trouble getting a refund off "cash Generators" 2nd hand blackberry (advice needed)

NCISROCKS

CoolHotCold wrote: »

No if you purchased it a few days ago you can legally insist in a refund.

Under the Sales Of Goods Act you have a reasonable time to inspect the goods and return if faulty.


http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

You have a reasonable timeframe to inspect the goods before you have deemed to "accept" them, within this reasonable timeframe you can always get a refund (providing it's not a service thats started or you've done the damage yourself)

What constitutes a reasonable time though? Is 28 days reasonable and 30 days not, for example?

CoolHotCold

In this case, 3 days is not reasonable. And NCISROCKS, it depends on what the item is, for example a pair of winterboots purchased in summer could be argued that the inspection timeframe is extended several months because of the item.

As with the law it's all grey when it comes to timescales, but this case is pretty clearcut.

NCISROCKS

CoolHotCold wrote: »

In this case, 3 days is not reasonable. And NCISROCKS, it depends on what the item is, for example a pair of winterboots purchased in summer could be argued that the inspection timeframe is extended several months because of the item.

As with the law it's all grey when it comes to timescales, but this case is pretty clearcut.

Show me how/where/when/why this case is clear cut? You say 3 days is not reasonable in this case...what is 7, 14, 30 or 100 days. Who decides? Not the OP, not the seller and certainly not you or me.

CoolHotCold

NCISROCKS wrote: »

Show me how/where/when/why this case is clear cut? You say 3 days is not reasonable in this case...what is 7, 14, 30 or 100 days. Who decides? Not the OP, not the seller and certainly not you or me.

Actually the last part is true, it is decided by you/me.

To start with Read Section 5

The law does not give a time limit for acceptance. When trying to decide if a customer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect their goods, consider what an impartial person in a court would think reasonable for that product in the circumstances.

So yes, I'm impartial, and I'm sure that the vast majority of the public would consider 2 days not a reasonable time frame to inspect and reject, and not even 1 full working day.

stevie_boy

You are seriously missing the point here or too lazy to read what was posted.

It was faulty immediately (random rebooting) and was taken straight back (shop shut early and not open sunday) on monday morning.

After inspecting for 25 minutes the manager finally showed his face and said it would need to be sent to an engineer.

I rejected this and returned home.

It then got worse and did not even come back on when it rebooted.

On return he said it was the battery and would have to send off
again I rejected this telling him I would seek redress in court.

How dare you suggest I did anything other than the correct manner, staying calm etc. "nightmare to deal with" How the hell do you work that out, you know nothing about me.

Why should anyone who buys something which is immediately faulty accept for it to be sent off to be tested idependently

* discuss the issues with them and give them the opportunity to inspect goods before getting irate and making wild threads

They did for 25 minutes stonewalling me before the manager even showed his face.

* - deal withit in a non-emotional, objective manner
- stop making so much "noise" when infact you've dennied them the opportunity to send it of for inspection

I did, only when totally peed off did I calmly tell them I would seek redress elsewhere.

Why would I allow it to be sent off, I just bought the thing.

If all you are interested in doing is bad mouthing me WITHOUT having a clue how I behaved then

With due respect: stay out of the thread please

arcon5 wrote: »

The store has a right to inspect goods before offering a remedy. They must do it with minimal inconvenience to the customer. As for sending it off, nothing wrong with this. Infact most retailers will send it off to the manufacturer to determine the fault and/or inspect.

When threatening somebody with court, it's a good idea to know what your rights are at that point. You can claim reasonable costs via the courts, and I doubt you would be awarded legal fees apart from the filing + hearing fee.

With respect, you also sound like a nightmare to deal with. You can 'make noise', but where do you think it will get you? You have not even allowed them thhe reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods and determine a fault exists.

However, under Sales of Goods Act, you have 'reasonable' time to reject a product for a full refund. Reasonable is ambiguous, personally i'd say 5 days from purchase, others may think longer, the shop may disagree. Ultimately a judge would decide whats 'reasonable'.
After this period you are entitled to a remedy, a repair, replacement or refund which is 'in effect' the retailers choice. Fortunately within the first 6 months the burden is on the retailer to proof the fault is not inherent.

Maybe go back a discuss the issue with them in a calm, non-emotive manner. Tell them your rejecting the product under Sales of Goods Act as not fit for purpose. Allow them to inspect it and if they cannot prove misuse they should refund you then.


Key points:
- discuss the issues with them and give them the opportunity to inspect goods before getting irate and making wild threads
- deal withit in a non-emotional, objective manner
- stop making so much "noise" when infact you've dennied them the opportunity to send it of for inspection

bod1467

The problem is, you THINK you know your rights, but the reality is that you have them somewhat confused. The retailer DOES have the right (in Law) to have the fault confirmed before making an offer of redress. Thus if you did take this to Small Claims you would most likely lose.

The post you quoted (and others) are trying to protect you from yourself.

stevie_boy

You are wrong, I would NOT lose in the small claims court, he refused to adhere to section 5 of sale of goods act.

He did inspect it and it would not even boot up the second time so why should I have it sent off, having proved it was not working and having just bought it I WAS entitled to a refund.

HOWEVER, the area manager has just been on the phone after I pointed out to head office that my rights had been denied me and I was preparing small claims paperwork for tomorrow Wednesday if I did not have an offer of a full refund.

He apologised and agrees the franchisee got it wrong.
Further he has asked me to return to store for a refund at my convenience.

Should never have got out of hand like this.

steve


PS:

Thanks to all those who made constructive points of help, it is appreciated.

bod1467 wrote: »

The problem is, you THINK you know your rights, but the reality is that you have them somewhat confused. The retailer DOES have the right (in Law) to have the fault confirmed before making an offer of redress. Thus if you did take this to Small Claims you would most likely lose.

The post you quoted (and others) are trying to protect you from yourself.

bod1467

I'm glad you seem to have achieved a satisfactory result. However I (and I suspect others) will remain of the opinion that you are mistaken, and that the retailer has bowed to your demands just to get rid of a problem.

halibut2209

You buy something on a friday, and it doesn't work. It's perfectly reasonable to go back the next working day (monday) and get a full refund. I am very surprised that more seasoned posters here don't acknowledge that.

stevie_boy

I quoted sale of goods act (section 5) of which i was refused my statutory right, of which the area manager agreed with me.

If they thought they could win in court why pay me.

I suggest you read it sog act properly before advising me I was wrong.

bod1467 wrote: »

I'm glad you seem to have achieved a satisfactory result. However I (and I suspect others) will remain of the opinion that you are mistaken, and that the retailer has bowed to your demands just to get rid of a problem.