PC World or Currys refunds

daytona0

MarkWatson wrote: »

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.

No, they had two cases to argue:

1. Their terms and conditions, which may have been fair.

2. The CCR in respect to excluded items ie personalised items, which a PC may be categorised as.

You cannot assume that you were 100% going to win your case by virtue of these cases existing! You may have been as high as 99% to win, but you weren't a shoe-in here.....


Your item is worth sod all to them and they could have refunded you earlier, but they didn't. They obviously felt that they had a strong enough case as to refuse up until court action.

Defending and losing incurs the same costs as simply settling out of court, only difference being that they need to pay expenses to defend. So in that respect they should try and defend it anyway, unless the expenses are a decisive factor, because they are only going to incur similar costs anyway.... The fact that they didn't defend cannot rule out the very real possibility that expenses played a key role in their decision, especially as it is practically impossible that you were 100% going to win your claim. EVEN IF you were 100% going to win, they may have argued a diminished value which would negate any negligible expenses costs (but wouldn't negate any large expenses costs, which again suggests that expenses may have played a key role in deciding not to defend). They may also want to avoid any negative publicity (deserved or not) and so chose to settle out of court to avoid this.

Either you were 100% and they knew it, they wanted to keep their public image in tact, or the expenses played a part in this small value claim. Based on available evidence you cannot draw a definitive conclusion. Furthermore, be mindful that someone may have spent £1000+ on a PC and read your post only to find that PC World do take up the fight simply because of the value of the item compared to yours!

MarkWatson

daytona0 wrote: »

No, they had two cases to argue:

1. Their terms and conditions, which may have been fair.

2. The CCR in respect to excluded items ie personalised items, which a PC may be categorised as.

You cannot assume that you were 100% going to win your case by virtue of these cases existing! You may have been as high as 99% to win, but you weren't a shoe-in here.....


Your item is worth sod all to them and they could have refunded you earlier, but they didn't. They obviously felt that they had a strong enough case as to refuse up until court action.

Defending and losing incurs the same costs as simply settling out of court, only difference being that they need to pay expenses to defend. So in that respect they should try and defend it anyway, unless the expenses are a decisive factor, because they are only going to incur similar costs anyway.... The fact that they didn't defend cannot rule out the very real possibility that expenses played a key role in their decision, especially as it is practically impossible that you were 100% going to win your claim.

Certainly no defence in terms of the item being "personalised" - it's just a computer, not made to my specs, not personalised in any way at all, and no defence in their Ts and Cs if they are refusing any kind of refund on the basis of them (the law ranks higher than their Ts and Cs, that is for sure).

The reason they did not refund me immediately is because they don't want to cede the fact that consumers have that right - exactly the issue which is the point of my posting!

They offered to refund me within hours of receiving my claim so they really didn't hold out much. And when they were forced to give their reasons for refusing a refund in the first place they specifically avoided responding to any mention of the Consumer Contracts regulations, despite my claim being entirely and specifically related to them - and instead rather weakly made a passing reference to the Sale of Goods Act. It couldn't be clearer that they had no defence, and knew it - why else would they not offer one to the judge?!

There certainly is no justification in saying that "it is practically impossible that you were 100% going to win your claim" - if there is any defence whatsoever in law, they certainly couldn't offer it and no-one else has either. And I do so hope someone who has bought a £1000 laptop follows my advice, the company wouldn't stand a chance!

daytona0

MarkWatson wrote: »

Certainly no defence in terms of the item being "personalised" - it's just a computer, not made to my specs, not personalised in any way at all, and no defence in their Ts and Cs if they are refusing any kind of refund on the basis of them (the law ranks higher than their Ts and Cs, that is for sure).

You make a valid point BUT you cannot rule them both out without a court ruling.

The reason they did not refund me immediately is because they don't want to cede the fact that consumers have that right - exactly the issue which is the point of my posting!

Yes - but they felt strongly enough about your lack of rights on the matter. It was either genuine, or they were being naughty (or a mix).

They offered to refund me within hours of receiving my claim so they really didn't hold out much. And when they were forced to give their reasons for refusing a refund in the first place they specifically avoided responding to any mention of the Consumer Contracts regulations, despite my claim being entirely and specifically related to them - and instead rather weakly made a passing reference to the Sale of Goods Act. It couldn't be clearer that they had no defence, and knew it - why else would they not offer one to the judge?!

Well I've pointed out the expenses issue previously, so there is a second reason why they may have just settled out of court. You aren't seeing it, though, so I can't really say any more.

The letter you shown was simply to offer you a goodwill gesture "Without prejudice save as to costs", an interesting phrase to include.....

There certainly is no justification in saying that "it is practically impossible that you were 100% going to win your claim" - if there is any defence whatsoever in law, they certainly couldn't offer it and no-one else has either. And I do so hope someone who has bought a £1000 laptop follows my advice, the company wouldn't stand a chance!

I've offered a defense, and if your PC was worth £1000 then they may have took you on...... to say it again but, assuming expenses DO NOT play a crucial role, they lose hardly anything if they defend and lose compared to settling out of court.

unholyangel

daytona0 wrote: »

No, they had two cases to argue:

1. Their terms and conditions, which may have been fair.

2. The CCR in respect to excluded items ie personalised items, which a PC may be categorised as.

You cannot assume that you were 100% going to win your case by virtue of these cases existing! You may have been as high as 99% to win, but you weren't a shoe-in here.....

