Sales Of Goods - Clarification Needed On Exchange Rights

Jamie_Carter

InsideInsurance wrote: »

None, they can chose between repair, replace or refund. A refund can even be reduced to reflect the use the consumer had out of the item prior to it going faulty.

As others have said, a full refund without a fight is a good result.

I'm afraid that's not the case for an item that is only 5 months old. The retailer can only choose between a full refund, or replacement.

MamaMoo_2

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Not at all, it would be deemed to be faulty when manufactured.


They wouldn't be able to offer a reduced refund until the item was more than 12 months old.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I'm afraid that's not the case for an item that is only 5 months old. The retailer can only choose between a full refund, or replacement.

Erm. Wrong. On both counts.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Sections 48a and 48b. No stipulation is made with regards to timescales before a reduction in refund would be applicable, nor do they state a repair is not an option prior to any point.

Clearly OP had accepted the goods and therefore, once a fault had developed, the retailer had the legal obligation to repair, replace or refund. This is the retailers choice and the customer cannot try to force a remedy which would be uneconomical or disproportionately costly.
Also, if a seller refunds an item they can take into account any use one may have had from the product and offer a reduced refund.
Whilst the time allowed to make a claim is set at 6 years, that doesn't mean that every item is expected to last that long. Therefore a reduced refund on an item 6 months old but with an expected life span of 1 year would be perfectly reasonable, however you seem to mistakenly believe that that would not be allowed?

mattyprice4004

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I'm afraid that's not the case for an item that is only 5 months old. The retailer can only choose between a full refund, or replacement.

I'd love to see the legislation behind this incorrect information.

bod1467

Since the burden of proof (where a fault exists/develops) lies with the retailer for the first 6 months, a "reasonable person" would say that a full refund up to 6 months should be offered - i.e. no reduction for use up to 6 months. (Depending on the item in question of course - its expected lifespan and cost. For something like a vacuum cleaner a full refund up to 12 months [typical warranty period] would be reasonable).

That is my opinion, and I would class myself as a "reasonable person". (In quotes because this is the term typically used in relation to consumer legislation).

ThumbRemote

bod1467 wrote: »

Since the burden of proof (where a fault exists/develops) lies with the retailer for the first 6 months, a "reasonable person" would say that a full refund up to 6 months should be offered - i.e. no reduction for use up to 6 months.

That is my opinion, and I would class myself as a "reasonable person". (In quotes because this is the term typically used in relation to consumer legislation).

I understand the new consumer rights bill (not legislation yet) states this explicitly too.

societys_child

Originally Posted by societys child
Five months use and a full refund. You've done alright.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Not at all, it would be deemed to be faulty when manufactured.


They wouldn't be able to offer a reduced refund until the item was more than 12 months old.

What's your problem?
. . they did alright, I'd happily accept a full refund after 5 months use.

Who mentioned a reduced refund . . . apart from you . . .?

MamaMoo_2

bod1467 wrote: »

Since the burden of proof (where a fault exists/develops) lies with the retailer for the first 6 months, a "reasonable person" would say that a full refund up to 6 months should be offered - i.e. no reduction for use up to 6 months. (Depending on the item in question of course - its expected lifespan and cost. For something like a vacuum cleaner a full refund up to 12 months [typical warranty period] would be reasonable).

That is my opinion, and I would class myself as a "reasonable person". (In quotes because this is the term typically used in relation to consumer legislation).

Totally agree, was just stating it was not something a retailer could not do (especially in a situation with an item with a short life expectancy) however I would say that any retailer who didn't offer a full refund in OP's situation would be being a bit of a d*ck...

Jamie_Carter

MamaMoo wrote: »

Erm. Wrong. On both counts.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Sections 48a and 48b. No stipulation is made with regards to timescales before a reduction in refund would be applicable, nor do they state a repair is not an option prior to any point.

Clearly OP had accepted the goods and therefore, once a fault had developed, the retailer had the legal obligation to repair, replace or refund. This is the retailers choice and the customer cannot try to force a remedy which would be uneconomical or disproportionately costly.
Also, if a seller refunds an item they can take into account any use one may have had from the product and offer a reduced refund.
Whilst the time allowed to make a claim is set at 6 years, that doesn't mean that every item is expected to last that long. Therefore a reduced refund on an item 6 months old but with an expected life span of 1 year would be perfectly reasonable, however you seem to mistakenly believe that that would not be allowed?

There is no point in arguing this with you, as you clearly don't have any retail experience.

Jamie_Carter

societys_child wrote: »

What's your problem?
. . they did alright, I'd happily accept a full refund after 5 months use.

Who mentioned a reduced refund . . . apart from you . . .?

Try reading the post I was replying to.

Jamie_Carter

MamaMoo wrote: »

Totally agree, was just stating it was not something a retailer could not do (especially in a situation with an item with a short life expectancy) however I would say that any retailer who didn't offer a full refund in OP's situation would be being a bit of a d*ck...

Sounds like back tracking to me.