SOGA and partial refunds

terryads

I bought an external hard drive back in March from a major on-line retailer. I realised in early August it was faulty. At first they referred me to the manufacturer's warranty and directed me to send it there. I then had to go into hospital and didn't get back to the issue until a few weeks ago, and informed them I wished to execise SOGA rights with them as retailer. They accepted this and arranged collection.
This morning had an e-mail confirming item was tested and faulty but "As per our terms and conditions and in line with the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as this item is over 6 months old you will only qualify for a proportionate refund of the original purchase price. Therefore we are unable to issue a replacement as initially requested." A 10% deduction was applied to the refund. I rang and complained and asked them to quote where in SOGA this was permitted, but they then relented and promised to refund the full amount as "a gesture of goodwill".
So I'm OK but the question is are they entitled to make such a reduction just because 6 months have expired? I thought if goods were inherently faulty I was entitled to replacement or full refund (and the same item is still on sale on their website)

unholyangel

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

(3)For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

They have made some changes to consumer legislation but the changes to the SoGA arent due until next year - at which point I believe retailers will be unable to make any deduction if the goods fail within the first year.

terryads

I saw that, but as ever legal interpretation can be difficult.
According to the CAB website the following applies
"If you received the goods more than six months ago, you can ask for a replacement or a repair as long as it's reasonable for the goods to have lasted this long. But you will have to be able to show there was something wrong with the goods at the time of sale.
You can ask for a repair or replacement at any time up to six years after you bought the goods as long as it is reasonable for them to have lasted this long."
Also it says "If the trader can't offer you a replacement or repair, they should either:

• offer you a partial refund if you return the item, to allow for the use you've already had, or
• let you keep the item and give you a reduction in price for the fault."

As they are still selling the same drive then they could offer a replacement or send it to the manufacturer for repair, So do the options rest with the seller or buyer?

InsideInsurance

terryads wrote: »

So do the options rest with the seller or buyer?

Once the goods have been accepted, generally happens within a couple of days or weeks of having the item, then the retailer decides to repair, replace or refund for any subsequent faults that develop.

As the text above, the are entitled to reduce any refund to reflect the useage that you go out of the item. How this is to be calculated is always going to be difficult to stipulate and generally down to negotiation.

unholyangel

Basically you can request a repair, replacement or refund but the seller can refuse if your chosen remedy is disproportionately costly in comparison to another remedy.

neilmcl

terryads wrote: »

As they are still selling the same drive then they could offer a replacement or send it to the manufacturer for repair, So do the options rest with the seller or buyer?

Ultimately the seller will decide -

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

bris

After acceptance the seller always holds the remedy options. A refund can be deducted for the use you have had, the longer you have it the bigger the deduction.


They were right and 10% was very reasonable, but for such a small amount any adverse publicity wasn't worth it for them to enforce.