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

vax2002

Back to common sense, how did he pay, hopefully by credit card, if he was intelligent enough to use a credit card, ask for a charge back as the goods are faulty and the seller has refused refund, let them worry about collecting the phone.
If he paid cash, write a letter titled NOTICE BEFORE ACTION, use capitals and the name of the company in capitals.

CLAIMANTS DETAILS (In capitals)
NOTICE BEFORE ACTION
DATE GOES HERE
For The attention of XXXXXXXXcompany in capitals. The Goods (list them) you have sold are faulty and I Herby reject them under the sale of goods act on the grounds that the following faults have occurred XXXX
I demand a full refund be made of the purchase price within 7 days and that the goods be collected at your expense once the refund has been processed and cleared.
Failure to do so will result in a claim for damages at the (Nearest county court to the store) for the purchase value plus expenses occurred in visiting your store in failed attempts to gain refund.
You have 7 days of postmark of this letter to respond
Proof of postage has been kept.

You then ask the post office for a proof of postage certificate, after 14 days, you file a county court claim for your money back, because they will try it on first, once you file, do not accept a penny less of the value plus the court fees and expenses. They will come begging
It wont go to court, they will loose in 30 seconds

fthl

The choice of which remedy to go for is the consumer's choice, the SOGA is quite clear on that. The retailer can argue that another remedy should apply, but the burden is on him to do so. The relevant sections are 48 A, B and C.

Smcaul - re post 9 - 'cost' is actually referred to when talking about whether something is disproportionate or not.

That said, and the point missed so far is that the rights given in s48 are 'second tier' rights, they kick in if the consumer chooses to go for them or if the right to reject the goods has been lost. A consumer has the right to reject for a full refund if the goods are not of satisfactory quality and providing he does so within a reasonable time see S14. What is a reasonable time is a question of fact. I think rejecting within seven days would qualify the consumer for a full refund.

So all the rowing about s48 isn't really relevant in this case.

That said, mobiles are odd beasts, and weird rules can apply. In this case I think that because it was a payg purchase soga will apply. Probably.

DCFC79

sabz3008 wrote: »

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!

they're not arguing but more of a disagreement

visidigi

TeddyBear wrote: »

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.

How is the point irrelevant when the detail on the page (which was a visit to the CPW webpage and click help, click what if my item is faulty blah blah) is in ADDITION to the SOGA.

My point in my post was that there is no time limit detailled on that page yet the OP was told in store it is a 7 day return policy - thats not detailled on the page and not restricted therefore it can be used as a point to request refund in addition and on top of the statutory SOGA rights.

Besides, pot kettle black. after the Amazon gift certificate farce......

squeaky

Hmm... adapted very slightly from "Yes Minister"...

The discussion is the sort that would be described in a communique as 'frank'. Or even 'frank bordering on direct'. Which means that the cleaners have to mop up the blood in the morning.

chocsessential

You could call the Consumer Direct Helpline: 08454 04 05 06.

lynzpower

I would just get your local trading standards involved.

Ps I had 3 blackberry curves all freeze and fail within days of owning them -I would never buy one.

TeddyBear_2

visidigi wrote: »

How is the point irrelevant when the detail on the page (which was a visit to the CPW webpage and click help, click what if my item is faulty blah blah) is in ADDITION to the SOGA.

My point in my post was that there is no time limit detailled on that page yet the OP was told in store it is a 7 day return policy - thats not detailled on the page and not restricted therefore it can be used as a point to request refund in addition and on top of the statutory SOGA rights.

Besides, pot kettle black. after the Amazon gift certificate farce......

Touche, after you posted a link to a page which provides no information. Please check your links before posting.

It does not matter what the store's policy is; the consumer has the right to reject the goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended where they are not fit for purpose or not of reasonable quality, and the consumer has a right to a full refund.

If you refer to my earlier post, you will see that, as the mobile phone purchase is well within the six month period, the onus is on the retailer to prove that the goods were not faulty when purchased.

Please dispense with the unpleasant 'know it all' attitude; it does your posts no justice, and besides, with the way you are behaving here, you are more likely to end up with egg on your face when you encounter someone more knowledgeable than you.

visidigi

As for the SOGA I am well aware of the rights, but they ALSO have the right to repair the product - my point was the extension of the consumer rights, as detailled on the CPW website doesnt state a limitation to the options.

Therefore the quickest way to ensure its all refunded, without providing the requisite time for repair under the SOGA means this would be a preferable option IN MY OPINION.

TeddyBear wrote: »

Please dispense with the unpleasant 'know it all' attitude; it does your posts no justice, and besides, with the way you are behaving here, you are more likely to end up with egg on your face when you encounter someone more knowledgeable than you.

Like I said, pot, kettle, black... - sigh this place is just so full of attitude from some people...

squeaky

A reminder...

Forum_Team wrote:

Please be nice to all MoneySavers.

That’s the forum motto. Remember the prime aim is to help provide info and resources. If you don’t like someone, their situation, their question or feel they’re intruding on ‘your board’ then please bite the bullet and think of the bigger issue... a Guardian article recently “doffed its cap” to this forum as being the one place where consumers can collect together and fight back, our job is to help keep it that way.

.