Currys.co.uk not abiding by Distance Selling Regulations

neilmcl

notken wrote: »

Five days later, an email reply from Currys:



I don't know why I keep expecting someone at Currys to sit up and take notice rather than continue to trot out these kinds of lines.

One last reply to them would be on the lines of your T&Cs do not override my statutory consumer rights. Time to stop messing about and send them an LBA.

notken

Yeah, I was contemplating that. I have sent a written letter to the head office, so would wait for its answer to that before LBA (and still waiting to hear back from credit card company). I just can't decide if continually writing emails to drones is helping or harming my cause. Does it make me seem weaker that I keep doing it, or is it just making it clear that I am not letting this go?

bod1467

Hintza wrote: »

Well I wish you would hurry up and take them to the high court so that we can get some precedent set one way or the other.

Nice thought, but ultimately futile ... Small Claims Court does not set precedents, it is only at High Court and above that precedents can be set.

notken

bod1467 wrote: »

Nice thought, but ultimately futile ...

The quote you pulled out does say high court, although I can't see me taking it that far (or needing to). I think Trading Standards pressure could help Currys change its printed terms though.

bod1467

Fair point. I assumed SCC was meant, as NOBODY (unless they had really deep pockets) would contemplate raising an action in the HC ... if you lose in HC you will likely be liable for the other party's costs, so thousands.

notken

Well, here we are, nearly three months on. Friday morning I got a call from Tesco Credit Card, Section 75 department, to confirm that they would be refunding the purchase price in full as long as I was happy to send them the iPad. Of course I'm more than happy to do that. It's been sitting in a box in a cupboard all this time.

It's amazing it's taken this long, but I did get a letter from Tesco about 6 weeks ago apologising for the delay and explaining that the delay was because they have been awaiting and chasing a response from, of course, Currys.

I'd been pushing Tesco to try and get a refund from Currys rather than Section 75, because it's my understanding Section 75 means Currys has its money and it's Tesco paying for it. And that annoys me.

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm glad it seems like it's finally being sorted (awaiting the confirmation letter), and hopefully it'll encourage everyone who has followed this to do one of the following:

• Buy high value items with a credit card
• Don't give up if you think you're in the right
• Perhaps just never shop with Currys to be on the safe side

frugal_mike

notken wrote: »

I'd been pushing Tesco to try and get a refund from Currys rather than Section 75, because it's my understanding Section 75 means Currys has its money and it's Tesco paying for it. And that annoys me.

That is entirely up to Tesco. Section 75 makes them jointly and severally liable to you for the breach by Currys, but it also allows Tesco to claim the money back from the retailer. Whether it is cost effective for Tesco to bother doing that is another matter.

From Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act:

Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

notken

frugal_mike wrote: »

That is entirely up to Tesco.... It allows Tesco to claim the money back from the retailer.

Excellent! Thanks. That makes me feel much happier. I appreciate it's up to Tesco, but at least it gives them the option.

frugal_mike

notken wrote: »

Excellent! Thanks. That makes me feel much happier. I appreciate it's up to Tesco, but at least it gives them the option.

Yes, there's certainly no reason to feel guilty for exercising your Section 75 rights.

I've no idea whether the big card providers claim the money back from the retailers or not, but I imagine at the very least they have penalties in their contract with the retailers such that if a retailer has two many successful claims against them then they have to pay higher transaction charges or something similar.

Trader123

Hi All,

This - to me - is a horrific thread.

I will warn you this - it is a very distinct possibility that retailers will start blacklisting people who return non-faulty goods - whatever the law says.

Lets put it this way - I certainly wouldn't want to be on such a blacklist.