Feel I'm being ripped off by Currys.

Dandelion66

I hope this is the right forum and that someone can help me. I saved up for ages to buy a new television from Currys, saw the one I wanted and bought it while it was on offer. I didn't set it up until 7 days later, as I was away during the week, but knew it wouldn't be on offer when I got back. On setting it up, I noticed a small mark on the screen, which feels like a scratch. Even though it is small, I was anmoyed that it was a new tv fresh out of its package. I instantly rang up the store and explained, but was told that there was nothing they could do, as it 'says on the receipt damages must be declared within 48hrs', which was not the case, as it does not say this on the receipt (only on the website) . I've emailed to complain, but was met with a £25 voucher as a gesture of goodwill. I felt this was insulting after a £500 purchase of a damaged television. I've read up on statutory rights, which seem to be in my favour, but Currys were dismissive of this and still say that they will not do anything. I'm really not sure where I stand and how I'm best to continue with, I wondered if anyone else has had any similar stories or could offer any advice. Thanks and hopeful in advance.

grintricha

If you bought it online you can return for any reason whatsoever within 14 days I think for full refund (maybe not deliver charge.)

And the 14 days may have gone up recently

gik

Maybe better posting in the Consumer rights forum here:-


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=173

jenniewb

Did you pay by credit card? You could be covered if you did, but otherwise I'd keep complaining, if you want to try Consumer Rights, Which and Trading Standards but I don't think it will be an easy one to deal with, I have not got much faith for Currys as I view them in exactly the same way I viewed Comet, a little bit too slimey. Hope it works out for you though but be prepared to put in the effort!

Nada666

Whoever received the package should have inspected it at that time. (I don't mean whilst the courier was at the door, but, as the receipt suggested, that day.) If they were so uninterested in your investment as to not bother then blame them for the cosmetic imperfection. I suspect this person is you yourself.

ninja306

Nada666 wrote: »

Whoever received the package should have inspected it at that time. (I don't mean whilst the courier was at the door, but, as the receipt suggested, that day.) If they were so uninterested in your investment as to not bother then blame them for the cosmetic imperfection. I suspect this person is you yourself.

This guy bought a £500 TV and took the same sort of action most people would have done; assume it is in perfect nick as it appeared still boxed and was purchased from a very reputable retailer.

It's absolutely wonderful that we all know now that this what you should do is check the product immediately and it's also wonderful how empathetic you are towards their genuine naivety. They must be touched.

I suspect you are a right board nazi round here.

Browntoa

moving to consumer advice part of the forum

unholyangel

Unfair Terms - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284426/oft311.pdf

Time limit on claims:

2.4.2 The OFT is likely to object to a term that frees the supplier from his
responsibilities towards the consumer where the consumer does not make a
complaint immediately or within an unduly short period of time. This applies
particularly where:
(a) a time limit is so short that ordinary persons could easily miss it
through mere inadvertence, or because of circumstances outside
their control, and
(b) faults for which the supplier is responsible which could only become
apparent after a time limit has expired.


2.4.3 Prompt notification of complaints is desirable because it encourages
successful resolution and is therefore to be encouraged. But taking away all
rights to redress is liable to be considered an over-severe sanction for this
purpose. Where goods are supplied, use of such a term is legally incapable
of producing that effect and may amount to an offence, because it serves
to restrict the consumer's statutory rights – see paragraph 2.1.1.


2.4.4 Any fault found in goods within six months of the date of sale is assumed to
be the supplier's responsibility unless he can prove otherwise. It is therefore
particularly misleading for contract terms to seek to exclude or limit the
consumer's right to redress for faulty goods during the first six months
after purchase. As noted above (page 11) the use of misleading terms may
give rise to enforcement action as an unfair commercial practice.


2.4.5 A statement that statutory rights are unaffected, without explanation, will
not make such a term acceptable to the OFT– see paragraph 1.5. A better approach is to insist on prompt notification in such a way as not to restrict
consumers' legal rights. One way to do this is to require notification of a
complaint within a 'reasonable' time of (or promptly after) discovery of a
problem.


2.4.6 There is similarly no objection to a term warning consumers of the need to
check to the best of their ability for any defects or discrepancies at the
earliest opportunity, and take prompt action as soon as they become aware
of any problem. Concerns do not arise so long as there is no suggestion
that the supplier disclaims liability for problems which consumers fail to
notice.

ETA: worthwhile to note that they do not need to offer a replacement. They can offer a refund instead - and this is not uncommon for retailers to do where the goods were heavily discounted. So perhaps best weighing up your options before arguing the case with them.