Argos V Soga

I_luv_cats

Hi....

I rang Argos Customer Services for advice as I wanted to return a faulty product (3 months old) that is now discontinued. I was told that the store would offer me a similar product to the one being returned, irrespective of price.(the in store system would bring up an alternative)

The Store said because the item was no longer stocked I could only receive a refund of the price paid on a gift card.

I queried it again with C.S. who now said as the stock is discontinued I would only receive a refund.


Should I have received a like for like replacement ??? (irrespective of cost)

arcon5

They are entitled to refund you if it's more cost effective for them.

I_luv_cats

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/returning-damaged-or-faulty-goods/





The retailer’s obligations

If there is an obvious fault with the item at any time within the first 6 months and it has not been caused by wear and tear or misuse, your first port of call must be the shop you bought it from. They have the responsibility to put the matter right, and should not evade this responsibility by referring you to the manufacturer in the context of a guarantee or warranty.
In the first instance and if considered appropriate, the seller must offer to at least repair the goods. They must do this within reasonable time, at no additional cost to you and without causing any significant inconvenience. If any inconvenience is caused you should be given a replacement item on a ‘like for like’ basis (and not simply the cheapest and most basic model).



I found this on Which, SOGA is still a bit woolly though.

What do others think??

Forwandert

Your refund should be in cash, apart from that you can't force them to give like for like.

neilmcl

I_luv_cats wrote: »

I found this on Which, SOGA is still a bit woolly though.

The SOGA maybe "a bit woolly" to people who don't understand it, but to most it's perfectly clear. The retailer is entitled to offer a remedy that is the less cost effective to them, and yes it should no cause a significant inconvenience. A refund in this instance is perfectly acceptable.

I would however insist that the refund be paid in the manner the OP had paid for the goods, I don't think it's acceptable to be given a refund via a gift card.

wealdroam

neilmcl wrote: »

...I don't think it's acceptable to be given a refund via a gift card.

I agree.

Unless the OP has no proof of purchase.

I_luv_cats

neilmcl wrote: »

The SOGA maybe "a bit woolly" to people who don't understand it, but to most it's perfectly clear. The retailer is entitled to offer a remedy that is the less cost effective to them, and yes it should no cause a significant inconvenience. A refund in this instance is perfectly acceptable.

I would however insist that the refund be paid in the manner the OP had paid for the goods, I don't think it's acceptable to be given a refund via a gift card.

Why does Which say like for like and the first person I spoke to @ Argos C.S. too??

arcon5

I_luv_cats wrote: »

Why does Which say like for like and the first person I spoke to @ Argos C.S. too??

I suspect its worded in a way it was not intended to come across. Perhaps, if they do offer a replacement over an alternative remedy then it must be done so on a like for like basis rather than you being able to insist on a like for like basis.

I would also take the word of a CS agent with a pinch of salt. Some companies will tell you anything if it means worming their way out of it.

Here is an extract from the Sales of Goods Act:

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

Basically, they are unable to offer a replacement item. Therefore you cannot insist they do.

shaun_from_Africa

I_luv_cats wrote: »

Why does Which say like for like and the first person I spoke to @ Argos C.S. too??

The Argos rep may have said it because it is their policy, but this doesn't mean that it is what the law (the SOGA) requires.
The act is very clear on this.
You can request whatever remedy you wish (repair, replacement or refund), but the seller can igonre this request if it is too costly for them when compared to a different option.

F4048BRepair or replacement of the goodsE+W+S+N.I.
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

(a)to repair the goods, or

(b)to replace the goods.

(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale

JethroUK

I_luv_cats wrote: »

...Should I have received a like for like replacement ??? ...

If it's faulty you should get a full refund (you can spend elsewhere) - not a voucher (which can only be spent with Argos)

arcon5

As a bit of a side note, its also worth posting this part also (48C)

(3)For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

Although after 3 months I wouldn't really expect a deduction to be made from the refund, it's worth knowing that companies can do this to take in to account the use you have had.