Do I have the right to a refund on a replacement?

Bradden

Have you tried talking to Andrew James. According to one review on Amazon they had excellent customer service.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Andrew-James-Tempered-Removable-Temperature/dp/B00FLZLXO6/ref=sr_1_1?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1390648352&sr=1-1&keywords=james+andrew+slow+cooker


Incidentally all the reviews I could see were positive.

unholyangel

muddlemand wrote: »

wealdroam - from the Which? website: "You have the right to reject your item and get a refund within four weeks of purchase" - up to six months they can choose whether to replace instead, but it's still assumed the fault was there at time of purchase. After six months the onus is on the buyer to prove that.
.

Not sure what relevance your response has to wealdroams?

The SoGA which applies to your purchase only say that you can insist on a refund if you dont accept the goods. Acceptance occurs by: telling retailer you accept it, doing something to it thats inconsistent with the seller retaining ownership or if a reasonable length of time passes without you rejecting it.

A reasonable time is a question of fact - meaning it can only really be decided by a court taking into account relevant circumstances.

After acceptance has occurred you can request one remedy over another but the retailer can refuse if disproportionately costly. However a repair/replacement should be carried out within a reasonable time and without causing significant inconvenience.

Whether being without a slow cooker is significantly inconvenient....I'm not so sure. I mean you've only had it 2 months, I presume you didnt starve to death before then so you must have had an alternative available to you. Being without a fridge for a few weeks would likely be seen as significant but having to use a cooker instead of a slow cooker probably wont be.

AnnieO1234

I'm fairly certain that the company will put this down to user error. It's okay saying something shouldn't boil dry so quickly but if you're not putting the right amount of liquid in in the first place then it will. Every slow cooker I've ever used has behaved differently depending on which setting and what recipe.

Sorry OP!

muddlemand

Lomast and Bradden - thank you, I might go to Andrew James.

unholyangel -

unholyangel wrote: »

Not sure what relevance your response has to wealdroams?

Well, wealdroams said

wealdroam wrote: »

There is no statutory 30 day period during which you are automatically entitled to a refund.

This 30 day period appears to be one decided upon by the seller, ...

and Which? says "You have the right to reject your item and get a refund within four weeks of purchase" - That was the relevance. And I've never known Which? to be wrong on a point of law.

I think you're thinking this is a change of mind, but it isn't, it's a fault. They didn't dispute that it was a fault, when they replaced the first one.

unholyangel wrote: »

Whether being without a slow cooker is significantly inconvenient....I'm not so sure. I mean you've only had it 2 months, I presume you didnt starve to death before then so you must have had an alternative available to you. Being without a fridge for a few weeks would likely be seen as significant but having to use a cooker instead of a slow cooker probably wont be.

I didn't starve to death because I had a slow cooker before and used it all the time. When it got broken I chose and paid for a new one immediately and it arrived in a couple of days. The significant inconvenience, which I hope would apply *in my case*, is because of disability - my original explanation had a lot of detail there, I know, but I did say this before.

This is how I explained it to them when they said I couldn't have a refund the first time (which I knew I had no right to, but had requested as good will):
"I am very worried about the time I would be without the slow cooker. Because of disability I usually make a meal every day in the slow cooker, topping up ingredients each morning, washing about once a week - almost never needing to lift the bowl out from the machine - far less strenuous than a "normal" way of feeding the household with pans, oven trays etc. Therefore when my old slow cooker broke you can imagine I was in a panic, and struggled to cope in the interval before this one arrived. I'm forced to buy online, for the same reason of disability.

Waiting for your repairs department to make a decision will surely take longer than the choice, purchase and delivery did originally. Because of my particular circumstances, the wait would cause me significant inconvenience, in fact would be much more than inconvenient, would actually affect my health and pain levels."

They did undertake to dispatch the replacement immediately for that very reason, which to me means they accepted that it mattered - but then they didn't do so and I waited ten days.

The fact is, my health and pain levels were affected exactly as I had warned, with knock-on effects on the rest of life. Life is a smidgen too much for me to manage on my own when everything goes smoothly, without extra problems such as having a cold, or two doctor's appointments to attend in the same week, or a bank error to deal with or a dispute with a seller... This isn't self-pity, it's information because I know that people who haven't had to budget unpredictable and limited physical/mental capacity, as well as money and time, simply don't realise how it is; when I was well, I didn't.

AnnieO1234 - What makes you assume I wasn't putting the right amount of liquid in in the first place?


When challenged, I always assume I'm wrong, so I assumed my expectations were wrong and googled to check. I don't want to stick to my guns, if my guns are aimed at the wrong target. Even though many people go out to work eight hours and come home to a cooked meal, I thought maybe it's normal to have to top up the liquids two, three or four times during a day (which is shorter for me as I can't begin at 8am).

