PC World or Currys refunds

mije1983

MarkWatson wrote: »

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.

I don't believe I said they can deduct whatever they liked. Can you point that out to me so I can edit the post please?

If Currys has decided the amount the value had diminished by was £220, then they could have deducted £220 (the contract price), but not £221 etc as that is more.

As I said though (which you seem to have missed/ignored), they would be hard pressed to argue the laptop now had zero value unless you had trashed it, but the legislation, as quoted by you does allow them to do this.


Let me give you a basic example. You take it out of the box, but it is heavier/bigger than you expected. You package it back up and return it. You receive a full refund. On the other hand, you take it out of the box and drop it. The hinge breaks. You return it as is your right. However, they knock £50 off the refund price as they have to now sell it as damaged or refurbished. In both cases you are entitled to a refund, but not the same amount.

unholyangel

George_Michael wrote: »

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.

Arguably the legislation only makes the consumer liable for the amount they have actually diminished the value of the item by - not for any associated costs with reselling it.

I believe the regulations also state (paraphrasing) that the reimbursement must be free of deductions other than those specifically allowed for in the regulations.

More importantly - currys state you can only return items that have not been used, installed or had any data put on them - and whats worse is they tell you that this is your "rights".

Quite clearly currys are unlikely to comply with telling customers that their refund can be reduced if they diminish the value - therefore they can't deduct anything from OP's refund - even if he has diminished the value by going beyond what was reasonable.

Them stating that that is your rights (when its not) could also possibly amount to a criminal offence.

MarkWatson

George_Michael wrote: »

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.

Absolutely not. All they have to do is restore it with whatever custom made system they have. The fact they have to resell it as a used item does not mean that they can deduct that value from my refund, there is no provision for that in law. All they can do is charge for it to be reset (I guess around £50 max) without making any profit on that process and without deducting any other amount.

MarkWatson

mije1983 wrote: »

I don't believe I said they can deduct whatever they liked. Can you point that out to me so I can edit the post please?

If Currys has decided the amount the value had diminished by was £220, then they could have deducted £220 (the contract price), but not £221 etc as that is more.

As I said though (which you seem to have missed/ignored), they would be hard pressed to argue the laptop now had zero value unless you had trashed it, but the legislation, as quoted by you does allow them to do this.


Let me give you a basic example. You take it out of the box, but it is heavier/bigger than you expected. You package it back up and return it. You receive a full refund. On the other hand, you take it out of the box and drop it. The hinge breaks. You return it as is your right. However, they knock £50 off the refund price as they have to now sell it as damaged or refurbished. In both cases you are entitled to a refund, but not the same amount.

Clearly they would be unable to charge me more than the value of the item!

Breaking the item is entirely different than resetting a computer - my point is - and always has been - they have no right to deduct any amount simply because I switched it on and used it in the same way as someone would in a shop but, if they can deduct anything, it is only the actual amount that it would cost them to restore it to its original condition. Any other losses are their problem.

daytona0

You know what lad, some thoughts:

1. The profit margin is pretty thin on laptops and PCs. They get their money from flogging addons. I'd give it AT BEST a 30% margin on the units, or about £66 on the £220 item.

2. If they defend in court then they incur expenses, which include:

- Paying people to prepare a defense
- Paying people to show up to the court hearing
- Maybe travel expenses too?
- Maybe accommodation and food expenses?

What figure do you put on their expenses, and do you think that they could successfully re-claim those from you in court if they won? No chance.

3. Your court fees are £25, and they are entitled to the laptop if you get a refund. The laptop is 6 months old and so has diminished in value (not necessarily your problem). I'd say that it is worth only 80% of the cost price now, or about £176 or a loss of £44 in value. They can go on to flog this old laptop for £176 based on diminished value. Add the court fees and loss amount up and you get £69, which is quite close to the figure in number 1.


In conclusion:

If they defend and win = you keep the item, they lose out on expenses costs (which is going to be higher than £70) UNLESS they can charge you for it, which would be funny to see :

If they defend and lose = loss of about £69 plus expenses

If they settle out of court = loss of about £69 only


So, unless they can claim for wage costs etc against you, the wisest decision for PC World to make is to settle out of court. That incurs the minimum amount of costs and also ensures that they are as close to breaking even with this unit as possible.

MarkWatson

unholyangel wrote: »

Arguably the legislation only makes the consumer liable for the amount they have actually diminished the value of the item by - not for any associated costs with reselling it.

I believe the regulations also state (paraphrasing) that the reimbursement must be free of deductions other than those specifically allowed for in the regulations.

