Sale of Goods Act/ Consumer rights question...

Valli

jonnyd281 wrote: »

I didn't see that there, as far as I can tell they (the retailer) have fulfilled their obligations under the SOGA, repair, replacement refund, vendors choice.

Repairs and replacements for faulty items

If a trader won’t give you a refund for a faulty item, they should usually offer to repair or replace the item for free. This may apply even if you’ve had good use out of the item. It depends on:
• what you paid for the item
• how long you’ve had it
• how long it’s expected to last
For example, if a fridge you bought for £400 broke after seven months, you would probably get a free repair. But if the same fridge broke after four years, you may have to pay towards the cost of a repair.

The law here is complex and you may need to get legal advice about whether the trader should offer to repair, replace or refund the item.

• Find a solicitor or legal adviser in your area Opens new window

If a repair or replacement isn’t practical

A trader doesn’t have to offer you a replacement or repair if:

• it’s too costly for the trader
• it will take too long
• it will cause you significant inconvenience, eg you’ll be without a phone for months

If this happens, the trader should either:

• offer you a partial refund if you return the item (to allow for the use you’ve had from it)
• let you keep the item and give you a reduction in price for the fault

Proving goods are faulty

If you bought the item within the last six months, it’s the trader’s responsibility to prove the item wasn’t faulty when you bought it.
If you bought your item over six months ago, you may have to prove the fault was not caused by accidental damage or wear and tear. You can do this by getting a second opinion from an independent expert (see link below).

• Getting an independent expert

• Making a complaint - what to do first

If you don’t agree with the trader’s response

Get advice from Consumer Direct

For practical consumer advice call 08454 04 05 06

• Contact Consumer Direct

If you don’t hear back from the trader or aren’t happy with the trader’s offer, you should make a complaint in writing.

I've BOLDED and changed font colour to red to highlight the relevant bits

unholyangel

steve1873 wrote: »

I specifically see the word "offer" in the part regarding refund. By offering, do I not by default have the right to refuse said offer?

The issue of rejecting their offer of a refund isnt so much that they have offered you a refund, more so on the basis of the value of the refund they offered.

However if you went to small claims, it is likely a judge would find their offer has been reasonable (providing they're not taking the mickey and only offering you £10 refund). However, as above, the cost of small claims would grossly outweigh the value involved here and even then, there's no guarantee you would win.

somethingcorporate

It's good, but take it a step further. What can the OP do about it?

If it went to court the retailer has fulfilled their obligations. They have their money back.

They can complain until the cows come home but I really do not think there is anything that they can get from this except wasted time and perhaps an apology.

steve1873

unholyangel wrote: »

Technically the consumer can request one remedy over another - repair, replace or refund and the refund can be partial to take into account use you have had of the item. However, the retailer can refuse if it is disproportionately costly.

The thing is, even if you did have rights to request it back and they didnt send it but instead refunded you.......what exactly can you raise a small claim against them for? And if you don't have the funds required to pay the difference for a new one, well.....the fee for small claims will be more.

Of course I have got the money, but that is besides the point. I am being effectively left £50 out of pocket since I have the need to replace the drive!

somethingcorporate

But replacing it for you would be disproportionately costly for the retailer so they have given you a refund (which they are allowed to do).

steve1873

somethingcorporate wrote: »

But replacing it for you would be disproportionately costly for the retailer so they have given you a refund (which they are allowed to do).

Would arranging a repair or replacement via the manufacturer as per the warranty be disproportionate?

As far as I can see they are allowed to OFFER a refund, but not just issue without consultation. Are you stating I am wrong in this assertion?

somethingcorporate

Possibly, only the retailer has to justify it to a court of law.

However, they are required by law to give you a remedy. They have now done this.

There is nothing you can do here - you have your money back.

It is unlikely that any amount of complaining will now get you a replacement or repair.

Valli

No-one's saying you're wrong OP - the suggestion is that you're going to have a devil of a job getting anything else and it is felt that a court (should you take it that far) would find on the side of the vendor, who has refunded your purchase price even though it wasn't the remedy you would have preferred.

It depends really how far you want to fight this.

somethingcorporate

As well the retailer was entitled to give you a partial refund with a deduction for your use so a full refund could be considered a small win(!), although I am not sure you will see it this way (or would I if I were in your position).

steve1873

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Possibly, only the retailer has to justify it to a court of law.

However, they are required by law to give you a remedy. They have now done this.

There is nothing you can do here - you have your money back.

It is unlikely that any amount of complaining will now get you a replacement or repair.

Yes, but the remedy is of "significant inconvenience" to me as the consumer. Something which SoGA is meant to prevent.