I really don't understand why you would even consider 1 or 2 given the circumstances.

While you made some good points in your previous posts, the above 2 points are just inane. Especially 2.

From the EU guidance:

'Goods made to the consumer’s specifications' are defined in Article 2 of the Directive as
'non- prefabricated goods made on the basis of an individual choice of or decision by the
consumer'. Recital 49 of the Directive refers to 'tailor-made curtains' as an example of goods
made to the consumer’s specifications or which are clearly personalised.

Since this rule is an exception from the Directive's more general rule giving consumers the
right of withdrawal from distance/off-premises contracts, it should be interpreted narrowly.

So, this exception should cover, for example:
 goods, for which the consumer has provided specifications, such as measurements
for furniture or the size of a fabric;
 goods, for which the consumer has requested specific personalised features, such
as a particular design for a car that is made to order or a specific component for
a computer, which has to be individually procured for that particular order and
which was not part of the trader's general offer to the public;
 address labels with the consumer's contact information or T-shirts with a
personalised print.

Specification/ personalisation in this context should be taken to mean that the goods are, in
principle, unique and produced according to the individual wishes and requirements stated by
the consumer and agreed with the trader.
In contrast, where the consumer simply make up the goods by picking from the standard (preset)
options provided by the trader, such as colour or additional equipment in a car, or makes
up a set of furniture on the basis of standard elements, it should not be possible to speak of
either 'specification' or 'personalisation' in the narrow sense of this provision.

And given their terms state you cannot return goods that have been used, installed or had data input on them - there is no question that they don't comply with the legislation . They also say it must be in original packaging and in "new" condition.

The CCRs are not entirely new legislation. It was written to clarify DSRs. And in part of the consultation/drafting process, they discussed at great lengths what in particular were the issues that brought about the need for the rewrite.

One specifically mentioned by them was that customers should have the unconditional right to cancel - but retailers were not complying with this and it was resulting in too many court cases. So, as a trade off, they allowed retailers to deduct for diminished value BUT, the customer still has an unconditional right to cancel.

IF currys had complied with CCRs, they'd perhaps be justified in making a reduction to account for the diminished value or to reset the software. But they'd still have to accept the return.

LABMAN

What I don't understand is the OP needing to post about this again?

MarkWatson

daytona0 wrote: »

You make a valid point BUT you cannot rule them both out without a court ruling.



Yes - but they felt strongly enough about your lack of rights on the matter. It was either genuine, or they were being naughty (or a mix).



Well I've pointed out the expenses issue previously, so there is a second reason why they may have just settled out of court. You aren't seeing it, though, so I can't really say any more.

The letter you shown was simply to offer you a goodwill gesture "Without prejudice save as to costs", an interesting phrase to include.....



I've offered a defense, and if your PC was worth £1000 then they may have took you on...... to say it again but, assuming expenses DO NOT play a crucial role, they lose hardly anything if they defend and lose compared to settling out of court.

Of course they say "without prejudice save as to costs" - why would they not, if they feel they don't have to admit blame. What you don't seem to grasp is that is exactly my point - I am objecting to the fact that they are not conceding the right to any refund (with or without deductions) when they clearly and unambiguously have no case to refuse one. And they continue, unjustifiably, to do this to anyone else that asks for a refund based on the CCR. Which is why I want people to know about this and not be fobbed off by these people.

Let me explain the point about not offering any defence to the judge. I did not settle with the company immediately, I ignored their offer to pay as I wanted to see what defence they were going to offer to what I had said.

I took this to the point where they had to submit their full written defence in writing to the judge. Bearing in mind that my case was based on the fact that I was entitled to a refund via the Consumer Contracts regulations (which I had quoted to them) and that I believed I was entitled to a full refund as I had only tested the computer to the extent that I would have done in a store. This is what their defence said (verbatim):

"The Defendant contends that the computer was of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose at the time of the sale, as required by section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Accordingly the defendant denies being indebted to the Claimant in the sum claimed, as alleged or at all".

That was the entirety of their defence, to be placed before a judge. Now wouldn't you think, if they had any defence related to my rights (or lack of) under the CCR, that they would have mentioned it to the judge?!

daytona0

Well I think that this is the first time you've quoted their defence, so I can certainly appreciate your viewpoint a bit more now :o

wealdroam

LABMAN wrote: »

What I don't understand is the OP needing to post about this again?

Me neither.

Perhaps if we wait another week we'll see it all again.

MarkWatson

wealdroam wrote: »

Me neither.

Perhaps if we wait another week we'll see it all again.

Very likely. Then you can weigh in with your opinion and take part in the whole debate and then huff and puff some more about the fact people want to talk about it!

LABMAN

MarkWatson wrote: »

Very likely. Then you can weigh in with your opinion and take part in the whole debate and then huff and puff some more about the fact people want to talk about it!

What about the forum rules? ....the ones you agreed to when you joined MSE? Or do they not apply to you?