More importantly - currys state you can only return items that have not been used, installed or had any data put on them - and whats worse is they tell you that this is your "rights".

Quite clearly currys are unlikely to comply with telling customers that their refund can be reduced if they diminish the value - therefore they can't deduct anything from OP's refund - even if he has diminished the value by going beyond what was reasonable.

Them stating that that is your rights (when its not) could also possibly amount to a criminal offence.

Again, I couldn't agree more. Not sure it would be a criminal offence (I am guessing) but certainly something which Trading Standards would have a firm view on.

MarkWatson

daytona0 wrote: »

You know what lad, some thoughts:

1. The profit margin is pretty thin on laptops and PCs. They get their money from flogging addons. I'd give it AT BEST a 30% margin on the units, or about £66 on the £220 item.

2. If they defend in court then they incur expenses, which include:

- Paying people to prepare a defense
- Paying people to show up to the court hearing
- Maybe travel expenses too?
- Maybe accommodation and food expenses?

What figure do you put on their expenses, and do you think that they could successfully re-claim those from you in court if they won? No chance.

3. Your court fees are £25, and they are entitled to the laptop if you get a refund. The laptop is 6 months old and so has diminished in value (not necessarily your problem). I'd say that it is worth only 80% of the cost price now, or about £176 or a loss of £44 in value. Add the court fees and loss amount up and you get £69, which is quite close to the figure in number 1.


In conclusion:

If they defend and win = you keep the item, they lose out on expenses costs (which is going to be higher than £70) UNLESS they can charge you for it, which would be funny to see :

If they defend and lose = loss of about £69 plus expenses

If they settle out of court = loss of about £69 only


So, unless they can claim for wage costs etc against you, the wisest decision for PC World to make is to settle out of court. That incurs the minimum amount of costs and also ensures that they are as close to breaking even with this unit as possible.

Yes, but while that is true, it is also true that they had no case to argue anyway - and at no point did they even try to defend their claim that I was not due a refund.

They had no leg to stand on, which makes their continuing refusal not to honour refunds nothing less than sharp practice. They know they are wrong but they don't want to publicly admit it for fear that other consumers will exercise their statutory rights.

MarkWatson

daytona0 wrote: »

You know what lad, some thoughts:

1. The profit margin is pretty thin on laptops and PCs. They get their money from flogging addons. I'd give it AT BEST a 30% margin on the units, or about £66 on the £220 item.

2. If they defend in court then they incur expenses, which include:

- Paying people to prepare a defense
- Paying people to show up to the court hearing
- Maybe travel expenses too?
- Maybe accommodation and food expenses?

What figure do you put on their expenses, and do you think that they could successfully re-claim those from you in court if they won? No chance.

3. Your court fees are £25, and they are entitled to the laptop if you get a refund. The laptop is 6 months old and so has diminished in value (not necessarily your problem). I'd say that it is worth only 80% of the cost price now, or about £176 or a loss of £44 in value. They can go on to flog this old laptop for £176 based on diminished value. Add the court fees and loss amount up and you get £69, which is quite close to the figure in number 1.


In conclusion:

If they defend and win = you keep the item, they lose out on expenses costs (which is going to be higher than £70) UNLESS they can charge you for it, which would be funny to see :

If they defend and lose = loss of about £69 plus expenses

If they settle out of court = loss of about £69 only


So, unless they can claim for wage costs etc against you, the wisest decision for PC World to make is to settle out of court. That incurs the minimum amount of costs and also ensures that they are as close to breaking even with this unit as possible.

Yes, but while that is true, it is also true that they had no case to argue anyway - and at no point did they even try to defend their claim that I was not due a refund.

They had no leg to stand on, which makes their continuing refusal not to honour refunds nothing less than sharp practice. They know they are wrong but they don't want to publicly admit it for fear that other consumers will exercise their statutory rights.

unholyangel

MarkWatson wrote: »

Again, I couldn't agree more. Not sure it would be a criminal offence (I am guessing) but certainly something which Trading Standards would have a firm view on.

Misleading customers about rights afforded to them by law can amount to a criminal offence as an unfair trading practice under the CPRs (thats consumer protection from unfair trading regulations - not the civil procedure rules )

ETA: just looked up the possible consequences:

Penalty for offences

13. A person guilty of an offence under regulation 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 shall be liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

(b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

MarkWatson

unholyangel wrote: »

Misleading customers about rights afforded to them by law can amount to a criminal offence as an unfair trading practice under the CPRs (thats consumer protection from unfair trading regulations - not the civil procedure rules )

ETA: just looked up the possible consequences:

Interesting - that should focus their minds!