Refused refund

frugal_mike

Alice1270 wrote: »

With regards to my "weak case", I have been informed that under the sale of goods act 1979, if the supplier is deemed to be reasonable in that they are happy to replace, I could be deemed as being unreasonable, should I take them to court and it would be basically up to the judge on the day.

If everything you have told us is correct then the advice you have been given is completely incorrect. You have a very strong case and there isn't much if any leeway for a judge not to rule in your favour. Either the person that gave the advice failed to get all the information about your case, or they don't fully understand the law.

Alice1270 wrote: »

The supplier is citing section 48B (2)(a) and (4) and saying as not all components were faulted, my request of a refund is disproportionate and therefore rejected.

The supplier can quote Section 48B all they want, but it does not apply in your case. That section only applies after 'acceptance' has occurred. You clearly informed the supplier that you were rejecting the goods, so acceptance did not occur.


Tell the supplier (or the Credit Card under a Section 75 claim) to read Section 35.

Alice1270

I feel a lot more confident about sorting all this out in my favour, so again thank you everybody for your advice. I shall update as I go. Everything I have said is wholly accurate, so I just hope that common sense and the law prevails. Section 35 sums my situation up. Brilliant help!!!

Alice1270

Hello. I have just received my chargeback forms through from my credit card provider and they are stating they will only investigate if I have allowed the wardrobe company the opportunity to replace once. Are they allowed to stipulate this. As I've detailed in earlier posts, I do not want the goods because they were, in the main, faulted rather than damaged in transit. Could somebody please advise.

unholyangel

Alice1270 wrote: »

Hello. I have just received my chargeback forms through from my credit card provider and they are stating they will only investigate if I have allowed the wardrobe company the opportunity to replace once. Are they allowed to stipulate this. As I've detailed in earlier posts, I do not want the goods because they were, in the main, faulted rather than damaged in transit. Could somebody please advise.

No. They are jointly and severally liable. Theres been cases put to the financial ombudsman about this type of rejection before. You can find one under example 86/08 here:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/86/86-consumer-credit.htm


In which the financial ombudsman said:

We were satisfied, from the evidence Miss V had provided, that the dinner service was not a matching set. So she had not been given what she had paid for with her credit card. Under section 75, she could seek redress from the supplier of either the goods or the credit.

We thought Miss V had taken reasonable steps to try to resolve matters with the supplier. Despite what the card provider appeared to believe, however, she was not obliged to have done this - or indeed to have returned the dinner service - before she could make a claim to the card provider.

We told the card provider that Miss V was not obliged to exhaust all possible avenues with the supplier before claiming under section 75. And we said we could see no reason why it should not pay the claim.

frugal_mike

Make sure the card provider knows you are making a Section 75 claim. Chargeback is something different. If they still won't help then you can complain to the financial ombudsman as unholyangel pointed out.

Alice1270

The saga continues. I am currently in the middle of a section 75 claim and have just received a letter from my credit card providers which states that as Tecaz, the company, who I bought the goods from, has offered me a replacement, they have fulfilled their obligation to me. Nobody seems to be able to understand that the fact I did not accept the goods, means I am entitled to a refund. Anyway, after a lengthy conversation with the credit card claim team, they are going to review my case apparently, which I hope will include the professional report I have had completed by the company who were going to fit them, which not only underpins everything that I have said about the poor quality, but also made a good point that they just would not last for any length of time. Absolute nightmare. I shall post any updates.

frugal_mike

If the Credit Card company persist in their incorrect interpretation of the law then complain the financial ombudsman. Unholyangel has already posted an example judgement by them that has similar facts to your case and was ruled in favour of the consumer.

Any judgement by the ombudsman is binding on the credit card company I believe, but not binding on you.

paddyrg

It may be helpful to alert the credit card company to the similar ombudsman ruling mentioned above, and suggest they check with their lawyers to avoid the costly and inconvenient route for all parties. If you do go to the ombudsman, also mention the particular similar case so they can be seem to be acting consistently

Alice1270

Thank you as ever to the lovely people who post helpful replies. When I rang my credit card company up after I had received the last letter citing that Tecaz had fulfilled their obligation to me, I read out the legislation concerning rights when goods are not accepted. As Tecaz are also trying to use their terms and conditions of sale which state"that I must allow them reasonable time" to sort any issues out, as a way to get out of refunding I have directed her to the fact that they can basically say what they like, it does not affect my statutory rights. My partner did sign the order with this on but it certainly is vague enough to not alert you to the fact they refuse refunds. They did actually send me a letter before they knew I was going to take the section 75 route which stated that most of the damaged and faulted areas would either be hidden or not used at all and they were actually doing me a favour by replacing it. I had to laugh as that was a lot of cods wallop. Horrible, lying, bullying company who have atrocious reviews on Trustpilot with lots of people in the same position as me. On the plus side, I'm learning so much about consumer law.

arcon5

Their terms cannot override your statutory rights. They are not relevant since the law is on your side.