PC World won't refund on a faulty laptop

MarkWatson

At least my "guesses" have substance in the form of evidence behind them; your "guess" seems to be plucked from thin air.

In terms of what I read about people claiming a refund, you may be less aghast if you actually read the context of what I posted. I am fully aware of my rights, no need for you to post any links (although you may want to read it yourself).

societys_child

You are guessing, and my guess is that you are wrong.

about just about everything . . .

MarkWatson

Bizarre - and more importantly - totally inaccurate posting.

wealdroam

MarkWatson wrote: »

I am fully aware of my rights...

Really?

You have told us:

MarkWatson wrote: »

I'm sure everyone who spends a couple of hundred quid on an item from PC World/Currys will be pleased to know they can get a refund whatever the circumstances.

That is not a right any consumer has.

Please believe me when I say that I am not just trying to be argumentative.

It really helps no-one when blatantly wrong information is posted.

LilElvis

MarkWatson wrote: »

I'm sure everyone who spends a couple of hundred quid on an item from PC World/Currys will be pleased to know they can get a refund whatever the circumstances. They will however have read my complaint, they will have thought about the rights and wrongs and will inevitably have concluded that this one was one they had no chance of winning.

So are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is?

If I buy a washing machine, run a few loads and then decide I'm not happy with the result Currys/PC World should refund me 100%?

Buy a camera, take it on holiday and then not happy with the pictures they should refund me 100%?

If they don't refund me will you lend me the money to pay the costs of my small claims court action, with repayment contingent on success of my claim?

Thought not.

LilElvis

MarkWatson wrote: »

At least my "guesses" have substance in the form of evidence behind them; your "guess" seems to be plucked from thin air.

In terms of what I read about people claiming a refund, you may be less aghast if you actually read the context of what I posted. I am fully aware of my rights, no need for you to post any links (although you may want to read it yourself).

No, your guesses have nothing more than a refund to show for them. No admission of wrongdoing. No judgement against them. No need to amend their terms and conditions.

You received a goodwill refund. That's all it was.

MarkWatson

Dear oh dear, some rather thoughtless jumping to wild conclusions going on here! It really would help if you read the actual context to the comment I made. Here it is:

I said this:

"I'm sure PC World won't be refunding every single customer who takes a claim against them irrespective of whether there is any validity behind the claim".

to which another poster said this:

"If it's less than the cost of defending the claim, they quite possibly will settle - it's good business sense to do so. The same with the banks and FOS complaints, it is generally more cost effective to pay low value complaints than incur the ombudsman fee"

to which I responded with this:

"I'm sure everyone who spends a couple of hundred quid on an item from PC World/Currys will be pleased to know they can get a refund whatever the circumstances".

Which renders a rather different from the meaning you are seeking to impose on my words by quoting them in isolation!

And the point is LilElvis, the way that PC World/Currys are interpreting their terms and conditions and the requirements of the actual law are at variance. They clearly know that, even without me telling them, and would clearly know that they had not even the weediest leg to stand on if a judge looked at it.

Which is the point.

BlueEyedGirl

LilElvis wrote: »

So are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is?

Buy a camera, take it on holiday and then not happy with the pictures they should refund me 100%?

Actually I have done that with Argos. I was not happy with the pictures a digital camera was producing and I returned it as faulty. Argos refunded me in full, that was 2 months after I originally bought it.

LilElvis

MarkWatson wrote: »

And the point is LilElvis, the way that PC World/Currys are interpreting their terms and conditions and the requirements of the actual law are at variance. They clearly know that, even without me telling them, and would clearly know that they had not even the weediest leg to stand on if a judge looked at it.

Which is the point.

That is purely your view. I am sure that the company will be equally as sure that they are fully compliant, backed up by the expertise of their in-house and external legal teams. They simply chose to reimburse you in full as it was the most cost effective resolution.

I am glad that consumers have rights when making purchases online, but this was never intended to include an open-ended right to "try before you buy", which is effectively what you have sought.

LilElvis

BlueEyedGirl wrote: »

Actually I have done that with Argos. I was not happy with the pictures a digital camera was producing and I returned it as faulty. Argos refunded me in full, that was 2 months after I originally bought it.

Great customer service from Argos then, but not any acknowledgement that they were at fault under law, because there wasn't one.