No entitlement to refund for faulty product??

Firemunchkin

[FONT=&quot]Hi all – I’m seeking some advice on the new Consumer Rights Act which came into force in October 2015. I’ve read the MSE article (helpful) but would appreciate some clarity as it appears there’s nothing I can do and I’d like to double check I’ve understood things correctly. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In early November, hubby and I went to the Spirit of Christmas Fayre in Kensington (excellent, btw) and purchased a few remote control toys from a company (can I say whom on here?) One toy was a helicopter in a plastic cage, and two other toys were floor cars where the front of the car spun 360 (as well as moving forwards and backwards). They couldn’t provide me with a receipt because they had run out of paper. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When setting up the cars, only one remote worked and controlled both cars and there isn’t a ‘channel’ switch. In addition, the remote controls didn’t respond to what we pressed – i.e. the cars didn’t move forwards and backwards, or spin its front section, when it was supposed to. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was pretty embarrassing for us on Christmas Day when the two boys were looking forward to playing with their first remote controlled cars clearly weren’t working. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I called the retailer who said they don’t do refunds. I insisted that the products were faulty and that I was entitled to a refund on that basis. I then had an email from them, as follows: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As the item was purchased after October 1st 2015 - this falls under the Consumers Right Act 2015. This states that ' [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Under the Consumer Rights Act you have a legal to reject goods that are unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described and get a full refund - as long as you do this quickly. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This right is limited to 30 days from the date you buy your product. After 30 days you will not be legally entitled to a full refund if your item develops a fault.'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We are more than happy to offer you a replacement of the faulty item, but we are unable to offer a refund due to the product exceeding 30 days. We look forward to hearing from you and how you would like to proceed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Apart from the fact that the toys were quite clearly purchased as a Christmas present, so we would not reasonably have been able to know they were faulty within the initial 30 days, the old SOGA gave six months. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t really want a replacement because I’m not convinced it will be any different and I don’t feel I should have to fork out delivery costs. Is it correct that I have no recourse to a refund for a faulty product?[/FONT]

neilmcl

Firemunchkin wrote: »

Apart from the fact that the toys were quite clearly purchased as a Christmas present, so we would not reasonably have been able to know they were faulty within the initial 30 days, the old SOGA gave six months

Six months for what exactly. If you're thinking is that SOGA would allow you have a full refund for faulty goods within 6 months then you're sadly mistaken. This was merely the period within which faults were presumed to exist since from the day of purchase and the onus was on the seller to prove otherwise, and this hasn't changed in the CRA either.

As it's been outside 30 days then the seller is correct and they can offer a replacement.

agrinnall

Firemunchkin wrote: »

[FONT=&quot] Is it correct that I have no recourse to a refund for a faulty product?[/FONT]

In the circumstance you describe, it's absolutely correct. If you're going to protest about your rights it's best to know what they are first.

bris

You get 30 days, it's past that.


The old SOGA does not offer 6 months, it was once goods were accepted, this was never defined in the SOGA but was reasonably short, certainly much shorter than 30 days so they are correct.

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

You get 30 days, it's past that.


The old SOGA does not offer 6 months, it was once goods were accepted, this was never defined in the SOGA but was reasonably short, certainly much shorter than 30 days so they are correct.

Although the old soga also made allowances for items such as winter sporting equipment purchased in summer, or a lawnmower purchased in winter.

Still irrelevant to OP now though as they have a blanket 30 days.

OP on the bright side, under the new CRA also, if the repair/replacement fails, you can then insist on a refund and do not have to accept further repairs/replacements. They are only allowed 1 attempt where under SoGA, there was no limitation and it would be down to the consumer to try and argue it was unreasonable.

lush_walrus

As a side point it sounds to me like rather than faulty they can not operate at the same time as they are on the same channel. See if you can remove the crystals if they have them and replace with different frequencies for each car.

Firemunchkin

unholyangel wrote: »

Although the old soga also made allowances for items such as winter sporting equipment purchased in summer, or a lawnmower purchased in winter.

Still irrelevant to OP now though as they have a blanket 30 days.

OP on the bright side, under the new CRA also, if the repair/replacement fails, you can then insist on a refund and do not have to accept further repairs/replacements. They are only allowed 1 attempt where under SoGA, there was no limitation and it would be down to the consumer to try and argue it was unreasonable.

Sorry for delay in responding - been away on hols.

So I'll go back to the vendor and accept a replacement, but should I warn them of the CRA provision allowing me a refund if the replacement product also doesn't work? Would you mind pointing me to the clause number so I can copy and paste it in my email to them?

If it's just that the two don't work together, then that's useless to us because we specifically bought the two toys for twins - we even said that to them when we bought them. I still think that's faulty!