MSE News: Consumers set for stronger rights under new law

Former_MSE_Helen

"Consumers will get improved rights to a refund, repair or replacement when buying goods and services, under new plans..."

Read the full story:

Consumers set for stronger rights under new law



Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

arcon5

I agree with the changes being made - some of the ambiguity surrounding the concept of 'acceptance' has always caused problems.

Regarding the bit about sub-standard services isn't strictly correct though, Sales of Goods and Services Act implies terms with regards to quality and fitness. Not only that, if the work was sub standard it could be pursued under contract law.

unholyangel

re change from 7 working days to 14 working days....

isnt it a change to 14 calendar days?

also I believe the 30 day period to get a full refund will still be extended in special circumstances (as it is now, if you perhaps buy a lawnmower in winter, reasonable time may be extended up until summer).

DJBenson

These types of policies will never be enough whilst the government are using wooly words like "reasonable" and "fair" - what is "reasonable" to one person might be completely unacceptable to another. I know some of this comes down to common sense (e.g. the £5 mobile phone versus the £600 smart phone) but consumers still have expectations that the goods they buy will last for AT LEAST 12 months - so why should they settle for anything less?

My iPhone 4's home button failed @ 13 months - a well documented problem, and Apple wanted nothing to do with it. Is it "reasonable" for a £600 phone (retail value) tied in to a 24 month contract to fail at 13 months? I'd say "absolutely not" yet it cost me £130 to replace because of the ambiguous consumer laws that company like Apple exploit on a daily basis.

wealdroam

DJBenson wrote: »

My iPhone 4's home button failed @ 13 months - a well documented problem, and Apple wanted nothing to do with it. Is it "reasonable" for a £600 phone (retail value) tied in to a 24 month contract to fail at 13 months? I'd say "absolutely not" yet it cost me £130 to replace because of the ambiguous consumer laws that company like Apple exploit on a daily basis.

Unless you bought it directly from Apple, they were perfectly right to refuse you anything more than their warranty terms.
You should've been dealing with whoever sold the thing to you.
And if Apple did sell the phone to you, you were foolish not to insist on your rights.

unholyangel

wealdroam wrote: »

Unless you bought it directly from Apple, they were perfectly right to refuse you anything more than their warranty terms.
You should've been dealing with whoever sold the thing to you.
And if Apple did sell the phone to you, you were foolish not to insist on your rights.

Dont think Apple do 24 month contracts so I'm guessing he bought it from someone else.

As for terms like "reasonable" etc...While it would be great if law could be exact, unfortunately it needs to cover a wide range of situations and transactions - from buying loo roll to buying a yacht. The law is generic because it has to be.

Of course peoples opinions on what is reasonable differs...that is why it is (ironically) what a "reasonable" person (ie average person) would expect. Thus not forcing retailers to be held hostage to those fruit loop customers who seem to think one mistake entitles them to anything they want to ask for.

Should perhaps add the latter 2 paragraphs are in response to DJBenson

mo786uk

words like reasonable will always have to be used but they can do lots more to simplify things - like the 30 day limit

i note the language of the legislation is very casual - which is meant to make it more accessible i guess.