Argos returns policy is a con - just sue them in County Court for a refund

Nessun_Dorma

AmoUK wrote: »

You fail to reference where it says that in their returns policy, but its irrelevant because if that was the case they had every opportunity to state that in a Defence - they failed to do it, so lost.

The Argos receipt says:

"CHANGED YOUR MIND? NEVER MIND
Our hassle free returns guarantee means you can return or exchange your item in store within 30 days....

There are just a few things that we'll need from you:
Proof of Purchase
Product needs to be returned unused, in its original packaging and re-saleable condition."

As I said from the outset, this is totally misleading claim by Argos. How do you know if you like a product without opening it - so obviously it has to be opened. Then, If a product is faulty from outset, it cannot be used so it was "unused". In any event, beyond their devious return policy, I am protected by statutory law due to the goods being faulty.

And this is where your confusion lies. The above is not related to faulty goods. You have not changed your mind about the purchase, you were attempting to return faulty goods.

Nessun_Dorma

George_Michael wrote: »

Why?
Just because software needs updates on a regular basis shouldn't automatically mean that it classes as faulty.
If this was the case, a consumer could argue that just about every computer sold is being sold as faulty or needing a repair as it's often the case that they can't be used until the operating system has been registered.

Because if something doesn't work, it is faulty. To remedy this fault an update maybe required; therefore the update is a repair. A quick and simple one, but a repair nonetheless.

George_Michael

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Because if something doesn't work, it is faulty. To remedy this fault an update maybe required; therefore the update is a repair. A quick and simple one, but a repair nonetheless.

But that was my point.
Most computers don't work fully when purchased and won't work until windows has been registered.
If this classes as a fault then any computer that was purchased from a high street shop should be able to be returned for a full refund within the first 30 days irrespective of the returns policy of that store.

[Deleted User]

A laptop that requires the Operating System (Windows) to be updated can surely not be classed as faulty.

1. Windows is never a finished product - it has continuous updates and improvements. Same with any operating system.

2. You're only buying a licence to use that software, you don't own it. It can be reinstalled and updated and be ready to go again.

DoaM

Deleted_User wrote: »

2. You're only buying a licence to use that software, you don't own it. It can be reinstalled and updated and be ready to go again.

And that's the fact which shoots down the argument trying to be made ... you're not buying Windows (faulty or otherwise), you're buying a license to use it. The license isn't faulty (unless you've been sold a hooky license).

unholyangel

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Although I would mostly agree, I would be puzzled why they would not just settle before the case came to court.

In OP's case, he didn't comply with pre-action protocol to send a letter before action.

Also your point regarding an update meaning faulty.....if what you were saying was true, where would it end? You buy flat pack and because its not prebuilt, its faulty?
Or you buy a dishwasher and because it needs plumbed in, its faulty?

Plus which part of the CRA would it breach? It wouldnt fail to match its description etc it would be wholly reliant on the satisfactory quality element which does not go based on a personal standard of what is satisfactory but rather what a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory. Given how many computers are sold every year and that this is the first time I've ever heard someone alleging needing an update = faulty.....I would be pretty confident that a reasonable person would not find that the need to update makes the goods unsatisfactory.

Nessun_Dorma

unholyangel wrote: »

In OP's case, he didn't comply with pre-action protocol to send a letter before action.

Someone, somewhere should have noticed they were being taken to court. They even acknowledged the proceedings to the court.

Also your point regarding an update meaning faulty.....if what you were saying was true, where would it end? You buy flat pack and because its not prebuilt, its faulty?
Or you buy a dishwasher and because it needs plumbed in, its faulty?

Now you are just being silly for the sake of it.

I didn't mean that because the software needs updating, it was faulty. The fact that it made the laptop unusable meant that, in that sate, it was faulty. It was a very minor fault, but a fault nonetheless. If you want to put it in the terms you relate it to above. It would be like the pipes of the dishwasher being blocked by something. That would mean it is faulty. But simply by unblocking the pipe with a stick, it would constitute as a repair.

Plus which part of the CRA would it breach? It wouldnt fail to match its description etc it would be wholly reliant on the satisfactory quality element which does not go based on a personal standard of what is satisfactory but rather what a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory. Given how many computers are sold every year and that this is the first time I've ever heard someone alleging needing an update = faulty.....I would be pretty confident that a reasonable person would not find that the need to update makes the goods unsatisfactory.

I have no idea, I am neither the retailer, nor am I a computer expert (something which you may have already worked out ). Additionally, I don't seem to recall ever mentioning the Consumer Rights Act.

P.S. Just to clear up, I think the OP stated that the laptop still did not work, after an update was attempted.

dieselv2

There's a lot of back and forth here but ultimately what was wrong with the 2 laptops? Why did they get classed as faulty?

Was it a case of you bought cheap, didn't understand computer specs and it wasn't powerful enough for what you need it for (ie. gaming)?

If Manager said no, why didn't you complain to CEO? CEO's normally please customers and you have have had more success there.

Am I right in thinking you still have the use of 2 laptops plus wanting money off them?

alumende27

they've been asked repeatedly what the issue was and side-stepped it every time. Read into that what you will.

unholyangel

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Someone, somewhere should have noticed they were being taken to court. They even acknowledged the proceedings to the court.



Now you are just being silly for the sake of it.

I didn't mean that because the software needs updating, it was faulty. The fact that it made the laptop unusable meant that, in that sate, it was faulty. It was a very minor fault, but a fault nonetheless. If you want to put it in the terms you relate it to above. It would be like the pipes of the dishwasher being blocked by something. That would mean it is faulty. But simply by unblocking the pipe with a stick, it would constitute as a repair.



I have no idea, I am neither the retailer, nor am I a computer expert (something which you may have already worked out ). Additionally, I don't seem to recall ever mentioning the Consumer Rights Act.

P.S. Just to clear up, I think the OP stated that the laptop still did not work, after an update was attempted.

Proceedings they did not receive until the case was already at court with OP already having paid the filing fee. The notice they had of them being taken to court was them being taken to court.

"faulty" isn't actually mentioned at all in the legislation btw. Its the laypersons way of explaining it and imo not really accurate enough as there are circumstances where goods may not be faulty but still dont conform or where they do conform but are still faulty.

I don't really think the examples I gave were silly. Some goods require setting up/installation before they will be in a usable state - not being able to use it immediately without further action on your part doesn't mean the goods fail to conform and I believe my previous post explains why succinctly enough (the CRA satisfactory quality/reasonable person part).

Yes the OP did state an update didn't help. But I was replying to your points on goods in that state being faulty