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

no-oneknowsme

Ok , just my own experience with Carphone warehouse.

I purchased a phone in their for my Daughter in October time. It was intended ans an Xmas present for her.

In early April the phone stopped working and so after reading the SOGA and seeing that faults which develop within six months have to be proven NOT to have been there when the item was purchased , I took the phone back to the shop.

The sales guy told me straight away that he wouldnt be replacing the phone. I reminded him of the SOGA and he stated that it didnt apply to mobile phones (:eek:) yeah right !

I then went higher and spoke to the Manager who reiterated that they would NOT be rplacing the phone and that the best he would offer would be a repair.

After arguing my point for quite a while I admitted defeat and accepted the repair.

The phone was sent to their repair centre in Wednesbury and after a week it came back and the repair docket stated that it had been repaired and that the TOUCH screen had been replaced......strangely enough it wasnt even a touch screen phone!!

Any way , as it was working ok I let it go.

A week later it developed a different fault and again I went bcak to the store. The sales Guy offered ANOTHER repair which this time I refused. I stood my ground and demanded a replacement. They backed down eventually and although they werent able to give me a phone from stock I was happy to wait for one to be delivered.

OP , if carephone warehouse have been willing to give your Friend a replacement phone then why is he having a problem with this?

TeddyBear_2

visidigi wrote: »

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.

Sometimes, the retailer prefers the consumer to accept a repair. This may be because the member of staff employed by the retailer isn't acquainted with the Sale of Goods Act and may argue that this is the only option available. However, the consumer has the right to reject the goods and ask for a full refund.

I have been in this situation and have followed advice by a Trading Standards Officer of my right to reject the goods and request a full refund. The bottom line is the OP's friend does not have to accept a repair.

visidigi wrote: »

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

People are only here because they are looking for advice, not to feel belittled or berated. Common courtesy costs nothing.

visidigi

TeddyBear wrote: »

Sometimes, the retailer prefers the consumer to accept a repair.

As to the retailer this is the most cost effective method of resolving the issue witht he product. Under the SOGA the retailer MUST be given the opportunity to put right the issue and if they choose to repair it then they are entitled to do so.

TeddyBear wrote: »

This may be because the member of staff employed by the retailer isn't acquainted with the Sale of Goods Act and may argue that this is the only option available.

Presumptive - as long as you know your rights then it does not matter what the retailer knows.

TeddyBear wrote: »

However, the consumer has the right to reject the goods and ask for a full refund.

Not without providing due opportunity to resolve the issue either through repair or replacement. The SOGA does not provide a provision for demanding any refunds prior to appropriate time to resolve being provided.

TeddyBear wrote: »

I have been in this situation and have followed advice by a Trading Standards Officer of my right to reject the goods and request a full refund.

Personal circunstances are worthless without facts, you can't say you've previously experienced this and on that basis what you say is right - its about the facts, and without facts your experience is no a justifable reason for you being right.

TeddyBear wrote: »

The bottom line is the OP's friend does not have to accept a repair.

The bottom line is the retailer has a right to repair the goods - the buyer has no initial rights to any refund under the SOGA unless due provision has been given for the retailer to put the issue right.

TeddyBear wrote: »

People are only here because they are looking for advice, not to feel belittled or berated. Common courtesy costs nothing.

Indeed it doesn't but you keep telling people they are wrong based on your opinion and experience, not on the facts of the matter or the answers people are giving you (which are justifiable and correct).

bris

TeddyBear wrote: »

Sometimes, the retailer prefers the consumer to accept a repair. This may be because the member of staff employed by the retailer isn't acquainted with the Sale of Goods Act and may argue that this is the only option available. However, the consumer has the right to reject the goods and ask for a full refund.

I have been in this situation and have followed advice by a Trading Standards Officer of my right to reject the goods and request a full refund. The bottom line is the OP's friend does not have to accept a repair.



People are only here because they are looking for advice, not to feel belittled or berated. Common courtesy costs nothing.

