Problem with online "pet supermarket" retailer

The.Far.Tall.Knight

Thread closed

shaun_from_Africa

The.Far.Tall.Knight wrote: »

I would like a full refund as I believe I am entitled to this under consumer law.

Anyone any taker on this and can advise from there - I want my money back

As it currently stands, you don't have any right to anything under the Sale of goods act.
Goods sold to consumers do have to last a reasonable time but if a problem occurs more than 6 months after purchase, the onus is on the buyer to prove that this fault wasn't due to misuse but was caused by an inherent fault. (basically this means a fault that is due to a manufacturing defect although the fault itself wasn't apparent at the time of manufacture).
You may have to obtain an independent report to get this proof.

If you get this report, the retailer doesn't have to give you a full refund as they can choose the remedy.
This can be a repair, replacement or refund (and they can make a deduction to cover the time that you have had good use of the item).
The choice is theirs but whatever one they opt for, it can't cause too much inconvienence for the customer.

Dimey

May I just mention that I had one of those fountains and it worked fine then after about 6 months it started trickling out like yours has. I realised that the little holes were furred up with limescale and that was why.

I didn't dare risk using a de-scaler on it so its now dumped in my junk room.

Good luck with your claim.

lincroft1710

Dimey wrote: »

May I just mention that I had one of those fountains and it worked fine then after about 6 months it started trickling out like yours has. I realised that the little holes were furred up with limescale and that was why.

OP if this is what has happened in your case, then there is nothing wrong with the product, it's the water you're using. (I'll bet the instructions didn't say "not suitable for use in hard water areas")

Poppie68

Well done to the company as they gave you a refund even though they didn't have too.
Also unless you could of proved the fault was a manufacturing fault you most probably wouldn't of won in smalls claims.
To say you wouldn't use again is rather harse as they haven't done anything wrong.

frugal_mike

The.Far.Tall.Knight wrote: »

thanks for the feedback Poppies68 but I beg to differ because as Martin the almighty would say
.Supplied
.As
.Described
.For
.A
.Reasonable
.Time

I am sorry but they had the opportunity to redress but took an inexcusable length of time and faffing on during which time I had to get past their churlishly rude and bad-mannered customer service*

* My opinions and experience do not necessarily reflect the opinions and experience of others, but I wont be doing business with them again

Once six months have passed then The Sale of Goods Act puts the onus on the consumer to prove the fault is inherent (as opposed to accidental damage, misuse or fair wear and tear). So the reason the shop did not have to refund is because you had not yet proved it was an inherent fault. They also didn't jaw to refund you the full amount, they could have deducted money to account for your usage. So there are several ways in which they have gone beyond what they were required to do.

But well done for getting a good result. They shouldn't have told you your claim was against the manufacturer and not them.