Refused a refund of broken item

Birdcake

k3lvc wrote: »

The original seller has no responsibility for consequential loss (i.e. your purchase of a new board) but have agreed to replacing the broken part - unless it's a single bearing that's broken in a complex assembly I'm struggling to understand how it can be any more difficult than the work you carried out when you put it together.

I'm not technically minded, so that's why I didn't want to attempt it. It's a piece of rubber that sits somewhere in the metal part that connects the wheels to the board.

My point is, why am I expected to repair a faulty item? If that's standard practice when buying skateboards or BMX related items, then I understand because the kids buying them know who to do these things. However, i'm 39 years old. I have the the time nor the desire to carry out repairs on brand new, faulty items.

I'm a property developer. I build and sell properties with all internal fittings and fixtures chosen by the purchaser. I've had an instance where the glass in a brand new oven door has come unstuck. I didn't send the new home owners a tube of oven glue and instructions on how to repair it, I replaced the whole oven with the exact same model. The problem was mine, not the house purchasers.

Despite buying a replacement board elsewhere, originally, I didn't want a refund, just a replacement of the broken unit (not complete skateboard). I planned to donate the board to the local Cancer Research shop as I thought it might be nice due to my nephews' mother recent passing).

Birdcake

Also, i'm sorry if my English is wrong in places. It isn't my first language. Sorry!

frugal_mike

Birdcake wrote: »

Also, i'm sorry if my English is wrong in places. It isn't my first language. Sorry!

I honestly would not have guessed.

stevemLS

I think the point is, as others have said, you bought a series of parts and assembled it yourself. Who is to say that the fault was not caused by incorrect assembly.

Your analogy does not work, when you build a house you don't give the purchaser a pile of bricks and so on and they assemble the house.

"The item" is not faulty, a component may be - I imagine that is why the supplier is taking the position they are.

ThumbRemote

stevemLS wrote: »

"The item" is not faulty, a component may be - I imagine that is why the supplier is taking the position they are.

But it appears they aren't even replacing the faulty component. They are only offering to replace a sub-component of that component.

OP would not just have to undo their original assembly, they would have to deconstruct one of the original parts they bought.

k3lvc

ThumbRemote wrote: »

But it appears they aren't even replacing the faulty component. They are only offering to replace a sub-component of that component.

OP would not just have to undo their original assembly, they would have to deconstruct one of the original parts they bought.

And this is what I was reading into it after furtehr explanation. If this is the case then OP is right to challenge for replacement of the full component but it gives no rights over the remainder of the skateboard

photome

k3lvc wrote: »

And this is what I was reading into it after furtehr explanation. If this is the case then OP is right to challenge for replacement of the full component but it gives no rights over the remainder of the skateboard

I agree but the problem now is that the skateboard is at the suppliers, they will repair free of charge but will charge for redelivery which seems fair to me as they didnt put the board together initially

stevemLS

ThumbRemote wrote: »

But it appears they aren't even replacing the faulty component. They are only offering to replace a sub-component of that component.

OP would not just have to undo their original assembly, they would have to deconstruct one of the original parts they bought.

I hadn't understood it that way but if that is the case, I agree that the component should be replaced, unless they evidence that it is defective assembly that has caused the sub-component to fail.

lovinituk

Birdcake wrote: »

I did put it together in the first place but the part that needs replacing is an internal part. I'm not confident doing something that involved.

Why did you have to buy another complete skate board from somewhere else? Surely it would have been more sensible to buy just the replacement part from somewhere else and then have the fight with the original company over the part rather than the whole skateboard?!

Birdcake

photome wrote: »

I agree but the problem now is that the skateboard is at the suppliers, they will repair free of charge but will charge for redelivery which seems fair to me as they didnt put the board together initially

If they replied to my original emails sooner, then I would have been happy to send them the faulty part. They didn't though.

If something similar were to happen in my business I would be embarrassed if a customer had the same complaints as I have. I would do anything within my power to resolve it and any repair or postage issues would be covered by good will gesture. Surely it would be better to please a customer, absorb the tiny (Under £9) cost and avoid receiving any potential negative feedback on social media.

I do understand what you guys are saying though.