PC World Refusing Refund on 24 Hour Old Laptop. Need Some Help.

shaun_from_Africa

If the OP wants to purchase from a shop as opposed to a retailer on the internet, they can still do so and get as good or better a deal with regards to the return policy as the DSR's provided that they are careful where they buy from.

John Lewis for example will allow returns for any reason and they don't even stipulate a timescale for these returns.
This has the added advantage (provided that the purchaser lives near to a JL store) that no return postage costs have to be paid.

neilmcl

bod1467 wrote: »

Alternative viewpoint ... If you buy a laptop and a fault develops in the first 24 hours, are you deemed to have "accepted" the goods? If not then you can reject for a full refund - you DO NOT have to allow the supplier the opportunity to offer any other remedy.

You can only reject IF a fault exists and, whilst the assumption is that it does the seller is fully entitled by law to prove otherwise before providing a refund.

bazster

"In the past I purchased a laptop that had a fault 2 days after purchase, and gave it to PC World to detect the fault. They couldn't reproduce the fault, so they told me they would not refund me. I was forced to keep a faulty laptop because they couldn't find a fault."

So you bought another laptop from PC World. :wall:

Have you thought to contact Sony yet?

mattyprice4004

GeekLad wrote: »

I understand this. So is this law that they can do this prior to offering a refund?

No, they don't have any right to test the product, and must give you a refund as soon as you demand one.
Come on, it's common sense that they should be able to see that a fault exists before refunding you, or everyone would do it.

butterflymum

As bod1467 has tried to suggest earlier in this thread, why not give consideration to the 'Acceptance' route.....

Acceptance

Customers are entitled to reject goods if they are faulty (do not match the description , are not of satisfactory quality , or are not fit for purpose ) and receive a full refund if they have not yet accepted the goods.

Before a customer is believed to have accepted the goods they have purchased, the law allows customers a reasonable opportunity to inspect or examine the goods and this should take place within a reasonable time .

For items sold in a shop, it is important for retailers to know that inspecting them in a shop is often not considered a reasonable opportunity. This is due to the restrictions of packaging and in-store display in allowing a customer to identify a problem or a fault.

and

Faulty goods, no acceptance If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty ) for any of the reasons mentioned previously, and the customer has not accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to

• reject the goods and claim a full refund, or
• request a repair or replacement if that is the customer's preferred option.

As the retailer, you can offer a repair, a replacement or a credit note, but you cannot insist on any one of these. It is the customer's right to receive a full refund in these circumstances.

....which does not include an option for the Retailer to test the product first.

neilmcl

butterflymum wrote: »

As a previous poster has tried to suggest, why not give consideration to the 'Acceptance' route.....

and

And as I and others have suggested the "Acceptance route" doesn't mean the seller is not entitled to inspect the item to ensure a fault exists.

butterflymum

neilmcl wrote: »

And as I and others have suggested the "Acceptance route" doesn't mean the seller is not entitled to inspect the item to ensure a fault exists.

If you are certain, perhaps it would be helpful to the original poster if you could quote and source confirmation of the seller's rights in these circumstances. At moment, I have not found mention of such in relation to 'Acceptance', but am happy to be corrected. Also, even if the Retailer is allowed to test the product, surely them not being able to replicate a fault, should this happen, is not the same as them being able to prove there isn't one.

Jakg

butterflymum wrote: »

If you are certain, perhaps it would be helpful to the original poster if you could quote and source confirmation of the seller's rights in these circumstances. At moment, I have not found mention of such in relation to 'Acceptance', but am happy to be corrected. Also, even if the Retailer is allowed to test the product, surely them not being able to replicate a fault, should this happen, is not the same as them being able to prove there isn't one.

How can you prove that there isn't a fault?

All you can prove is that you can't replicate it (which, given stringent enough testing, should be enough...)

unholyangel

butterflymum wrote: »

If you are certain, perhaps it would be helpful to the original poster if you could quote and source confirmation of the seller's rights in these circumstances. At moment, I have not found mention of such in relation to 'Acceptance', but am happy to be corrected. Also, even if the Retailer is allowed to test the product, surely them not being able to replicate a fault, should this happen, is not the same as them being able to prove there isn't one.

(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.

The thing about acceptance is you only have grounds to reject the goods if they do not conform to contract. Ergo if the goods are as described, not faulty etc then you don't have the right to reject them. So yes, retailer is entitled to inspect the goods.