Consumer Advice

kevb8ll

In March my son spent £1000 on an electronic drum kit through an online retailer, (although they have a shop too). He was starting a music degree in September.

Within a few weeks the first pad stopped working and 2 more went defective. We had to return them for repair, although they repaired one and replaced the others.

However within a few weeks more faults, I demanded our money back as I believed the kit was not fit for purpose. They refused but offered a replacement kit We accepted this.

They covered the cost of the return of the old kit, (after I insisted that we shouldn't be out of pocket), and we got the replacement kit in July.

The 2nd kit has now gone faulty too. I have requested a complete refund, but they insist they have the right to repair first. However I have absolutely no confidence that they are able to repair them, based on experience.

My son spent £1000 on a kit that doesn't work properly, so I expect them to cover the return costs and I expect a full refund for the kit.

These kits supposedly have a 2 year warranty, however he has had 2 full kits last less than 3/4 of a year between them. I believe that when you spend £1000 on something there is a more than reasonable expectancy of the item working for longer than 3 months the first time and 4 months the second time.

Am I being unreasonable insisting on 1. a full refund on the basis that the kit isn't fit for purpose, 2. Them to cover the return costs so I'm not out of pocket.

Also want right do I have to absolutely insist on this in the first place.

Thanks.

marliepanda

You have no right to insist upon those things, sorry. You are past the acceptance stage.

Any refund they offer could take into account your 7 months use.

kevb8ll

marliepanda wrote: »

You have no right to insist upon those things, sorry. You are past the acceptance stage.

Any refund they offer could take into account your 7 months use.

It is only 4 months for the 2nd kit. New kit new contract.

But whatever, it is surely beyond reasonable expectancy that the kit should work for longer than 3 months 1st time and 4 months the 2nd time.

wealdroam

kevb8ll wrote: »

It is only 4 months for the 2nd kit. New kit new contract.

No. It may be new kit, but unless the replacement was handled by giving you a refund and you making a new purchase then it is the old contract continuing.
In other words, you have made one purchase and you have had a drum kit - either the first one or the second one - for nearly nine months.

kevb8ll wrote: »

But whatever, it is surely beyond reasonable expectancy that the kit should work for longer than 3 months 1st time and 4 months the 2nd time.

Of course it should work longer than it has. That is why the seller has provided a remedy. That is why the seller must now provide another remedy if the stuff is inherently faulty.
You may need to demonstrate that the problem is due to an inherent fault. I.e. it is not due to mishandling or user error.

You may find it easier to seek a remedy under the warranty.
Who is the warranty with? The manufacturer?

kevb8ll

So if it is the same contract, they did repairs on the first one, but that didn't work which is why they replaced it with a new kit. I wanted my money back then, but they wouldn't move.

My son is now without a kit for his degree, and he is going to be 1000 out of pocket if they don't give him his money back through no fault of his own.

They have told me I am not allowed to call them and can only communicate via email.

I am considering taking them to small claims court, but will speak to trading standards tomorrow.

wealdroam

That's ok. You're welcome.