Warranty settlement 'offer' - Fair?

powerful_Rogue

dogfonos wrote: »

Thing is, who decides what percentage to refund based on length of ownership? Nothing stated in the warranty - would this info be included in the Sale of Goods Act?

Theres nothing written down. Its down to the manufacturer/retail to decide how they work out how much of a percentage to deduct.

Of course theres nothing stopping the consumer going back to try and negotiate, or failing that, raising the issue at the Small Claims Court and allowing a judge to decide whether the percentage is reasonable.

arcon5

How much are we talking ?

takman

dogfonos wrote: »

Good point. I didn't go into too much detail in my initial posts but I had to jump a few hoops before I received this partial refund. One of the things I was asked to do by the company handling the warranty was to cut the electrical cable from the appliance motor as close to the appliance motor casing as possible than send them a photo to prove I had done this. So there's no way the appliance can be used for anything now.

Personally I would take it apart and rewire it so that I could continue using it with other attachments (if there are other attachments).

ThumbRemote

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It doesn't state full refund either.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Theres nothing written down. Its down to the manufacturer/retail to decide how they work out how much of a percentage to deduct.

Of course theres nothing stopping the consumer going back to try and negotiate, or failing that, raising the issue at the Small Claims Court and allowing a judge to decide whether the percentage is reasonable.

You are completely missing the point. This is not a SoGA/CRA issue, it's a contract issue. The contract states the OP will receive a refund. There were no conditions attached to that.

As for your utterly ridiculous idea that because it doesn't specifically state 'full' they can make a deduction, what a load a rubbish. If they want it to be a partial refund this must be agreed before the contract, just as the Consumer Rights Act does.

You sound like the sort of person who'd agree to buy a car, then be happy with just getting 4 wheels because it didn't state you'd get a full car :rotfl:

ThumbRemote

bris wrote: »

They are conforming to the law and that states a partial refund is acceptable after 6 months of use. They also have the right to choose.

dogfonos wrote: »

Thanks for that. I will factor that in when I next make a purchasing decision on an item that comes with an extended (i.e. >one year) warranty.

I wouldn't thank, or even take any notice of bris. They have completely misunderstood what you're asking, and are only telling you the situation with basic statutory rights. You have better rights because of the warranty.

arcon5

Warranty doesn't mean more or better rights. Just different rights

powerful_Rogue

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You are completely missing the point. This is not a SoGA/CRA issue, it's a contract issue. The contract states the OP will receive a refund. There were no conditions attached to that.

As for your utterly ridiculous idea that because it doesn't specifically state 'full' they can make a deduction, what a load a rubbish. If they want it to be a partial refund this must be agreed before the contract, just as the Consumer Rights Act does.

You sound like the sort of person who'd agree to buy a car, then be happy with just getting 4 wheels because it didn't state you'd get a full car :rotfl:

Your car example doesn't work.

The definition of 'refund' is "A repayment of a sum of money"

ThumbRemote

arcon5 wrote: »

Warranty doesn't mean more or better rights. Just different rights

A warranty cannot take away your statutory rights. Therefore if the warranty does anything, the only thing it can do is add to them - so by definition giving you more rights.

ThumbRemote

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Your car example doesn't work.

The definition of 'refund' is "A repayment of a sum of money"

Right. And in this case, unless the contract says otherwise, the sum is the amount originally paid. Thats the consideration for the contract.

To attempt to claim otherwise would be an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, which specifically bans "misleading omissions".

Further to that, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation (which was still in force when the sales contract was concluded) "A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail."



Is this your car? After all, it's a car...

powerful_Rogue

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Right. And in this case, unless the contract says otherwise, the sum is the amount originally paid. Thats the consideration for the contract.

To attempt to claim otherwise would be an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, which specifically bans "misleading omissions".

Further to that, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation (which was still in force when the sales contract was concluded) "A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail."



Is this your car? After all, it's a car...

What's the fascination with bad car examples that are totally irrelevant?

To refund in full would be betterment. The refund proposed takes into account the 20 months use the OP has had.

From the OP's original post, she didn't even check the t&c's of the warranty prior to purchase, only after she received the cheque from the manufacturer.