Section 75 not covering distance selling?

colmax

Hi all,

This is related to my other post today but a separate issue. I had a problem with my PC supplier refusing to give me a refund for my faulty PC so I called BARCLAYCARD to ask about claiming under Section 75. (I want a refund as the Item is only 3 weeks old and the PC supplier has accepted it is faulty but their T's&C's only allow for repair or replacement)

Barclaycard has told me that as the PC supplier is offering a repair or replacement then BARCLAYCARD has no responsibility toward me. They have told me that in their policy section 75 dose not apply to purchases made under distance selling regulation and that if I have an issue then I must speak to a solicitor to pursue the PC supplier.

Is this true? Can BARCLAYCARD wash their hands of me if the other company has only given me limited rights in their T's&C's?

Any advice welcome,

Thanks in advance.

wealdroam

Section 75 makes the card company jointly responsible with the seller for the performance of the contract.
As the seller sppears to be acting properly in this respect, there is nothing the card company needs to do.

Don't know why they mention DSRs though.

wealdroam

Just to make it clear, their T&Cs do not trump the Sale of Goods Act.

This is most confusing having two threads about the same incident.

colmax

Sorry, I thought it would be helpful to keep the issue with Barclaycard separate from the issue with Laptopsdirect.

timbstoke

As said, section 75 won't work, because the seller is offering you a remedy consistent with your rights. After three weeks of using the laptop, you will almost certainly be deemed to have accepted it. The fault is presumed to be inherent since purchase, but that doesn't give you a right to a refund, only to a remedy, which they're offering.

Your best bet now is to write to them telling them that time is of the essence, and you require your repaired laptop within a reasonable time (say, 14 or 21 days). The sellers choice of remedy must not take an unreasonable amount of time, so you need to call them on this. If they then fail to deliver it, you can then start trying for a refund. Be warned, you probably still won't get one, but you should at least get a working laptop a bit quicker.

arcon5

If you are deemed to have 'accepted' the goods then they are within their rights to offer a repair or replacement. Otherwise you are within your rights to reject it for a full refund.

So the question that really applies is is 3 weeks sufficient to be considered to have accepted the goods? Everybody may have different opinions on what is reasonable for this type of purchase, but ultimately it would be for a judge to decide - if your willing to take it that far..

Flyboy152

wealdroam wrote: »

Just to make it clear, their T&Cs do not trump the Sale of Goods Act.

This is most confusing having two threads about the same incident.

Just to be more accurate, their terms and conditions do not trump the Consumer Credit Act.

Flyboy152

timbstoke wrote: »

As said, section 75 won't work, because the seller is offering you a remedy consistent with your rights. After three weeks of using the laptop, you will almost certainly be deemed to have accepted it. The fault is presumed to be inherent since purchase, but that doesn't give you a right to a refund, only to a remedy, which they're offering.

Your best bet now is to write to them telling them that time is of the essence, and you require your repaired laptop within a reasonable time (say, 14 or 21 days). The sellers choice of remedy must not take an unreasonable amount of time, so you need to call them on this. If they then fail to deliver it, you can then start trying for a refund. Be warned, you probably still won't get one, but you should at least get a working laptop a bit quicker.

That is a point that will continue to be debatable, as there is no actual definition of what is a reasonable length of time, to be deemed to have accepted the goods.

The SOGA says that any remedy should be performed with the minimal amount of inconvenience to the buyer. I would say that twenty-one days is beyond what would reasonably considered to be convenient.