Seller + warranty-help me word my response without swears!

bris

A warranty is over and above your statutory rights, and as such can have terms imposed on it, if you want to follow the warranty then you need to stick to the terms, which seem to be to pay the postage, nothing wrong with that.

If you want to go down the SOGA rout then all costs need to be reimbursed so the buyer is not out of pocket, no one is disputing that. The problem there is the sellers right to have an engineers report to state it has an inherent fault, and to also have it sent back for their inspection. A bit of hassle for £3 no?

pendulum

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

It's under warranty therefore they cannot end up with nothing unless the seller is difficult but any seller could be difficult so not sure what your point is.

The point is if you reject their reasonable offer, they are more likely to become difficult, and if they do become difficult, you've pretty much had it.

johnnyboyrebel

pendulum wrote: »

The point is if you reject their reasonable offer, they are more likely to become difficult, and if they do become difficult, you've pretty much had it.

They can't hold the OP over a barrell like that. Buyers should not just roll over and say 'its not worth the hassle'. If the warranty does have a term saying that if there is a problem then buyer pays return postage then there is no arguing with that but OP never stated this.

mdhughes03

Oh my goodness, just posted as I thought this was funny-didn't expect such a response.

I have no problem paying £3 for a charger, I'm not a tight-bum. I merely thought that the seller had perhaps misunderstood the term "warranty".

As you were

johnnyboyrebel

mdhughes03 wrote: »

Oh my goodness, just posted as I thought this was funny-didn't expect such a response.

I have no problem paying £3 for a charger, I'm not a tight-bum. I merely thought that the seller had perhaps misunderstood the term "warranty".

As you were

One word, principal. Do what you think is right..

esuhl

pendulum wrote: »

heresfritzl, what about the chance that if you did not send the £3 you could end up with nothing...

If they want a replacement charger, sending £3 is the best bet.

But what about the chance that of you DID send the £3 you could end up with NOTHING?! And then you'd be £3 poorer than if you'd refused to pay money that you don't owe because you're covered by a warranty.

You might as well say that if the OP wants a replacement charger, the best thing to do would be to send £1000 each to a hundred different suppliers. That way he/she would have a much better chance of receiving at least one (!) replacement charger promptly.

Jakg

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

I actually bought a TV the other day, a big 3D LED badboy. It comes with a 12 month warranty by default. If it developed a fault within 12 months i would send it back and get a replacement FREE. If the company said 'sure you can have a replacement but we want £10 for delivery back to you" then I (as would anyone) would tell them to get stuffed.

But thats not whats happening...

If your TV broke, the retailer would obviously want the TV back, and it would be your responsibility to return it to them.

If they offered you a BRAND NEW TV for £10, after a year, and you wouldn't have to go to the hassle of boxing it up / paying for delivery etc, you'd think that was a pretty good deal...


I'm geussing this is not a "warranty offer" - normally, the OP would send the goods pack (they would pay for this, which would probably be nearly £3). The seller would then test the goods, and repair or exchange the goods, and then post out the new unit which the OP would receive.

£3 to get a brand new one is a good deal when you consider all the time + effort + postage you'll save.

johnnyboyrebel

Jakg wrote: »

But thats not whats happening...

If your TV broke, the retailer would obviously want the TV back, and it would be your responsibility to return it to them.

If they offered you a BRAND NEW TV for £10, after a year, and you wouldn't have to go to the hassle of boxing it up / paying for delivery etc, you'd think that was a pretty good deal...


I'm geussing this is not a "warranty offer" - normally, the OP would send the goods pack (they would pay for this, which would probably be nearly £3). The seller would then test the goods, and repair or exchange the goods, and then post out the new unit which the OP would receive.

£3 to get a brand new one is a good deal when you consider all the time + effort + postage you'll save.

Don't take me too literally. This is not the same at all. As laptop charger is probably only worth a few quid (unless it is gold plated) then this is the equivalent of my TV supplier saying i know it is under warranty but give me £1000 and I'll send you a new one. If I reported it as faulty then seller should pay return costs, only on eBay would a buyer pay to return a faulty item. Any website worth their salt would arrange collection or reimburse return costs if they cannot do this.

It's under warranty so buyer should get a new one free of charge. Why are we even debating this? It makes no sense.

Jakg

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Don't take me too literally. This is not the same at all. As laptop charger is probably only worth a few quid (unless it is gold plated) then this is the equivalent of my TV supplier saying i know it is under warranty but give me £1000 and I'll send you a new one

Not really - the TV wouldn't cost anywhere near £100 to return, whereas to send back a charger + packaging would cost near enough £3 anyway.

pendulum

esuhl wrote: »

But what about the chance that of you DID send the £3 you could end up with NOTHING?!

Pay by PayPal or some other online payment processor with a claims procedure and then you could claim it back.

From the terminology used and the circumstances it sounds like an eBay transaction and the seller was after a PayPal payment anyway.