Am I entitled to a refund?

paul112

In May this year I purchased a tent for £300 from an online camping store. Within 2 days we booked a site and tried the tent out and found that there were tiny pin !!!!! holes in the fabric and also he colours in the fabric had run. We contacted the online store the following day and they instructed us to package it up and they would collect it (at their cost) and inspect it. Within a week they had issued us with a replacement one.

We unpacked the new tent and inspected it and it seemed fine. We were unable to try it out properly because we have no space in the garden (it is a large tent) and we had no available time to book a site to try it out due to school/work committments. This weekend, we have tried out the tent (which also comes with an annex that can be attached to the tent if you zip out one of the doors). When we tried to attach the annex its obvious that there is something wrong in that it can only be zipped in whilst inside out. It looks as though the zips have been put on wrong.

Ive rang the retailer, not happy that the 2nd tent is also faulty and have asked for a refund. They are refusing on the basis that I didnt inform them within 28 days of receipt. I explained that it was difficult to try it out properly within 28 days as we had no space in our garden and no holidays booked. We specifically made sure that we had a holiday booked when we originally ordered the tent in order to try it out within the 28 day timescale. Its not our fault it was damaged and we had to have a replacement.

The retailer is coming to collect the tent tomorrow and said it will be repaired if possible or replaced if not. Under no circumstances will they issue a refund.

Is there nothing else I can do? I have lost faith in this company and do not want the tent. We have a holiday booked this bank holiday weekend which we have now had to cancel due to this.

Do I have any way of getting a refund as I paid by my credit card?

Herongull

Under Sale of Goods legislation, if want a refund you have to reject faulty goods within a "reasonable time".

"A reasonable time" is not defined in the Act, but case law (ie the outcome of court cases) indicates that "a reasonable time" depends on the details of the situation and can range between a couple of weeks up to 6 months (for complex situations). A month is a rule of thumb - within a month, you are probably entitled to a refund.

Since the seller is refusing, you may have to take legal action (or at least threaten it) to try to get your refund. As you've had the item for 3 months, I don't know if you would be successful, but it is possible.

You can also claim against the credit card company.

arcon5

What are the time scales so far as this could give you grounds to reject...

neilmcl

Herongull is quite correct in that "reasonable time", although not specifically quantified, can vary dependant on circumstance.

One of the examples mentioned by the DTI in one of their old guides, was that if you purchased a pair of skis during in the summer and then found a fault 6 months down the line when you had the first opportunity to try them out, it would be entirely reasonable to reject them for a full refund. The same could be said here, you purchased a tent, and the first, reasonable opportunity you've had to inspect it you found a fault, therefore you should be entitled to a full refund.

As above, exactly what timescales are we talking here?

somethingcorporate

Given the timescales mentioned above I think you'd be in decent shape for a full reject and refund. It is very subjective though.

Try your card company first (if you paid by CC).

arcon5

neilmcl wrote: »

Herongull is quite correct in that "reasonable time", although not specifically quantified, can vary dependant on circumstance.

One of the examples mentioned by the DTI in one of their old guides, was that if you purchased a pair of skis during in the summer and then found a fault 6 months down the line when you had the first opportunity to try them out, it would be entirely reasonable to reject them for a full refund. The same could be said here, you purchased a tent, and the first, reasonable opportunity you've had to inspect it you found a fault, therefore you should be entitled to a full refund.

As above, exactly what timescales are we talking here?

I disagree this would be at all reasonable. The retailer could assume they are being taken abroad to a country where they would be suited. Based on this logic I could buy a snow board then reject it in 2 years because we haven't had any snow since buying them.


I also disagree 3 months in ops case is reasonable. But since the replacement is also faulty they may have grounds now again reject if it has not been rectified without minimal inconvenience and within reasonable time.

Herongull

The timescale for rejecting is not open-end. Some one tried to reject a kitchen after 18 months and the courts ruled that this was too long.

How long is reasonable depends on how a court decides, taking account of all factors including past cases.

It is not based on what Arcon5 thinks is reasonable.

bris

Although acceptance is open ended I believe trying to reject a tent after the holidays is unfair. Over 28 days is also long enough for accepance, repair would be acceptable, but only a court can decide, i would bet the retailer would win this one.

dancingfairy

Surely an item has to be fit for purpose though? Clearly if the zips were sewn on back to front/strangely then that is obviously not something the OP did/didn't do and was inherrent at the time of purchase (although the OP didn't have the opportunity to check at the time).

df

paul112

Hi, I am the OP.

The timescales are mentioned in my 1st post. But I will state them in more detail to make it clearer :-

3/5/12 - purchased tent
5/5/12 - tested tent & noticed fault
7/5/12 - reported fault to retailer
10/5/12 - retailer collected tent & delivered new tent
10/5/12 - inspected new tent & it appeared fine
9/6/12 - tested new tent (without using annex) & appeared fine
15/8/12 - tested new tent and attempted to attach annex & it became apparant there was a fault with zips. Reported to retailer immediately.

Herongull

dancingfairy wrote: »

Surely an item has to be fit for purpose though? Clearly if the zips were sewn on back to front/strangely then that is obviously not something the OP did/didn't do and was inherrent at the time of purchase (although the OP didn't have the opportunity to check at the time).

df

You are right - it is not fit for purpose (it is also faulty and not of satisfactory quality) and therefore he has rights against the seller. However his right to reject the item (and claim a refund) must be done in a "reasonable time". If he noticed the fault within a few weeks, it would be clear that he could reject the tent.

Now that over 3 months has passed, it is not clear whether or not this would still be a reasonable time. The court might say it was or they might decide that with the passing of time, he had accepted the tent. 3 months is a sort of grey area for the time to reject an item and claim a refund.

If it is considered by a court that he has accepted the tent, he could only claim a repair/replacement.