replacement offered, but it's a refurbished unit

Elle7

Microsoft do the same with 360s...

It's just how it works. If it fails at any point, it'll be 'replaced' with a new refurbished one. Typically, they reset your warranty too, and there is no way of telling that the unit has been used before - some of the parts may not fit the legal definition of 'new' anymore, but you are being far too picky.

You will never get a repair of your own unit. They will probably pick up the old one and drop off the new one together, and yours will be repaired when it suits Sony, and offered as a refurb to someone else.

It is nothing like sharing underwear, you aren't getting someone else's leftovers. They usually come in brand new casing, so scratches etc shouldn't be an issue.

happy_dave

Interesting about the Xbox. I'm just miffed that they won't replace the faulty item with a new one.
I've used it for less than 4 months (bought 15th July)

Which website states "In the first six months from when you get an item, the onus is on the seller to prove the item was of satisfactory quality when you received it"

Surely if the item was faulty from the day i bought it Sony should replace with new?

unholyangel

happy_dave wrote: »

No i'm not. I bought the item brand new. I am the only and original owner. Secondhand means the item was previously owned by another.

Regarding a like-for-like replacement, I plan to take photos of my PS3 to show there are no marks or scratches etc.

Well you want to get really really technical then the manufacturers owned it and the retailer owned it.

But long and short, from a legal perspective because you own the goods, they are now second hand. It can mean that they have had a previous owner but generally it just means "not new". You bought it new but it is no longer new.

Good idea on taking the pictures though I think its pretty standard on cameras nowadays but dated pictures are always more helpful.

unholyangel

happy_dave wrote: »

Interesting about the Xbox. I'm just miffed that they won't replace the faulty item with a new one.
I've used it for less than 4 months (bought 15th July)

Which website states "In the first six months from when you get an item, the onus is on the seller to prove the item was of satisfactory quality when you received it"

Surely if the item was faulty from the day i bought it Sony should replace with new?

No. They (the retailer, not the manufacturer as it is the retailer you have a contract with) have a legal obligation to provide a remedy which will put you in the same position you would be in if the contract had been performed correctly. Providing you with a new one is a better situation, not the same.

The line you quoted refers to the burden of proof. During the first 6 months it is up to the retailer to prove the fault was not inherent. After 6 months that burden falls on the consumer to prove it was inherent.

You have a reasonable time to reject the goods outright and obtain a full refund. A reasonable time varies depending on the product in question. I'd say 4 weeks is pushing the limits for a ps3, never mind 4 months. Other may have different opinions on what is reasonable though.

happy_dave

unholyangel wrote: »

Well you want to get really really technical then the manufacturers owned it and the retailer owned it.

But long and short, from a legal perspective because you own the goods, they are now second hand. It can mean that they have had a previous owner but generally it just means "not new". You bought it new but it is no longer new.

Good idea on taking the pictures though I think its pretty standard on cameras nowadays but dated pictures are always more helpful.

That's just being pedantic, You could argue that I bought a secondhand chicked today...The farm owned, then the supermarket owned it.

unholyangel

happy_dave wrote: »

That's just being pedantic, You could argue that I bought a secondhand chicked today...The farm owned, then the supermarket owned it.

Really? Damn, I was aiming for facetious. However it could also be said I'm not the only one being pedantic give that you've been told the same answer by probably over half a dozen people yet you are still refusing to accept the advice given. By all means we're no legal experts but if you distrust our advice so much, perhaps its best you consult a solicitor instead.

happy_dave

Why post a comment that shouldn't be taken seriously in a forum that should offer help and advice to others?

How is that constructive?

I'm not dismissing anything said here, as you stated you're not a legal expert, so it's only your opinion.

At this stage i'm drafting a letter of complaint to the head of SCEE

Elle7

happy_dave wrote: »

Interesting about the Xbox. I'm just miffed that they won't replace the faulty item with a new one.
I've used it for less than 4 months (bought 15th July)

Which website states "In the first six months from when you get an item, the onus is on the seller to prove the item was of satisfactory quality when you received it"

Surely if the item was faulty from the day i bought it Sony should replace with new?

As has been already stated, they only have to put you in the position that you would have been in if it had not failed.

A new one would improve your position. An older one would worsen it. In all likelihood, you'll get a refurb which has been delivered to someone and rejected under DSRs, and probably hasn't even been used.

If you wanted to waste money you could get an independant engineer to write you a report to state whether it was an inherent fault, but the majority of the time they won't write this (as parts failing can be classed as wear and tear, and it wasn't faulty at the start if you've played on it) and they'd still only need to put you back in your original position - ie, offering a refurb.

Honestly, it sounds dreadful when you think about it as second hand, but between the original owner and you, Sony have re-cased it and replaced parts. It is not second hand, it is refurbished - refurbished meaning it is like-new.

This is really, really standard with games consoles, because anything can go wrong, and it takes time to diagnose the fault and fix it. Instead, you'll spend no time without a PS3.

It'll be a lot better then you are expecting, honest

unholyangel

happy_dave wrote: »

Why post a comment that shouldn't be taken seriously in a forum that should offer help and advice to others?

How is that constructive?

I'm not dismissing anything said here, as you stated you're not a legal expert, so it's only your opinion.

At this stage i'm drafting a letter of complaint to the head of SCEE

One flippant remark negates my whole comment?

As for constructive, again the same could be said about you continually looking for someone to agree that it should be new. Even though many posters have said they can offer refurb and in fact, consumer direct agrees with this.

Just because we're not legal experts does not mean that everything we post is merely opinion. Hang around on these boards long enough and you'll pick up on a lot of things......including statutory law. You'll also pick up on which posters are reliable for good factual info and which members post based on their own opinion or just purely to troll.

And you're writing a letter to SCEE but not to the shop? Have you taken in anything we've advised or has it just went (figuratively speaking) in one ear and out the other? The manufacturer has no legal obligation under the Sale of Goods Act. At most they are bound to honour their warranty. If you are not happy with the remedy being offered you need to take it up with the shop as it is them you have a contract with.

happy_dave

"One flippant remark negates my whole comment?"

Yes it does, firstly you could have been more apparent that your comment was flippant. Secondly, as it wasn't obvious your comment was flippant, how do I know your other comments weren't?

I'm not looking for people to agree. My second post confirmed that consumer direct had stated that a refurb' model was an acceptable offer.

Most comments here have echoed the advice given to me by the Consumer Advice helpline. That doesn't stop me thinking that it's unfair to accept a refurbished unit, that's my opinion.

My first post stated that I know that my contract is with the shop, not Sony. As for me not listening, I suggest you read my posts before commenting on this.

If it's in my interest to deal with Sony direct to resolve this quickly, then i'll do so. As a Lead Artist for a major dev studio, it should be easier to find the email address for the MD of SCEE.