Consumer Issue

Slowhand

George_Michael wrote: »

But the SOGA doesn't rely on balance of probabilities.
It clearly states that any fault found in the first 6 months must be assumed to have been present at the time of purchase.
If the retailer does not think that this is the case then they must prove otherwise. Simply believing this to be the case is not good enough.

Where does it say MUST be assumed? The seller has examined the returned goods and has a report saying user damage. The buyer has done what? As an aside you really need to stop falling out of cars and your music is a bit naff BTW.

Slowhand

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Indeed they have to prove it. I'd too be inclined to think it was op, bit they'd have to prove it.

The buyer have examied the m/board and have a report, it's now down to the buyer to get their report and contest it.

Jakg

bod1467 wrote: »

Was this Ebuyer? (They've become a lot more hardball lately when it comes to RMAs, according to other similar threads we've seen here).

If you look at the job vacancies the eBuyer RMA techs are given targets on "reducing returns" i.e. rejecting products.

(i'm sure the other retailers employ similar tactics though!)

George_Michael

Slowhand wrote: »

Where does it say MUST be assumed?

In the cut & paste of the SOGA that I supplied.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

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

If the goods are faulty at any time within the first 6 months from delivery then then it must be taken (ie, assumed) to be the case that they were faulty when delivered.
UK trading standards state exactly the same thing.
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/extra/news-item.cfm/newsid/798

For the first six months after purchase, it will befor the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (eg. were not faulty). After the initial six month period, the consumer must prove the goods were faulty.

Notice the word "prove" and not "balance of probabilities"as you mentioned. All that the retailer appears to have given so far is their opinion from a report from their own technician, (not exactly unbiased is it?) and all that report can possibly show is that the pins were bent. It is not proof that this damage was done by the OP which is what the law requires.

How about the OFT?

Under six months – the customer does not have to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If you disagree it is up to you, the retailer, to prove the item did conform to contract (or that the fault did not exist) at the time of sale

George_Michael

maxamillion,
you might find this interesting (and familiar)

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/5ybc5-recently-bought-motherboard-ebuyer-com-hen.html

arcon5

Irrespective, if op went to court the judge would ask for their evidence and still use the concept of balance of probabilities to make a judgement.

As for the "2003 Sale and Supply of goods to consumers regulations" - what's this?