Seller Refuses to refund/repair/exchange item.

s.j664

Issue: Online seller will not refund/repair/exchange a Laptop AC Adapter Charger I purchased from them.

Country: England (UK)
Item: Laptop AC Adapter Charger
Shop: Online Seller (on Amazon website)
Date of Order: 29 December 2011 (135 days ago)
Received Item: 05 January 2012 (7 days later)

Disclaimer: Before reading this please understand that I, myself, own my own service-business, in which I (always) take it upon myself to be fair, reasonable, and honest with my clients. I am not ‘your average whining buyer’, nor am I ‘out to get’ those of you who are retail sellers; I am merely trying to find the truth. With that being said: please no opinion-answers without HARD FACTS backing them up. The only reason I’ve placed this ‘disclaimer’ into this thread is because I’ve read a few threads already in which ex-sellers come in and literally attack the OP’s (original poster), without really listening to the actual issue at hand.

I also recognize that this question is asked, in a myriad of ways, all over the forums. However, as none of them really pertain to my exact situation - and because most threads are not as specific/detail oriented as mine - I ask it again here.

Info: 135 days ago (4.82 28-day months) I ordered a replacement AC Adapter Charger for my laptop; my previous one (which I bought along with the laptop) lasted for over 3 years. The new (replacement) charger worked fine till yesterday, meaning it lasted for 126 days (4.5 months). Obviously I rather hoped it would last longer than this.

How it broke: I, literally and honestly, do not understand how the charger has broken. It was working, just fine, 2 nights ago. I went to work the morning before yesterday (without using it), came back that night, turned on the plug to the charger, and the green light (indicating it is receiving power) would not turn on; it would not receive power. There has been no rough handling of the charger: no dropping it, no tossing it around. I have tried using several wall sockets (the power is on), and have even tried using a separate ‘clover’ plug to determine if it is simply the cord that is at fault – which it is not; the AC Adapter ‘box’, itself, seems to be the culprit. Extra note: There had not been any power surges either, which would not have mattered, as I always unplug the cord from the wall after turning the laptop off.

2 days ago I contacted the seller, to which they have replied (yesterday):

"Items are covered against any faults for a period of 3 months (unless a warranty period is stated in the description) from the date of purchase.”

I thought this a bit strange, because – as I understand it – by law I thought the onus is on the seller within the first 6 MONTHS to prove there was no fault with the item and, likewise, on the buyer if after 6 months.

I replied, asking that they send me their return address (which they seemed less than forthcoming to share). A few hours later they responded:

"Hi, thanks for your reply. Im afraid your 3 month warranty period has expired.”

So, obviously, I am a bit confused: are they (the seller) correct in the above statement? Are they actually only liable for 3 months? As I understand it, a company’s self-imposed Return Policy cannot override UK law which – as I understand it – states: “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.”

Quote Link: Links are not allowed, I guess, so just 'Google' the following if you wish to see the above-quote's location:

DirectGov 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.

So, from my understanding (which may-well be lacking) the seller is not correct in refusing to refund/repair/exchange the item in question. I would be, in this case, willing to accept a replacement or refund.

I would love to hear the opinion of those who know the law regarding this kind of thing: whether or not you believe the seller to be within the boundaries of the law, or if they are incorrect in their statements.

I would ask that those with ‘extreme’ opinions please keep their responses correct and technical. We all have opinions, but I’m interested in the facts. We don’t need any more ex-sellers running around answering these questions with: “Buyers are evil scum; they are just trying to steal from us”, and likewise from the ‘extreme’ ex-buyers. The only purpose that serves is disseminating incorrect information, which only leads to more wrong-doing, and a lack of understanding in the law. Thank you.

Below is some information on the seller:

Their refund policy:

"Items are covered against any faults for a period of 3 MONTHS (unless a warranty period is stated in the description) from the date of purchase."

The above-mentioned policy is NOT made clear anywhere on Amazon.co.uk, nor on their storefront (within Amazon). I know the exact quote simply because they quoted it to me in their email message. Specifically, Amazon's direct quote regarding this is as follows:

"(Store Name) has NOT provided return and refund policies for display on Amazon. Please contact (Store Name) to request a refund or get information about policies that may apply."

I could not find an exact match for the seller’s website while searching for them online (they have a fairly common name in the laptop-world), and I could not match their logo to any website. Because of this - and the lack of placing their Return Policy on their ‘store-front’ within Amazon - I view them with some added skepticism, simply because I, myself, go to GREAT lengths to make my companies’ policies ridiculously transparent.

wealdroam

Since you have tended (twice) towards discouraging responses, I will confine mine to...

Have you read MSE's excellent articles...

• How to Complain,
• Consumer Rights.

In there somewhere is the statement..."the seller cannot remove or overrule your statutory rights".

arcon5

The problem is SOGA basically revolves around what is 'reasonable'.

