Orange, defective goods and SOGASA1982

grumbler

It's not the common sense. You are just lucky to be able to get a consultation for free. Otherwise the common sense suggests not to consult.

Guys_Dad

NFH wrote: »

Are you a sockpuppet for Orange, Apple or another affected party? Your small number of posts only to defend Orange is suspicious. You are clearly much less informed than the expert solicitors I have consulted who specialise in consumer law.

..............................................No, I didn't, but at least I have the common sense to consult a solicitor before posting legal opinions in this thread.

Now, either you have spent far more money consulting "expert solicitors"than it would have cost to replace these headphones, or you have "asked a friend" - sorry "expert friend" - who may be a solicitor.

If they were that much of an expert, why was your question in your original post "What's the easiest route to getting Orange to honour its legal obligations?."

Couldn't have been that much of an expert if they couldn't have told you that, could they?

You are, unfortunately, increasing your credibility problem with every post you write.

Maybe time to stop digging a bigger hole or re-consult your expert solicitors, rather than this humble amateur forum.

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Now, either you have spent far more money consulting "expert solicitors"than it would have cost to replace these headphones, or you have "asked a friend" - sorry "expert friend" - who may be a solicitor.

They are professional solicitors who specialise in consumer law in part of a reputable organisation. There is no marginal cost to me of obtaining legal advice, as I pay a low periodic fee for unlimited advice. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 is very clear, and those in this forum who fail to interpret it correctly, either through lack of legal training or their failure to obtain professional legal advice, are only perpetuating the common myth in this country that the consumer has no rights after the warranty has expired.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If they were that much of an expert, why was your question in your original post "What's the easiest route to getting Orange to honour its legal obligations?."

One cannot expect solicitors to be familiar with the many Orange departments that could have facilitated a resolution to this issue. I already knew the legal position; I merely wanted a pointer as to the most appropriate department at Orange to contact in order to obtain a fast resolution (my mistake for writing "easiest" rather than "fastest"). I did not want to enforce my rights via the potentially lengthy and onerous route of writing letters and obtaining an independent report on the goods. I also wanted to highlight Orange's lack of understanding of its obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which appear to be caused by company policy and lack of staff training.

It is disappointing that so many in this thread, in a normally consumer-friendly forum, have replied with incorrect advice about the legal position instead of focussing on the question that I raised. I never asked here for legal advice or opinions, yet that is what most replies have attempted to give.

Fortunately the Orange shop took a pragmatic approach and found a way to replace my hands-free today with a brand new item. I believe they managed to do this at no cost to Orange. It took 6 days, but could have taken 6 weeks if I'd gone down the letter-writing route.

drbesty

I think the Orange shop got fed up of you moaning at them with your Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and just gave in, they work in a shop they're not legal eagles, the policy is whatever the company tells them it is

NFH

drbesty wrote: »

they work in a shop they're not legal eagles, the policy is whatever the company tells them it is

Orange's company policy should be compatible with prevailing legislation. It is not, which is why I started this thread and highlighted this.

drbesty

The Sale of Goods Act is a massive gray area full of loopholes and contradictions, for example say you buy an iPhone, 2 days later this iPhone develops a fault, the SOGA says that Apple should replace it with a brand new device, but they don't, they replace it with an 'as new' device, they are allowed to get away with this. I wouldn't say a pair of headphones would be expected to last a long time, especially Apples cheapo headphones, mine gave up after 6 months

grumbler

drbesty wrote: »

The Sale of Goods Act is a massive gray area ...the SOGA says that Apple should replace it with a brand new device,...

I agree about gray, but could you quote the part of it that says about 2 days and new?

drbesty

I used 2 days as an example, it could be 2 hours, it could be 2 weeks, the point is if you buy an iPhone and it develops a fault, Apple will only ever replace it with an as new handset, not a brand new handset, the SOGA says any replacement within the first 28 days should be brand new

grumbler

OK. Forget about 2 days.
Where does it say 28 days and new?
I can be wrong, by I've never heard about this.

Guys_Dad

drbesty wrote: »

the SOGA says any replacement within the first 28 days should be brand new,

I hope you are right, but I have not actually read that bit anywhere. Can you point me to that bit? :beer: