Play.com Unlawful Returns Policy

ultramagnetic_commuter

In short, I purchased an electrical item from Play.com 8 months ago for £35. This developed a fault so, well within it's 1 year warranty, I contacted Play.com for a replacement.

Their response was that as it was more than 6 months old, I must go direct to the manufacturer. This is clearly wrong as my contract was with them. I made this point but they wouldn't budge so I said I'd get back to them. After checking the manufactuers website it clearly said that warranty is dealt with by the supplier if not purchased directly from them.

I called Play.com back and they eventually said (after the customer service guy apparently asking his manager) they would only process my refund if I had an email from the manufacturer saying they would not deal with it. They have no right to make customers do this.

I reminded them of the Sale of Good Act and was told "you can quote the Sale of Goods Act all you like, we won't process your refund without the email". Nice customer service.

Luckily, the manufacturer does have good customer service and they confirmed that Play.com should process the refund.

Having forwarded the email to Play.com, they processed my refund.

My annoyance is that they are clearly breaking the law with their returns policy - what if the manufacturer hadn't emailed me back? I would have been stuck with a fauly item within warranty as Play.com were insistent they wouldn't process my refund without it.

I note Play.com are very clever with the scant information they provide on their website about returns only saying what they'll do if it's within 30 days.

I've always thought Play.com were OK but that's because I've never had a faulty item. They've lost a long standing customer thanks to their unlawful returns policy.

pickpocketlocket

Whilst you are correct that your contract is with the retailer, it is often more efficient to go straight to the manufacturer, cutting out the middle man. Clearly that is not the case with the manufacturer in question, but I imagine that is why they suggested you take that route.

ultramagnetic_commuter

Maybe yes - more efficient for the supplier!

They don't want the hassle of dealing with returns (for their benefit, not mine). If the customer comes to the supplier, they don't have the right to turn them away in this manner.

McKneff

They should have contacted the manufacturer, not you.

Not good especially when disgruntled customers come on here and tell oother prospective customers etc.

System

They don't have to give you a refund or replacement they can repair the item. If you sent the item to play they would just send it to the manufacturer themselves. The manufacturer would them say whether it can be fixed or not.

It seems like commonsense to ask you to contact the manufacturer directly. Normally I would assume it speeds up the process

maginot

You are completely right!
Although it is often quicker to go through the manufacturer (if a reputable name), under the SOGA they are responsible. If you go through the manufacturer yourself and is not done to your satisfaction, you then may have little recall with the supplier.

Manufacturers guarantee are also often only a year, when you have 6 years under the SOGA. Although after the first 6 months you do need to prove there was an inherent fault (was this what they were asking for?), whereas the first 6 months they have to prove there wasn't.

Although they have the option of repair, replace or refund, once this fault was determined they have no right to refuse.

Maybe a call to trading standards about their practices wouldn't hurt if you showed a fault and they refused to rectify within a reasonable time.

ultramagnetic_commuter

goater78 wrote: »

They don't have to give you a refund or replacement they can repair the item. If you sent the item to play they would just send it to the manufacturer themselves. The manufacturer would them say whether it can be fixed or not.

It seems like commonsense to ask you to contact the manufacturer directly. Normally I would assume it speeds up the process

Interesting replies.

I'd told them a number of times the manufacturer's website said warranty is dealt with by the supplier. They would not accept this and insisted they would not help without this in writing from the manufacturer. I think that's letting Play off the hook to suggest they were directing me to the manufacturer to speed up the process when I'd told them they won't help. I.e. it's a delay tactic to discourage or prevent me from returning the item.

I wasn't necessarily actually after refund. They don't stock the product any more and they never even offered to arrange a repair!

zenmaster

maginot wrote: »

Although after the first 6 months you do need to prove there was an inherent fault (was this what they were asking for?), whereas the first 6 months they have to prove there wasn't.

Although they have the option of repair, replace or refund, once this fault was determined they have no right to refuse.

Maybe a call to trading standards about their practices wouldn't hurt if you showed a fault and they refused to rectify within a reasonable time.

But Play did not ask the OP to prove an inherent fault, did they? Or refuse a remedy. All they asked for was

ultramagnetic_commuter wrote: »

... an email from the manufacturer saying they would not deal with it.

So what, exactly, would you report them to TS for?

OP got off lightly IMO.

ultramagnetic_commuter

What they did wrong was pass me off to the manufacturer when my contract was with them. Them being prepared to accept the email from the manufacturer was only offered after my persistence for a resolution.

I wouldn't say getting what I was entitled to after 2 long phonecalls with an unhelpful supplier and waiting for email responses from the manufacturer is getting off lightly. I'd say it it against the SOGA and it's a sure fire way to anoy a customer. Remember, had I not been able to produce the email, play said they would not help - fair?

pmduk

Play.com's customer service has always been pretty hit and miss!

art_for_arts_sake

Play's insistence on me sending an electrical item back by recorded delivery cost me, and subsequently them, dearly but it was an absolute nightmare getting them to return the costs of postage they insisted on in their T&Cs. If I'd have been aware they don't like processing refunds after 30 days I wouldn't have ordered in the first place, but the unlawful policy of retailers doing so should be addressed by Trading Standards. The popular myth of the 12 months warranty has been replaced by an enforceable 6 months warranty, and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/contents/made should cover this, but I don't see much chance of it being enforced.