Currys PC World refusing a replacement camera after 3 months despite law on my side!

Amanda

Oakdene wrote: »

FWIW there are numerous threads online about this fault & very simple solutions, a quick google search of 'error code 30 canon camera' will sort it for you.

Thanks, I've read them all. Most involve whacking the camera about to unstick the shutter, something I'm reluctant to do.

Firmware update won't fix and therefore it needs replacing.

[Deleted User]

Another long thread with the majority of the posts coming from the OP and everyone else unanimously disagreeing with her/him.

62 posts in less than three hours..

Bogalot

Amanda wrote: »

Even if I was legally not entitled to a replacement (which I maintain I probably am), Currys PC World should have done the right thing.

Marks and Spencer do not have to exchange goods for a change of mind, but for great customer service, they choose to do so.

Currys PC World could have given great customer service in this case, and I'd probably be on the praise board shouting about how well they had served me today. Instead, I'm highlighting that all this rubbish about valuing their customers is just words, not actions.

Please state the law that supports your position.

M&S would give you nothing for a change of mind after three months. What a bizarre comparison.

So how's the social media campaign going so far? :rotfl:

suki1964

Cannons own site says

Err 30
Description: A malfunction with the shutter has been detected.

Resolution: Turn the power off, then remove and re-install the battery. Then turn the power on again.

Undervalued

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Another long thread with the majority of the posts coming from the OP and everyone else unanimously disagreeing with her/him.

62 posts in less than three hours..

Quite....

I never thought I would say this but I am actually beginning to feel sorry for Currys PC World.

DoaM

I think the OP has misread the name of this board ... it is Consumer Rights not Consumer Wants.

wealdroam

Amanda wrote: »

Within 6 months, consumer law deems the fault to be inherent.

That is not what the law says.

The law, Section 19 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015, tells us that during the first six months following the sale and fault can be assumed to be inherent and it is for the seller to prove otherwise.

Surely you understand that the seller has the right to confirm just how the problem has arisen? If they did not have that right they would be exchanging cameras that had blatantly suffered used abuse. One way of confirming that the problem is due to an inherent is for them, the seller, to ask the manufacturer for their assessment.

You need to be prepared for the manufacturer to report that the problem is due to 'user error', and if you still want to fight your case then the onus will then be on you to prove you didn't cause the issue.

Amanda wrote: »

By the way, the camera has been carefully stored in a huge padded camera bag with extra protection added. It has never had a knock or a bump since I have had it and it is treated with the utmost care at all times.

I imagine that is exactly the justification for a remedy that someone might offer even if they had just bounced it down the stairs.
Of course I am not saying you have done anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that you saying you haven't abused the thing carries no weight at all.

Amanda wrote: »

It's an inherent fault and the retailer should replace this camera.

Well the problem may be due to an inherent fault, but it may be not.
You are wrong to assume otherwise.

neilmcl

Careful, we'll probably get the accusations of working for Currys soon.

DoaM

wealdroam wrote: »

You need to be prepared for the manufacturer to report that the problem is due to 'user error', and if you still want to fight your case then the onus will then be on you to prove you didn't cause the issue.

How do you prove something didn't happen?

wealdroam

DoaM wrote: »

How do you prove something didn't happen?

Perhaps I should've said "...it would then be for the consumer to disprove the seller's/manufacturer's findings".

Yes, I had no intention of confusing the OP any more than she is already.