PC World or Currys refunds

MarkWatson

daytona0 wrote: »

right ok, thoughts:

1. You weren't entitled to the full purchase price of £219.99 because in an earlier post you admitted to throwing the box away! Why did you not acknowledge such an action and offer a reasonable reduction?

2. It says "solely as a goodwill gesture" which is code for 'you aren't necessarily legally entitled to it but we'll give you the money anyway'

Why should I offer them a deduction when they agreed to refund me fully?

And yes, as one would expect, that is what they say. However they clearly realised they could not fight it as they did not refer to the Consumer Contracts regulations in their defence, only referring to the Sale of Goods Act. At no point did they engage with the points I made based on the relevant regulations - which rather makes the point!

daytona0

MarkWatson wrote: »

They cannot deduct for the packaging.

In fairness it depends on what packaging it was.

Normal postage packaging (ie a brown box) then you're likely right.

The packaging which normally comes with the item (ie the one which has PC specs on the side, along with a picture etc) is a component of the computer.

And yes, as one would expect, that is what they say. However they clearly realised they could not fight it as they did not refer to the Consumer Contracts regulations in their defence, only referring to the Sale of Goods Act. At no point did they engage with the points I made based on the relevant regulations - which rather makes the point!

Not being funny but you accepted the refund based on that letter. That letter clearly states that it is "solely a goodwill gesture", and so you have accepted their goodwill gesture. To retrospectively argue that it wasn't a goodwill gesture when you initially accepted the money under those conditions is crazy!

mije1983

MarkWatson wrote: »

And no, the regulations do not say this; they say they can make a deduction only to the extent that the value of the goods has been diminished, not to deduct whatever they like up to the value of the goods in question.

I'm afraid they do. shaun from Africa stated the relevant information in post 13.

Link here if you don't believe them:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made

It clearly says 'up to the contract price.'

It may not be usual, and they would be hard pressed to argue that an item now has zero value, but it doesn't change the fact that it's what the law says.

MarkWatson

Yes it was just brown cardboard; it was a reconditioned unit.

Yes, I accepted a refund on that basis. I am not saying that they did not offer it as a goodwill gesture, what I am saying is that they continue to maintain that they can refuse an entire refund.

That is true, whatever reason they gave me for refunding. They did not have a leg to stand on if they wanted to justify refusing a refund - as evidenced by the fact that they were unable to come up with a single argument against that case.

wealdroam

MarkWatson wrote: »

...as evidenced by the fact that they were unable to come up with a single argument against that case.

'unable'? is that the right word?

I suggest to you that they didn't bother trying to come up with an argument against your case - not that they were unable to do so.

What is the point of them engaging in any discussion with you if they have already made a commercial decision to [STRIKE]get rid of you and your petty pseudo-legalese[/STRIKE] offer you a goodwill gesture?

Anyway, why are we going over this all again?
We covered all this last week.

unholyangel

Orville wrote: »

That is a very poor excuse. A judge would not have asked and if he did, all you would have to do is say that very few people are aware you are entitled to a refund and you are requesting the judgement so others can go better armed when asking for a refund as there was a recent ruling in favour.

1) Small claims do not set a precedent
2) Courts do not look kindly on people who take unnecessary legal action. Court is supposed to be a last resort because the dispute cannot be settled by any other way. Even if OP had won his claim for a refund, I strongly suspect they would not be awarded costs or may even have them awarded against him.
3) No precedent required to tell people they're entitled to a refund when the legislation states that itself. Statute > case law.

MarkWatson

mije1983 wrote: »

I'm afraid they do. shaun from Africa stated the relevant information in post 13.

Link here if you don't believe them:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made

It clearly says 'up to the contract price.'

It may not be usual, and they would be hard pressed to argue that an item now has zero value, but it doesn't change the fact that it's what the law says.

No, you have failed to quote all the wording. It actually says

"If... the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price".

ie not whatever they like, only an amount which is commensurate with the devaluing of the product due to excessive handling.

MarkWatson

wealdroam wrote: »

'unable'? is that the right word?

I suggest to you that they didn't bother trying to come up with an argument against your case - not that they were unable to do so.

What is the point of them engaging in any discussion with you if they have already made a commercial decision to [STRIKE]get rid of you and your petty pseudo-legalese[/STRIKE] offer you a goodwill gesture?

Anyway, why are we going over this all again?
We covered all this last week.

Yes, "unable" or they would have provided that argument. They did come up with an argument, as at that point I had not agreed to settle and they had to provide their evidence in a written submission to the court - which did not include any defence under the regulations I quoted to them.

Nothing "pseudo-legalese", just straightforward argument.

MarkWatson

unholyangel wrote: »

1) Small claims do not set a precedent
2) Courts do not look kindly on people who take unnecessary legal action. Court is supposed to be a last resort because the dispute cannot be settled by any other way. Even if OP had won his claim for a refund, I strongly suspect they would not be awarded costs or may even have them awarded against him.
3) No precedent required to tell people they're entitled to a refund when the legislation states that itself. Statute > case law.

Absolutely, on all three points.

George_Michael

Don't forget that we are talking about a very low value laptop (less than £220) and by the time that Currys/PC world get it back, it may well be essentially worthless to them.

Firstly they will have to pay for someone to inspect it, making sure that none of the internals have been damaged and then restore it back to factory settings after ensuring that there is no possibility of there being any virus or other malware left behind.
It would then need to be sold at a price to reflect that there had now been 2 (possibly more) previous owners.
Once all of the costs associated with the above had been met as well as VAT and any other expenses, the price they might have to sell it for could possibly mean they may be losing money on it.

If this was the case (and I realise this is pure supposition), then making a refund deduction of 100% of the sale price may be justified.