Your consumer rights are changing, ask the Consumer Affairs Minister how

crittertog

Esqui wrote: »

The wording on the BIS site no longer says "as described". It is replaced with "must meet the expectations of the consumer".

One would assume the intent was "the expectation of the consumer, as reasonably informed by the description of the item".

Mars_Bar

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

If the fault still isn’t resolved you can get a partial refund, although the business can take a deduction based on how much you’ve used the goods.

I bought a backup drive from ebuyer, which failed catastrophically after 9 months. Ebuyer suggested that since I had 9 months of use, they were entitled to issue a partial refund.

Given that the purpose of a backup drive is to provide stable data it's not clear that I got any use out of it, but the law says they are within their rights to make this deduction.

Notwithstanding that a 30 day period for faults for full refunds is not enough for items that should be expected to last much longer, the idea that a retailer can deduct for time used is a license to sell shoddy goods. A retailer should have to refund plus reasonable costs if they sell you something that proves to be faulty within a reasonable time. I had to spend many hours making good on their failed product and I ended up out of pocket; how is that fair?

Mrs_Arcanum

The 30 day rule seems to simplify & remove the current disparity between retailers. However, as others have pointed out, how can there be a way of determining longevity of an item related to use and therefore reductions due to wear and tear?

G6JPG

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

[]Goods: there will be a set 30-day period to return faulty goods (unless they’re perishable) and get a full refund. At the moment this has to be done in a ‘reasonable time’. You’ll also only have to accept one free repair or replacement before being entitled to a refund. If the fault still isn’t resolved you can get a partial refund, although the business can take a deduction based on how much you’ve used the goods.[]

If this is 30 days from the original purchase, then I agree with all those who say it is far too short: I not infrequently buy things I don't use, or even open, within 30 days of buying. If it's from when you notify the seller that you consider there to be a fault, then it's still short, but could be argued as fair.

I ask for this clarification because of the latter part of the SAD FART MSE mantra: things must last "a reasonable time". It definitely needs to be made clear that this 30 day period is not that: I would expect certain items (TV, washing machine, ...) to last years (certainly if bought new); I suspect most people would expect a year, and MSEers would expect longer (knowing that "manufacturer's guarantees" that limit to a year have little relevance to such items). [OK, a 50p torch, less time, though even that I'd be miffed if it broke the first time I used it even if that [I]was[/I] months after I'd bought it, but I guess I'd give the retailer some leeway.]

john539

Ms Minister

Please visit MSE more often rather than after 5 years of government just before an election ! :whistle:

System

She's a Lib-Dem MP in Scotland.
I wouldn't rate her chances on returning.

john539 wrote: »

Ms Minister

Please visit MSE more often rather than after 5 years of government just before an election ! :whistle:

gazter

Mars_Bar wrote: »

I bought a backup drive from ebuyer, which failed catastrophically after 9 months. Ebuyer suggested that since I had 9 months of use, they were entitled to issue a partial refund.

Given that the purpose of a backup drive is to provide stable data it's not clear that I got any use out of it, but the law says they are within their rights to make this deduction.

Notwithstanding that a 30 day period for faults for full refunds is not enough for items that should be expected to last much longer, the idea that a retailer can deduct for time used is a license to sell shoddy goods. A retailer should have to refund plus reasonable costs if they sell you something that proves to be faulty within a reasonable time. I had to spend many hours making good on their failed product and I ended up out of pocket; how is that fair?

Which is the reason why last year i spent £0 with Ebuyer, several years ago i would regularly spend £10K a year with them. Like you, they stuffed me over with a hard drive.

gazter

Mars_Bar wrote: »

I bought a backup drive from ebuyer, which failed catastrophically after 9 months. Ebuyer suggested that since I had 9 months of use, they were entitled to issue a partial refund.

Given that the purpose of a backup drive is to provide stable data it's not clear that I got any use out of it, but the law says they are within their rights to make this deduction.

Notwithstanding that a 30 day period for faults for full refunds is not enough for items that should be expected to last much longer, the idea that a retailer can deduct for time used is a license to sell shoddy goods. A retailer should have to refund plus reasonable costs if they sell you something that proves to be faulty within a reasonable time. I had to spend many hours making good on their failed product and I ended up out of pocket; how is that fair?

Which is the reason why last year i spent £0 with Ebuyer, several years ago i would regularly spend £10K a year with them. Like you, they stuffed me over with a hard drive. It has cost them £50k of business. I know thats little more than pennies on their turnover, but thats what happens when you treat customers like that.

Fitzmichael

esuhl wrote: »

I agree -- this area needs to be made more clear in law.

And what about people buying, say, computers or CD-ROMs where the licensing terms are only visible after opening the package or booting the PC.

The simple solution to this very important point, now that you are told you are buying something but subsequently told precisely what you cannot do with it, is to treat all terms not revealed to the customer in writing before purchase as unfair conditions and thereby void. The huge businesses (eg Microsoft) that depend on such conditions would have to think very hard about how to market their goods.
Traditionally, buying something meant you could do what you liked with it. If that's not the case, it ought to be obligatory to rent or lease it, which would (to the displeasure of producers) make customers think twice.

Anyway, the biggest change needed is to revise the Companies Act, so the overriding duty of the Directors to maximise shareholder profit at the expense of everyone else is limited by a duty to act with the "utmost good faith" towards customers/clients.