Currys refused refund - advice

photome

Sulli wrote: »

It's all down to what is reasonable, a term within the SOGA (1979).
See link here: http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/consumer_rights/reports/your_rights/buying_selling/Returning%20faulty%20goods/Returning_faulty_goods_report_657_6571_3.jsp

I think it's entirely reasonable for an electrical product costing over £100 to last more than 4 months, and should it not it's not of reasonable quality or fit for purpose.

I'll update on my progress.

Just as big an issue though is how they treat a perfectly courteous and reasonable customer.

I have sympathy with you ...but you "qouted" you statutory rights! which in this case look like you were wrong and that Currys did indeed offer to do the right thing.

crazy_guy

Sulli wrote: »

It's all down to what is reasonable, a term within the SOGA (1979).
See link here: http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/consumer_rights/reports/your_rights/buying_selling/Returning%20faulty%20goods/Returning_faulty_goods_report_657_6571_3.jsp

I think it's entirely reasonable for an electrical product costing over £100 to last more than 4 months, and should it not it's not of reasonable quality or fit for purpose.

I'll update on my progress.

Just as big an issue though is how they treat a perfectly courteous and reasonable customer.

Yes you are entirely right - it should last for more than 4 months but the Sale Of Goods Act also states that a repair should be offered at first and then if this is unsuccessful then a replacement or refund.

But i've said it before, i'll say it again. If you want customer service dont go to Dixons, Currys, Pc World - this group are a bunch of thieves and i just cant understand people still flocking back to their stores :rolleyes:

Sulli

Thats a good point - I did get a good deal on it, but buy cheap, buy twice springs to mind.
So who gives the best customer service? They all seem pretty much the same to me - all about profit and having policies to stonewall people in all instances knowing 90% will just accept it - a good business risk to take.

crazy_guy

Sulli wrote: »

Thats a good point - I did get a good deal on it, but buy cheap, buy twice springs to mind.
So who gives the best customer service? They all seem pretty much the same to me - all about profit and having policies to stonewall people in all instances knowing 90% will just accept it - a good business risk to take.

Well in my personal experience i've found argos to be brilliant with returns where they haven't blinked even if the item is around a year old i've got a option of replacement or refund - and its clearly stated in their return policy aswell.

Found John Lewis to also be fair with returns and as someone pointed out they offer good customer service so will generally not have a blanket ban on refunds.

These are just two companies who off the top of my head i'd rather go to than the dixon group - just type in dixons, currys etc into google and you will find several websites complaining about their lack of customer service.

Get a repair, if no good ask for a refund or replacement, if they refuse I think the only route you have to take is to take them to Court over this - if it is obvious that this is a manufacturer fault, as it only lasts 30 minutes and you can say that you operated it as per the instructions manual, you should fill in a moneyclaim form on the HM court website

Sulli

unfortunately I now can't be without one due to new job.

bs7

crazy_guy wrote: »

the Sale Of Goods Act also states that a repair should be offered at first and then if this is unsuccessful then a replacement or refund.

Where?

PART 5A

ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF BUYER IN CONSUMER CASES

48A Introductory

(1) This section applies if—

(a) the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and


(b) the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.


(2) If this section applies, the buyer has the right—

(a) under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or


(b) under and in accordance with section 48C below—


(i) to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or

(ii) to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.


(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply if—

(a) it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;


(b) its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.



48B Repair or replacement of the goods

(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,


(b) the significance of the lack of conformity, and


(c) whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.


(5) Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the nature of the goods, and


(b) the purpose for which the goods were acquired.




48C Reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may—

(a) require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or


(b) rescind the contract with regard to those goods,


if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that—

(a) by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or


(b) the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.


(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.

I've noticed several people totally misrepresenting the rights. The Act states: "the buyer may require the seller (a) to repair the goods, or (b) to replace the goods". It doesn't say that the seller has a choice - unless one method is impossible or disproportionate.

Also the Act states that "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". One could argue (possibly unsuccessfully, but it's still a valid argument) that sending it off for repair is a significant inconvenience (especially given the purpose of the item and the fact that it's intended for daily use).


The full amended Act is available here - http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm.

angieb1606

sulli hate to say it but currys are in the right every shop gives you a 21-28 days to test the product if there is a running problem then take it back i dont understand why if you had issues with it from the start why you didnt just take it straight back and navman isnt exactly a top range of gps so it might not even be a fault but how the product works and leaving an item overnight on charge is a big no no now currys hand out to every customer a leaflet when you purchase an item they attach it to the recipt and in it it says what they will do now then why do people moan about aftercare when it is given to you in print what they will and wont do for you its because people dont read it but afterthe initial 21-28 day period it is not down to any shop to deal with the item but the manufactures if a shop does deal after that time its because they are going above and beond but if you imagine how many sales currys get in a day is it really a wonder that they just simply dont have the time to go above and beond if you want that type of service go to an independant shop who will charge you twice as much for the same item to cover for additional customer care you want
rule of thumb in this life you get what you pay for
also scooter every ipod only comes with a usb charger and this is stated on the boxes i have never seen one to date that comes with anything different as ipods can only be charged via a comp or a docking station did you askwhat type of charger came with it and explained that it was for use in a hosp without a computer


i know ive gone on a bit here but if you dont read the information that a shop gives you when you buy your item then you cant really have a go at them when they do exactly what they say that they are willing to do

crazy_guy

bs7 wrote: »

Where?



I've noticed several people totally misrepresenting the rights. The Act states: "the buyer may require the seller (a) to repair the goods, or (b) to replace the goods". It doesn't say that the seller has a choice - unless one method is impossible or disproportionate.

Also the Act states that "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". One could argue (possibly unsuccessfully, but it's still a valid argument) that sending it off for repair is a significant inconvenience (especially given the purpose of the item and the fact that it's intended for daily use).


The full amended Act is available here - http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm.

A refund is disproportionate if a repair is possible - the act does not specifically state that the business has the option - but legally speaking he cannot refuse a repair and then go running to the court stating his rights have been infringed due to them not giving him a refund.

"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,


(b) the significance of the lack of conformity, and


(c) whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer."

Thus if a refund would cost the seller £150 quid and a repair £20 quid it is disproportionate and any court would agree with that :rolleyes:

The argument about it being a huge inconvience to him simply wouldnt wash either - he could cope with a map guide book couldnt he? - The cost to the seller would just be seen as too disproportionate

devild_2

I find it surprising you took 4 months to decide it was faulty. You say you used it only a few times and had concerns about battery life but didn't do anything before now. You also state it is essential you have a sat nav as you have a new job. Why didn't you ask for a replacement, you stated it was a good deal when you bought it 4 months ago and the item is essential for your new job so why the refund? I find it strange that you have not even mentioned requesting a replacement as your post has been comprehensive in most respects. Isn't it just you have become bored with it and want your money back.

merlin48

I have had a navman 510 for just over a year now and, although I would not recommend it for other reasons, I have never found battery life to be a problem as I always plug it into the cigarette lighter slot. Isn't that the way that all sat navs work?