But no, my expectations were right. (I didn't expect it to work exactly the same as the previous one, no two devices would.)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/872423#Comment_872423 "The liquid inside is supposed to form a seal as it condenses inside the lid. This helps to keep the juices inside and prevents the food drying out."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_cooker "The heating element heats the contents to a steady temperature in the 79–93 °C (175–200 °F) range. The contents are enclosed by the crock and the lid, and attain an essentially constant temperature. The vapor that is produced at this temperature condenses on the bottom of the lid and returns as liquid."
http://busycooks.about.com/od/slowcookerrecipes/a/crockpot101.htm "Liquids do not boil away in the crockpot"
http://www.thekitchn.com/back-to-basics-how-to-use-a-sl-114636 "The lid should fit snugly over the slow cooker with no gaps for steam to escape."
http://www.which.co.uk/home-and-garden/kitchen/reviews/slow-cookers/page/faqs/ "Slow cooking removes the need to stir. Hob cooking without stirring encrusts pan bottoms with burnt-on remains." - Burnt remains are exactly what I had to scrub off, three or four times while I made sure it wasn't me using it the wrong way.

I can't find the reviews now that mentioned steam escaping (whoever said that), but really it doesn't matter if others have had this problem - I have it.

wealdroam

muddlemand wrote: »

Which? says "You have the right to reject your item and get a refund within four weeks of purchase" - That was the relevance. And I've never known Which? to be wrong on a point of law.

And I stand by my statement.

That statement by Which? is their interpretation of the law.

They appear to have interpreted Section 35 para (5) of SoGA:

(5)The questions that are material in determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether a reasonable time has elapsed include whether the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above.

as "four weeks".

Mind you, having said that, they are not the only organisation to make that translation.

In MSE's Consumer Rights Guide it says:

If something's faulty - in other words it breaks the Sad Fart rules - returning it speedily is crucial.

Within four weeks. You can usually still get a full refund as you're unlikely to be seen as having 'accepted' the goods. After that only expect exchange, repair or part-refund.

Although they do tone it down slightly with the word "usually".

muddlemand

Thanks, wealdroam, though I'm still not sure that "accepted" is really relevant - if something is fine when you accept it, and a week later breaks down, it's still not fit for purpose etc etc.

But my question is not whether I was entitled to a refund on the original purchase. I knew that I'd only get a refund then if the company was being nice to me, they weren't obliged to give one. My question is whether I'm entitled to a refund on the slow cooker which is in my house now; whether I am expected to decide *last month* whether this latest which arrived *yesterday* (or the day before, whenever it was) is worth having. I definitely haven't "accepted" it: I told them beforehand that i'd only accept it if it was free of the fault, and told them the day it arrived that it doesn't work as described.

So again, does anyone know if the onus on me to notify the seller immediately must be timed from the original transaction, or from the arrival of the product I'm actually talking about?

If the original purchase date is all that counts, then in theory the following could happen: Joe Bloggs buys a device, finds it's faulty, and immediately sends it back asking for a replacement. The company takes two months to get the replacement out to him (for whatever reason, that's not relevant). That too is faulty and he tells them so immediately BUT he's not allowed a refund, because it's too long since he first bought - even though there was no earthly way he could have refused to accept it, or discovered the fault or notified them, within the first four weeks (or however long). Seems eminently unfair! Is it really what the law states? Does anyone know?

unholyangel

muddlemand wrote: »

Thanks, wealdroam, though I'm still not sure that "accepted" is really relevant - if something is fine when you accept it, and a week later breaks down, it's still not fit for purpose etc etc.

But my question is not whether I was entitled to a refund on the original purchase. I knew that I'd only get a refund then if the company was being nice to me, they weren't obliged to give one. My question is whether I'm entitled to a refund on the slow cooker which is in my house now; whether I am expected to decide *last month* whether this latest which arrived *yesterday* (or the day before, whenever it was) is worth having. I definitely haven't "accepted" it: I told them beforehand that i'd only accept it if it was free of the fault, and told them the day it arrived that it doesn't work as described.

So again, does anyone know if the onus on me to notify the seller immediately must be timed from the original transaction, or from the arrival of the product I'm actually talking about?

If the original purchase date is all that counts, then in theory the following could happen: Joe Bloggs buys a device, finds it's faulty, and immediately sends it back asking for a replacement. The company takes two months to get the replacement out to him (for whatever reason, that's not relevant). That too is faulty and he tells them so immediately BUT he's not allowed a refund, because it's too long since he first bought - even though there was no earthly way he could have refused to accept it, or discovered the fault or notified them, within the first four weeks (or however long). Seems eminently unfair! Is it really what the law states? Does anyone know?

