Is Argos acting legally?

naedanger

takman wrote: »

That is still a very general statement and if your not going to be looking at depreciation or market value then how can you come up with a value for the use the customer has had from a bed?

Agreed. I am simply saying the argument over the amount of the reduction should be based on usage rather than depreciation.

In a simple case, let's assume we agree that the minimum reasonable lifetime for an item is 10 years. And suppose it broke after 2 years through no fault of the customer.

As a customer, I would argue I only had usage for 20% of its reasonable lifetime and therefore any reduction of more than this amount was unreasonable.

If the retailer wanted to make a reduction of more than 20% I think the onus would be on them to justify a higher reduction.

However I think there are cases where (either buyer or seller) could argue for a different figure. (And your examples of the bed being used in a spare room, or alternatively by a very heavy couple, would seem valid reasons for adjusting the figure.)

But if the argument was based on the market value of the item it would, I believe, fail. (I think most retailers realise this. Argos were not arguing, as far as I am aware, that the depreciated value of the bed was 67%. If they thought they could use the second hand value the offer would probably have been closer to 0%.)

You could argue that a bed in a spare room for two years is hardly used so should be worth 98% of its purchase price whereas a bed used everynight by two very heavy people has had alot of use so is now only worth 20% of its original price.

So really it is very difficult to give an accurate figure or the amount of "use" a bed has had.

Agreed, on all of this.

Even the most fundamental factor, i.e. the minimum reasonable lifetime for an item will be very debatable. (In the case of the op's bed is it 5 years, 10 years or whatever?) I don't think there is a hard and fast rule. I believe it depends on what a reasonable person would believe taking account of all relevant factors.

daytona0

naedanger wrote: »

Usage and depreciation are, as has been said previously, not the same thing. The Act is clear that a reduction for usage is permitted. There is no provision that would instead permit a reduction for depreciation.

Personally I think that a reduction for usage is fairer to the consumer but which is fairer is irrelevant when discussing what is permissible.

The verb "to depreciate" means to diminish in value over time. This can be used to describe the reduction made by retailers based on use, especially if it gets larger as time goes on! That's all I'm saying, pretty much what you said but using a different word!

I agree fully with what you believe is fairer! That would be an amazing idea!

I was just pointing out that I don't like how some people calculate final SOGA refund offers and gave reasons for this! That's my only real beef on here. I mean the "curve" approach is not without its flaws, but it fits better.

naedanger

daytona0 wrote: »

The verb "to depreciate" means to diminish in value over time. This can be used to describe the reduction made by retailers based on use, especially if it gets larger as time goes on! That's all I'm saying, pretty much what you said but using a different word!

I agree fully with what you believe is fairer! That would be an amazing idea!

I was just pointing out that I don't like how some people calculate final SOGA refund offers and gave reasons for this! That's my only real beef on here. I mean the "curve" approach is not without its flaws, but it fits better.

Sorry for misunderstanding you. (If I am understanding you correctly now, then I think we both agree that a reduction can be for usage but not to reflect a reduction in market value.)

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I think naedanger has said everything that I would in response, save to add that your description of 'fairer' is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the 6 year limit for claiming means that any supposed 'benefit' somewhere down the line is irrelevant as you can't claim then anyway. Secondly, there's no real world basis for using percentages of the residual value, rather then the original cost, in your year on year calculation.

For your first point, please refer to this post:

Originally Posted by ThumbRemote View Post
The OP has had two years use of a mattress. If that mattress should be expected to last 10 years, the deduction should be 20%, if some other length of time then calculated accordingly. No 'curved lines' or other calculations that are fundamentally unfair to the customer.

You used an "irrelevant" time range (10 years) to extrapolate a deduction percentage! I wasn't talking about any supposed 'benefit' somewhere down the line, I was doing precisely what you did and thought about the life span of the mattress and how this could link into mapping the deduction percentage for the first 6 years.

I just don't like how your approach seems to suggest that a mattress becomes valueless after 10 years That's one advantage of a "curve" solution, it will never become truly valueless and provides a fairly similar model for the first 6 years (Which is all we care about)


Your secondly point; I'm just not understanding why you'd say that? Exponential functions have millions of real world applications. Probably not used more in SOGA refunds because people don't understand them! Much easier to just take off 10% from the original price after x years than it is to do the sum: 0.9x^t

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

The verb "to depreciate" means to diminish in value over time.

I agree.

daytona0 wrote: »

This can be used to describe the reduction made by retailers based on use, especially if it gets larger as time goes on! That's all I'm saying, pretty much what you said but using a different word!

I disagree.

Depreciation is too specific a word. It could sometimes mean the same thing, but there are many occasions when the value of something is not the same as the use someone has had from it.

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

You used an "irrelevant" time range (10 years) to extrapolate a deduction percentage! I wasn't talking about any supposed 'benefit' somewhere down the line, I was doing precisely what you did and thought about the life span of the mattress and how this could link into mapping the deduction percentage for the first 6 years.

I just don't like how your approach seems to suggest that a mattress becomes valueless after 10 years That's one advantage of a "curve" solution, it will never become truly valueless and provides a fairly similar model for the first 6 years (Which is all we care about)

For the purposes of consumer refunds, a mattress (or anything else) is valueless after 6 years because the consumer cannot get any refund after that point.

So any curved line that assigns a value beyond 6 years is fundamentally unfair to the consumer, because they take the hit with bigger reductions in the early years, but then get no benefit to the item having a value beyond the 6 year mark.

Surely you can see that?

daytona0

naedanger wrote: »

Sorry for misunderstanding you. (If I am understanding you correctly now, then I think we both agree that a reduction can be for usage but not to reflect a reduction in market value.)

No worries, I was probably not clear enough!

Yea, I just meant depreciation in a very general "you will get less back in year 6 than you would in year 3" sort of way.

Only really have issue with HOW the refunds are calculated based on time

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

For the purposes of consumer refunds, a mattress (or anything else) is valueless after 6 years because the consumer cannot get any refund after that point.

So any curved line that assigns a value beyond 6 years is fundamentally unfair to the consumer, because they take the hit with bigger reductions in the early years, but then get no benefit to the item having a value beyond the 6 year mark.

Surely you can see that?

You didn't read my post

YOU (not me, YOU) were speaking about the lifespan being 10 years and YOU gave a percentage which you deemed was applicable based on the 10 year life span!

That's an extrapolation beyond the 6 years which you are very rightfully pointing out to me (like I didn't have a clue!).

So why can you use irrelevant data to model SOGA refunds within 6 years, but I can't?

Gravedigger

Might be of no practical use but in the latest ads, Dreams are suggesting a mattress should be replaced every eight years. I'm not sure that the OP will get a substantial amount, though he should get a few quid.

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

You didn't read my post

YOU (not me, YOU) were speaking about the lifespan being 10 years and YOU gave a percentage which you deemed was applicable based on the 10 year life span!

That's an extrapolation beyond the 6 years which you are very rightfully pointing out to me (like I didn't have a clue!).

So why can you use irrelevant data to model SOGA refunds within 6 years, but I can't?

I said "if" it had a ten year life span. I also clarified with "if some other length of time then calculated accordingly"

Can you give an example using actual numbers showing how "Those 'curved lines' are actually MUCH FAIRER to the customer!"?