum cleaners.

DCFC79

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Lets see where this is going.


But hey ho, in all seriously, consumers have a reasonable timeframe to inspect and reject if faulty. For a mobile phone it may be a case that its in constant use so the reasonable time frame may be a matter of days/week instead of month/months for vacuum cleaners.

lol, could be quite a showpiece

sabz3008

I'm beginning to see arguing, quite rudely might I add, on MSE as some sort of norm. Sort it out for crying out loud!

Zandoni

Take it back again and ask to speak to the manager. Have your chat at the till so that other shoppers can see and hear. This often works.