Sorry but you are wrong, the OP has a short timeframe in which to inspect the goods and refuse them is there is a fault. The law does not give an exact timeframe for this but CW have put 7 days on this which may be reasonable. After this the phone has been accepted, then the retailer has the right to repair or replace with a refund being their last offer. Every retailer is different with their own T&C's, Comet for instance allow 28 day's, but this is above the statutoury rights.

TeddyBear_2

bris wrote: »

Sorry but you are wrong, the OP has a short timeframe in which to inspect the goods and refuse them is there is a fault. The law does not give an exact timeframe for this but CW have put 7 days on this which may be reasonable. After this the phone has been accepted, then the retailer has the right to repair or replace with a refund being their last offer. Every retailer is different with their own T&C's, Comet for instance allow 28 day's, but this is above the statutoury rights.

The timeframe is not limited to 7 days. If the item becomes faulty within six months, the onus is on the retailer to prove that it was not faulty when they sold it.

gordikin

The retailer is not disputing it was faulty though.

TeddyBear_2

wealdroam wrote: »

That is right.

And a repair is a suitable remedy, isn't it?

And a request for a refund or replacement is reasonable too.

wealdroam

TeddyBear wrote: »

The timeframe is not limited to 7 days. If the item becomes faulty within six months, the onus is on the retailer to prove that it was not faulty when they sold it.

You are confusing two different timeframes.

visidigi

TeddyBear wrote: »

The timeframe is not limited to 7 days. If the item becomes faulty within six months, the onus is on the retailer to prove that it was not faulty when they sold it.

The SOGA is the basis, the retailer can offer more if they wish - the 7 days is a CPW policy in EXTENSION to the SOGA - therefore the 7 days is something the retailer offers to differentiate themselves from the competition and entice the consumer to buy.

You keep quoting about 6 months, inherent fault etc but unless the retailer is given an opportunity to repair there is absolutely well and truly no LEGAL entitlement to a refund.

TeddyBear wrote: »

And a request for a refund or replacement is reasonable too.

Request yes - demand (as per previous posts) no. Its reasonable to request, but ONLY after the retailer has been given due opportunity to repair the item if they so wish then you cannot demand/insist on a refund - these are the facts of the SOGA.

fthl

Under the SOGA the retailer MUST be given the opportunity to put right the issue and if they choose to repair it then they are entitled to do so.

I disagree. This is not my reading of SOGA and related case law.
And as I stated above, I really don't think that s48 comes into play here, this is s14 stuff subject to the argument as to whether a 'reasonable' time has passed. At seven days I don't think the buyer could be considered to have accepted the goods, but I suppose it is arguable.

Only if it is considered that a reasonable time has passed, and the buyer has accepted the goods, would section 48 come into play. I've posted it below for info.

48A Introductory E+W+S+N.I.
(1)This section applies if—

(a)the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
(b)the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.
(2)If this section applies, the buyer has the right—

(a)under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
(b)under and in accordance with section 48C below—

(i)to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii)to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
(4)Subsection (3) above does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

48B Repair or replacement of the goods E+W+S+N.I.
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.
(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—

(a)the nature of the goods, and
(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.
48CReduction of purchase price or rescission of contract E+W+S+N.I.
(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,
ifthe 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) buyer has requiredthe 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.
48D Relation to other remedies etc.E+W+S+N.I.
(1)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods the buyer must not act under subsection (2) until he has given the seller a reasonable time in which to repair or replace (as the case may be) the goods.
(2)The buyer acts under this subsection if—

(a)in England and Wales or Northern Ireland he rejects the goods and terminates the contract for breach of condition;
(b)in Scotland he rejects any goods delivered under the contract and treats it as repudiated;
(c)he requires the goods to be replaced or repaired (as the case may be).

Emphasis added - you'll note that there are no sections that say the buyer must - everything is "if" or "the buyer may" or similar.

So, in summary, the buyer can chose to reject the goods for a full refund, providing he does so within a reasonable time. If he did not act within a reasonable time, then he may choose a repair or replacement or a partial refund. If the buyer chooses a repair or replacement he can't then go for a refund unless he gives the seller a reasonable time to repair or replace, as the case may be. He also can't have a reduction in price AND a repair/refund. The seller can refuse a request to repair/replace/refund if another option is cheaper.