Fawlty goods right to refund

Chucky1234

The way I see it is if the item was faulty then you are entitled to reject the goods and receive a refund before 30 days.

The issue being when you took it to B&Q there was no fault.

If the law worked the way you interpret it, what's to stop people (as previously pointed out) taking it home, trimming your hedge then returning it and saying what you are saying?

I'm not suggesting you are lying for a second, and realise it must be annoying but I think its only fair for the retailer to check it actually is faulty first.

If, like you say, it is faulty, then they should come back to you and offer you a refund. If they find it isn't faulty then you will either have a perfectly good hedge trimmer or you will have to record the fault and present that to them, something which will be much harder for them to dispute.

daytona0

I thought Basil Fawlty sold hotel rooms and not goods

rolls99

LOL - I was actually thinking about a Basil scene not long before I typed the message!


As regards the "Fault", I completely get the comments and I would be precisely the same
(And have worked in retail so have seen the dodges).


The issue was that I did say I would take the unit away - that my understanding of the law
might be inaccurate or whatever but that basically I wanted to be able to say, when taking advice
"This is what B and Qs position is" - rather than taking my word for it, to ensure no further
misunderstanding.


Then when asking what they would take as proof (there, and on the phone to HQ) - they could not
tell me, and told me to take advice - the upshot being it is only harder to "Prove" anything
since they can't tell me what they accept as proof and I don't have the item to prove it with!


*If I were being pedantic I could argue (!), that strictly speaking a refund was the "Law", for a faulty item. That is fact. The issue is whether or not it is faulty - in the store, there was no evidence of the fault, but absence of evidence (of a fault) isn't evidence of absence (of a fault) in the situation it was tested - I felt I did offer a reasonable compromise (leave with the unit and an acknowledgement pending further advice) which was refused.


I accept to get cash back, one might need to leap a few hoops, but, in some situations you would not
need to; this isn't one of them but surely, if a consumer has to prove a fault, the shop concerned could allow them to do so, and be clear about what they mean by proof ; I can understand any business being cynical when someone walks in asking for money back but on the other hand, the way this has turned out has actually removed the ability to comply with the rules of proof surely?

bris

So you buy a hedge trimmer, cut your hedge and think jobs a good un I'll just get my money back now. I'll say it faulty and they have to take my word for it as I know the law.


Well guess what, you don't know the law, they have the right to have the item tested to confirm the fault exists, this should be within a reasonable time and without causing significant inconvenience. Since you wont be using it again for a long time it's no inconvenience to you. But that's their rights, they do have rights too you will be unhappy to know.

boo_star

rolls99 wrote: »

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.

You have the option of taking the item back and having it independently tested.

Since the retailer isn't playing ball that is your only option.

wealdroam

Did they really refuse to allow you to take the thing away with you?

I find that difficult to believe, or perhaps I should say, I find it strange that you allowed that.
After all, it is still your hedge trimmer until they refund you.

pappa_golf

perhaps the manager was called B Fawlty

POPPYOSCAR

Sounds about right for B&Q, not much of a fan of them.


I wish more were like Costco.


We bought an oil fired radiator from them which had a 10 year warranty.


It packed up after 9 years, we took it back and they refunded there and then.

System

This is a tricky little bit of the right to reject.

A refund under this section must be given without undue delay, and in any event within 14 days beginning with the day on which the trader agrees that the consumer is entitled to a refund.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/20/enacted

How can they ever agree if they aren't allowed to test?

unholyangel

Regarding what constitutes proof, the reason B&Q cannot tell you what is proof is that only a court can determine that and if B&Q were to give an interpretation of the law, they could find themselves in hot water. Small claims goes on the balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt/absolute proof.

And even under the 6 month burden - where its for the retailer to prove the lack of conformity is not inherent - its still for the consumer to show that there is a breach of contract. This could be as simple as recording it happening on video or demonstrating the lack of conformity to staff.