What is reasonable can often be a matter of opinion - so by telling people you're not interested in their opinions is very much so limiting your responses.

Padz_2

Fairly cheap item OP should just buy another one.

s.j664

wealdroam wrote: »

Since you have tended (twice) towards discouraging responses, I will confine mine to...

Have you read MSE's excellent articles...
(Links in original response)

In there somewhere is the statement..."the seller cannot remove or overrule your statutory rights".

Thank you very much for providing the above links; they have been very useful.

Also, I have not meant to 'discourage responses' - I thought it quite clear (through my examples) that I am simply discouraging opinionated (or 'hot-headed') responses, as they serve almost no purpose other than spreading incorrect information which creates these problems in the first place.

s.j664

arcon5 wrote: »

The problem is SOGA basically revolves around what is 'reasonable'.

What is reasonable can often be a matter of opinion - so by telling people you're not interested in their opinions is very much so limiting your responses.

I most-certainly agree with this observation; SOGA (Sale of Goods Act) does revolve, largely, around what is 'reasonable'. However, the problem with this is, sadly, that what is 'reasonable' to one person, is not 'reasonable' to another.

"One man/woman's trash is another man's treasure", etc, etc, etc - that line of thought could go on all day.

What I am attempting to discover is a person / piece of information who has some concrete facts regarding these issues, as they are very broad in scope, and do require much more specific determinants.

As an example, the kinds of posts I was attempting to discourage while asking that those with biased / opinionated views respond with facts, were for posters like "Padz" (above), which I will deal with in my next response, specifically, to him/her.

mynameistallulah

Padz wrote: »

Fairly cheap item OP should just buy another one.

I agree - if he puts a value to his time, the OP will quickly realise that he has "spent" more on pursuing this complaint than the item cost in the first place.

s.j664

Padz wrote: »

Fairly cheap item OP should just buy another one.

As mentioned: please do not waste thread space with this kind of response. This is the same kind of pseudo-'trolling' which afflicts many of the threads on the Consumer's Rights forums.

I don't think any competent person needs an explanation to understand that whether an item is 'cheap' or not is 100% irrelevant from a moral perspective.

If you were one of my clients, Padz, and I gave you sub-par work, and expected you pay my regular rate, I would quite-expect you to make a complaint.

Now, how would you feel if every other person you complained to responded with: "It's a cheap item, bro, just buy a new one."

Does that not completely degrade the buyer-seller relationship? Put it this way: if you were a business who operated under that premise, your competitors will put you out of business. I've personally shut down bad competition, and received all their vehement anger. My response to these complainers: "I can't help it if I follow moral ethics, and you follow the 'almighty' pound."

The customer is not always right, but their opinion and feelings towards you, as the seller, IS 'right' in how they will speak about and refer to your business. If enough of them feel you have ripped them off, then it becomes irrelevant if you actually did or not; you will lose your business either way.

So, the obvious response is to determine the error in your policies - that which does not agree with your clients - and fix it.

In summation: User Padz, if you're going to make such erroneous statements - which clearly emerge from a wasteful attitude - I encourage you, please, to go start your own business, make that statement to your complaining customers (which you will have if that's your morality), and see how long it takes before you find yourself in some very hot water, watching as your business is liquidated around you for pennies on the pound.

Some obvious reasons not to tell someone to just "go buy another one; it's cheap":

1. The individual you're speaking to may be very environmentally-friendly, and does not waste, pollute, or just 'chuck things away' when they do not work.
2. The individual could be a DIY'er (Do It Yourself), in which they - like individual #1 - do not simple throw things away when they don't work, but has the understanding / know-how to fix it themselves.
3. The individual could be very poor, and your comments to "go buy another one; it's cheap" is simply rude, discourteous, and very naive as to the machinations and economy of this world.

For all 3 possibilities stated, my personal recommendation to you is that you, please, think about what you say before you say it. Your comment was really just silly and a complete waste of a couple kilobytes. More than that, though: it was rude.

Rude to a single mother/father who may be having this exact same issue and looking on this thread to find an answer. They don't have the funding to just go out and 'buy whatever they want' when something breaks.

Rude to the retired woman/man who, again, does not have daddy around to just buy them replacements.

Rude to the environmentally friendly individual who believes in trying to make amends to a planet literally trashed by the 7+ billion humans living on it. Fun fact: there is a 700,000 sq kilometre 'island' of rubbish in the Pacific Ocean, known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" (go Wikipedia that).

So please, please: stop writing such comments. They are morally, intellectually, and technically wrong; and, to be frank, it shows serious naivety / lack of ethics.

