Fawlty goods right to refund

rolls99

Hi folks


Hoping for a clarification on the rights to a refund on faulty goods.
Basically, this morning I purchased hedge trimmer at B&Q. After 10 odd minutes
it tripped the RCD then, would not turn on and/or run for a few seconds etc
I finished the hedge with the old trimmer I was intending to replace.
on returning to the store I asked for a refund and after much heated discussion with
the manager have left the item "To be tested" they will not issue a refund unless the
item proves to be faulty, I disputed and asked about the 30 day refund rule.
Comments were made about having used the item and I mentioned that it would not be
possible to find out it wasn't working properly otherwise.
I did not want a replacement of the same model (no confidence), nor to spend much
more money on a high end trimmer (I chose one with long cutting blade), and, also
as the hedge is now finished it would be some time before I would be using any
replacement.
After spending over an hour frustration kicked in and I said "Test it" - they have
photocopied my receipt and printed a statement saying "Have sent product for testing
as no fault found, contact customer with outcome and refund if fault found"
There is no signature only the printed managers first name and todays date.


The question is, am I correct (auto refund) or can B and Q say they have to test it?

shaun_from_Africa

If it is faulty then yes, you have the legal right to reject it for a full refund.
However, B&Q do have the right to confirm that a fault does exist and that the failure isn't due to user error or misuse.

rolls99

Thanks - so I actually need to wait on them testing the item?
I was under the impression (from how I read the rules) that within the
first 30 days the assumption would be 'existing fault'?


The issue being, the machine does work - just , well, randomly after the first few mins!

Caz3121

from their T&Cs
Faulty Products
If the product you purchase is faulty, we may offer a repair, exchange or refund as appropriate in accordance with your consumer rights.

rolls99

Have to admit to being a little confused - I understand no retailer T and Cs can override the law -
but "Right to full refund for 30 days" is something I can easily find for "Faulty goods" but I
cannot see anything specifically on what the consumer must do (allow retailer to "Test")?
as I was genuinely under the impression the onus was on the retailer to prove the item is not
faulty?

shaun_from_Africa

rolls99 wrote: »

but I
cannot see anything specifically on what the consumer must do (allow retailer to "Test")?
as I was genuinely under the impression the onus was on the retailer to prove the item is not faulty?

But surely by wishing to get the goods inspected and tested, this is precisely what they are doing.

rolls99

I can understand the need to "test" the item - say if it's months down the line; it would appear
the 30 day rule isn't quite as clear cut as I imagined. I suppose it boils down to how it's tested
and for how long it works!
I'm prepared to video it if it's returned! LOL

rolls99

Update on this after some digging. What seems to be the case is this:


IF the goods are faulty, then, up to six months you are entitled to a repair/replacement.


In that scenario, the fault is assumed to have existed at time of supply = no burden
of proof on consumer. Thereafter the supplier must prove there was no fault.


You are entitled to a refund within 30 days , however you must prove the fault, or
accept a repair/replacement.


Most "quick quotes" on the subject do seem to concentrate on the "Right to refund within 30 days"
but it did take some digging to unearth the above.


I will admit to being confused by this and did think the "assumption of fault" applied whether
it was 'repair replace or refund' - in any event an exchange would be "No questions asked" not
quite so straightforward with a refund!

usefulmale

I can fully understand B&Qs stance.

You will not accept a replacement, nor buy a different model, nor, I'll wager, accept a repair.

You have admitted to using the trimmer to cut your hedge and have also stated that you won't need to do so again for some time.

From B&Qs point of view, you have used the trimmer and now you want a refund for your 'free hire'.

Can you just clarify why you have bought a new trimmer when your old one still works and appears to be still up to the job?

rolls99

I totally accept that stance - however - after asking more than once to be given the trimmer back
and for a note saying I had asked for a refund/reported the fault, I was told "I will not put anything in writing" and told the only option was to send it to be tested.


Had I had the chance I could have simply taken it back down the road, and filmed the "proof" in HD for a few minutes which short of someone being there would have shown the issue. I did not have the chance or the offer to show when (within hours of purchase) I had reported the fault.


It was very much "Sod off or it gets tested".


In fact I would probably have struggled to recreate the exact job the trimmer had just done, but if it meant trimming another half inch off the hedge then fair enough.


I was not even told I "Had to prove" the fault, but that it would be tested, this was the issue here.


EDIT: The trimmer was purchased because I wanted one with a longer (60cm) blade versus the 45cm on the current one which was something like £14 in Argos about 8 years or so ago. To spend less time bending doing the lower parts basically! I did not wish the same brand, but wanted the same length blade. The branch only has a limited selection and the other models are Bosch. One corded one cordless or petrol of another brand.
The only option was one model, a bosch, at an extra £26 over the price I paid. The store offered to reduce this to £13 (split the difference) but I felt it was a little much for what it was and I was willing to pay.


One other point was this: B and Q are unable to say what they accept as "Proof" of the item being faulty (except something visibly obvious or that is self evident on powering on), while requiring "Proof" of the fault - either way, it is not being tested independently and this, really is my concern; they are the company looking to see if there is a fault, which is fair enough but not "impartial" and while this is happening I have no ability to prove anything one way or another.


I wouldn't mind, for instance simply accepting it back whatever they say, and "proving" it on film (or electrons), but they would not even say if that was "proof" as they want it, therefore unless, for a £50 trimmer one was to pay for some expert independent testing, how can you comply with the "proof" side of things?

rolls99

Should just add some of my own comments are after reading a bit more on the actual rules
for refunds and I admit I was under the false impression the refund rule was automatic,
Of course people could abuse the system for replacements no questions asked but, (and
of course everyone says this), I basically have not ever returned any faulty product, ever
to any store (I have had a couple of warranty repairs), it just isn't something I normally do.


My concern, which has evolved a bit is that in order to prove the fault, the fact is as I now don't have the item I cannot - and without being cynical, the supplier can't be an independent tester.


If the item had lasted a few months I'd take any replacements going. But 20 minutes use is a bit annoying and one gets the feeling the longer it takes to get the item back then this only reduces the chances of a refund.


I am biased, since my last car, under warranty required three trips to the dealer for them to "find" a problem (a water leak) which I provided photographic evidence of. After three water tests I was informed the car lacked a door-foil which was then installed and the problem was solved, but it was only through persistence.


I don't believe B and Q would be anything but excellent about things if, say I had returned the item with the buttons falling off or wires hanging out; it's the fact it isn't and the fault it intermittent, and not "obvious" which is the problem here - I accept a need to check these things but on the flip side, the rules about these things are not so clear as to what constitutes "proof" and so on.