No, time that you cant use the item as its away for repair/whatever isnt supposed to count. However this was never clarified under existing legislation.

Legislation has been amended however it wont start applying to contracts until june I believe.

As for the bit in bold, i think thats more down to confusion. We understand that it counts from your original purchase, after all the replacement is just that, a replacement of the original item in order to remedy a previous breach of contract (item being faulty). So we have answered as such.

However you're viewing it more as 2 separate transactions, which is possibly making you think we're misunderstanding your question (if you see what I mean?)

You may be able to argue along those lines if they have refunded you and you have reordered.

muddlemand

unholyangel wrote: »

However you're viewing it more as 2 separate transactions, which is possibly making you think we're misunderstanding your question (if you see what I mean?)

I think I see what you mean - I haven't been thinking of it as two separate transactions (though I get your point), but arguing that the time since purchase - well, not "arguing that", more "hoping that" - that the time since purchase isn't the only thing that counts, the time since delivery should count. Given that I only saw the "new" slow cooker this week it feels unfair that I can't reject it*, but I'd like to know if the actual law agrees with my idea of fair. In theory the seller could keep sending out faulty products over and over again (knowingly, even!), and the buyer would never qualify for a refund... I mean, does the law really intend that when a dud is replaced by another dud, you're stuck with it?
* given that they've messed me around (dreary robotic customer "service" communication muddles which I didn't go into here) etc, and especially given that they *said* they understood how it affects me more than your average eBayer].

The reasonable time thing is entirely separate in my mind from the fit for purpose thing. The [un]reasonableness has been in the way they failed to send the replacement anywhere like as quickly as the original order, even after knowing how it would affect my wellbeing. If someone had only said "I'll ask the warehouse but can't make them huirry", that's one thing, but they told me I'd be without it 2-3 days and it was well over a week (Funny how it arrived 2 days after I chased, but that's a point I'm not making!)

I always suspect people don't really believe this kind of thing can make such a difference, because they find it difficult to imagine *how* it does, but it is the truth.

If I was running their business I'd have offered the refund the first time round, without being obliged to, for the sake of good will - and also of course it would have been simpler and even cheaper for them, as well as satisfying me the customer. I feel that if one individual had read all the way through the correspondence we've had (and believed I wasn't making it up about the disability), that would have happened.

The other thing was that they (eventually) asked me to try the lid, and the bowl, on a flat surface to see if either was warped. Both look level, but both allow a thin card easily under at the sides, and not at the ends. If that tells them anything.

Anyway I was eventually forced to look up the SoGA in detail. The "reasonable time" does count as relevant regarding the way they send the replacement, not only the original item - the dates do run from delivery, not purchase - and if a fault is found within the first six months, it's assumed to have existed at time of purchase, and the onus isn't on me to prove that it did. Sorry to be long-winded again (I have the excuse that it's copied-pasted this time;)) but if anyone wants to see the pertinent paragraphs (capitals are mine):

Sale of Goods Act 1979
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/contents
PART 5A ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF BUYER IN CONSUMER CASES

48AIntroductory
(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—
(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.

48CReduction of purchase price or rescission of contract
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may—
(a)require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(b)rescind the contract with regard to those goods

(2)The condition is that—
(a)by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or
(b)the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.*
* In other words, delivering the replacement has to be timely as well as whatever happened first time around.

Needaname_2

I have two suggestions. Use a lower setting - you have 3.
Seal the top with cooking foil before the glass lid.
Failing this try a different make from Amazon or locally.
Not the most satisfactory answer but your physical problems need a solution which is quick and easy without standing on rights or stressing you out.

muddlemand

Needaname wrote: »

I have two suggestions. Use a lower setting - you have 3.
Seal the top with cooking foil before the glass lid.
Failing this try a different make from Amazon or locally.
Not the most satisfactory answer but your physical problems need a solution which is quick and easy without standing on rights or stressing you out.

Thank you Needaname.

I was using the lowest setting anyway - still bubbling hard!

And I didn't think of the foil idea, I did think of sticking something like fabric or foam around the rim, but just like sewing on buttons it would be a Major Task on my to-do list. Foil would be easier though a waste of foil. But the thing's all boxed up now.

In fact I did buy another, much cheaper (just over 2/3 the price of this one) and wonderful. A Morphy Richards. This dispute is all about the ££ now. You'd think it would matter less to the company than to me on benefits!

I have learnt something from the research - trying not to waste too much time on it, but so often I take too long to get to things which would benefit me, and lose out that way (I say that's part of what DLA is meant to cover!) and at least this time there's a chance. After looking through the SoGA properly, I'm pretty sure I'm right anyway.