My apologies for making such a big deal out of what some/most will consider 'nothing', but - by god - these comments need to stop (they're everywhere); people need to start thinking. I am sure I've offended one/some of you but - if you are offended - I think that's a good sign to seriously look at your own self. Because, if you are innocent of these wrongdoings, then why are you so offended?

mynameistallulah

s.j664 wrote: »

As mentioned: please do not waste thread space with this kind of response. This is the same kind of pseudo-'trolling' which afflicts many of the threads on the Consumer's Rights forums.

I don't think any competent person needs an explanation to understand that whether an item is 'cheap' or not is 100% irrelevant from a moral perspective.

If you were one of my clients, Padz, and I gave you sub-par work, and expected you pay my regular rate, I would quite-expect you to make a complaint.

Now, how would you feel if every other person you complained to responded with: "It's a cheap item, bro, just buy a new one."

Does that not completely degrade the buyer-seller relationship? Put it this way: if you were a business who operated under that premise, your competitors will put you out of business. I've personally shut down bad competition, and received all their vehement anger. My response to these complainers: "I can't help it if I follow moral ethics, and you follow the 'almighty' pound."

The customer is not always right, but their opinion and feelings towards you, as the seller, IS 'right' in how they will speak about and refer to your business. If enough of them feel you have ripped them off, then it becomes irrelevant if you actually did or not; you will lose your business either way.

So, the obvious response is to determine the error in your policies - that which does not agree with your clients - and fix it.

In summation: User Padz, if you're going to make such erroneous statements - which clearly emerge from a wasteful attitude - I encourage you, please, to go start your own business, make that statement to your complaining customers (which you will have if that's your morality), and see how long it takes before you find yourself in some very hot water, watching as your business is liquidated around you for pennies on the pound.

Some obvious reasons not to tell someone to just "go buy another one; it's cheap":

1. The individual you're speaking to may be very environmentally-friendly, and does not waste, pollute, or just 'chuck things away' when they do not work.
2. The individual could be a DIY'er (Do It Yourself), in which they - like individual #1 - do not simple throw things away when they don't work, but has the understanding / know-how to fix it themselves.
3. The individual could be very poor, and your comments to "go buy another one; it's cheap" is simply rude, discourteous, and very naive as to the machinations and economy of this world.

For all 3 possibilities stated, my personal recommendation to you is that you, please, think about what you say before you say it. Your comment was really just silly and a complete waste of a couple kilobytes. More than that, though: it was rude.

Rude to a single mother/father who may be having this exact same issue and looking on this thread to find an answer. They don't have the funding to just go out and 'buy whatever they want' when something breaks.

Rude to the retired woman/man who, again, does not have daddy around to just buy them replacements.

Rude to the environmentally friendly individual who believes in trying to make amends to a planet literally trashed by the 7+ billion humans living on it. Fun fact: there is a 700,000 sq kilometre 'island' of rubbish in the Pacific Ocean, known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" (go Wikipedia that).

So please, please: stop writing such comments. They are morally, intellectually, and technically wrong; and, to be frank, it shows serious naivety / lack of ethics.

My apologies for making such a big deal out of what some/most will consider 'nothing', but - by god - these comments need to stop (they're everywhere); people need to start thinking. I am sure I've offended one/some of you but - if you are offended - I think that's a good sign to seriously look at your own self. Because, if you are innocent of these wrongdoings, then why are you so offended?

It would appear that the OP has a big old attitude problem, and is incapable of considering viewpoints that differ from his own!

neilmcl

Jeez, someone's got too much time on their hands.

OP, did you buy the charger via your business or was it a personal purchase as this may effect how much you can rely on SOGA to back you up.

As an aside you might want to lighten up a bit as your posting style is a bit on the negative side and will probably encourage adverse comment.

bod1467

If you search this forum (or Google) then you'll find Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidance notes on both the SOGA and DSR. In your situation SOGA is what matters. (Assuming this was a Business to Consumer - B2C - transaction, and not a B2B one).

As per SOGA, any fault that occurs within 6 months of purchase is deemed to be automatically inherent and the seller must prove otherwise. If the seller cannot do so (or opts not to try) then they must offer a remedy. The purchaser can request a specific remedy but the seller is not bound to accept that request - they can choose whichever remedy does not cause them undue financial penalty. (The remedies are repair, replace or refund - and a refund can take account of usage).

As you have already surmised, their T&Cs cannot contract out your statutory rights. Your primary course of action is to try and get the seller to take responsibility - which you can only do by communicating with them. (Email is fine initially - phoning is probably pointless given their attitude so far). As they sold via Amazon then it might be worth investigating Amazon's processes and reporting the seller.

The ultimate path is to send the seller a Letter Before Action (recorded delivery) and then follow it up with Small Claims Court action. If it gets to this stage then the "it was cheap - buy another" argument starts to take credence; it really depends on how you value your own time.

One question - was this a normal (online) purchase or was it an Auction-style transaction? SOGA will not apply (in respect of faults) for auctions, whereby the seller's warranty will apply.