MSE News: Consumer rights are changing: MSE asks Jo Swinson what's happening

chocolady

As with all these things the Devils in the detail and quite often the detail, if it's not a vote winner, will be hidden in the extremely small or deliberately confusing print. 30 days for a full refund is a joke as if something is faulty it quite often takes a couple of months particularly with electrical goods for that to become apparent. It then allows unscrupulous traders the right to mess you about for ages. I've had this scenario before with legitimate problems that have arisen from goods outside of this timescale, as I think we all have. Cuts have impacted badly on trading standards so now they are often a robotic phoneline staffed with very few well informed people. Apart from the digital content stuff I don't think this act is better for consumers.

wealdroam

chocolady wrote: »

30 days for a full refund is a joke as if something is faulty it quite often takes a couple of months particularly with electrical goods for that to become apparent.

But you are looking at that in the wrong way.
They are not saying that after 30 days you cannot have a full refund.

Currently you have an unspecified period to reject the goods for a full refund, and some traders insist that you lose that right after as little as 24 hours.

The new proposal is that one will have a definite 30 day period to reject goods for a full refund.

This is an improvement for the consumer.

There is nothing in the existing legislation, or the new legislation that says you cannot have a refund after acceptance... be that after 30 days or whatever.

All they've done here is add a specific period during which one can reject the goods for a full refund. Of course the existing Sale of Goods Act remedies will remain.

chocolady

I was told by trading standards that within 3-4 weeks you can insist on a refund but after that it is up to the trader to decide what remedy they wish to give you. Either a repair, replacement or refund and you have no right to a refund so not sure how I'm reading it wrong.

wealdroam

chocolady wrote: »

I was told by trading standards that within 3-4 weeks you can insist on a refund but after that it is up to the trader to decide what remedy they wish to give you. Either a repair, replacement or refund and you have no right to a refund so not sure how I'm reading it wrong.

If Trading Standards are saying that you have no right to a refund after 3-4 weeks then they are mistaken.

The definitive text is the Sale of Goods Act, and like all legislation is open to interpretation. Have you read Section 48A?
Here is an extract:

(1) This section applies if—
(a) the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
(b) the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.
(2) If this section applies, the buyer has the right—
(a) under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
(b) under and in accordance with section 48C below—
(i) to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii) to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.

Other legislation, The Limitation Act, allows a consumer up to six years to seek such a remedy.

There is nothing in either the current or proposed legislation that says one is not entitled to a refund after 3-4 weeks. As mentioned earlier, this new consumer legislation seeks to formalise that time period, but it does not remove the possibility of a refund after that time.

[Deleted User]

What is the point of having an politician answering questions about law?

What you need is a lawyer who can break down the law and reference it against other protections.

Just because MPs pass laws, does not mean that they understand them.

This is really a hidden election publiciity piece for an MP

Esqui

wealdroam wrote: »

If Trading Standards are saying that you have no right to a refund after 3-4 weeks then they are mistaken.

Likewise, if they are saying you have a right to a full refund within 3-4 weeks (as the law currently says) they're also not entirely right. You can only reject for a full refund within a "reasonable period" - enough time to test the product to ensure it initially conforms to contract (e.g. to take a few photos with a digital camera and see the results, which could potentially be a couple of days). A lot of shops offer a return period which is technically well over what could be considered a reasonable period. And that's why the 30-day statutory right to reject for a refund is going to be an improvement, because it gets rid of all the "technically" bits.

Money-Saving-King

6_6_6 wrote: »

30 days for a refund - no questions - is pretty much a joke. So goodbye sir, pi$$ off now.

Are you basically saying that it's a joke you only have 30 days to get a refund because you've changed your mind?