Abuse of Consumer Right Act 2015

1telboy

Has anyone had to face this dilemma. In accordance with the Consumer Right Act 2015 I complained of faulty goods within the 30 days from purchase which entitled me to a refund as I requested. To cut a long story short the Retailer and subsequently the Card Provider both deny me this by insisting that I have the item checked by someone named by them in order to prove/disprove that a fault exists. According to the Act I do not have to abide by their demands as they are covered by the Act elsewhere (only where a consumer complains of a fault after the 30 day period). This clearly does not apply to me. Even if I complied with their demands I would want an Independent inspection and this is not possible due to making the Guarantee null and void. A stalemate situation now exists. The problem is what do I do now.

IAmWales

Even within the 30 days the retailer has the right to establish the item is faulty. They can use their own agents to do this.

Why are you objecting to what is a standard procedure, are you certain the item is faulty?

Shaka_Zulu

Or have you broken it?

wealdroam

1telboy wrote: »

Has anyone had to face this dilemma. In accordance with the Consumer Right Act 2015 I complained of faulty goods within the 30 days from purchase which entitled me to a refund as I requested. To cut a long story short the Retailer and subsequently the Card Provider both deny me this by insisting that I have the item checked by someone named by them in order to prove/disprove that a fault exists. According to the Act I do not have to abide by their demands as they are covered by the Act elsewhere (only where a consumer complains of a fault after the 30 day period). This clearly does not apply to me. Even if I complied with their demands I would want an Independent inspection and this is not possible due to making the Guarantee null and void. A stalemate situation now exists. The problem is what do I do now.

If you are exercising your short term right to reject as specified in Section 22 of the CRA, then is is for you to prove that the problem is due to an inherent fault. It appears that they are offering to do that on your behalf.

On the other hand, if you are just seeking a remedy under Section 19 of the CRA, then during the first six months following the sale it is for the seller to prove that the problem isn't due to an inherent fault. Of course in this situation the seller has the right to look at the thing, or get any other person/company to look at it, with a view to providing that proof.

Note 97 in the CRA Explanatory Notes explains this.

bris

You cant just say this is faulty give me my money back. What ever your thinking is wrong.


They have the right to inspect it to confirm its faulty their end. if it's faulty because of you they them will reject your claim, but they get to find out before just giving you money back.

neilmcl

1telboy wrote: »

Has anyone had to face this dilemma. In accordance with the Consumer Right Act 2015 I complained of faulty goods within the 30 days from purchase which entitled me to a refund as I requested. To cut a long story short the Retailer and subsequently the Card Provider both deny me this by insisting that I have the item checked by someone named by them in order to prove/disprove that a fault exists. According to the Act I do not have to abide by their demands as they are covered by the Act elsewhere (only where a consumer complains of a fault after the 30 day period). This clearly does not apply to me. Even if I complied with their demands I would want an Independent inspection and this is not possible due to making the Guarantee null and void. A stalemate situation now exists. The problem is what do I do now.

The PROBLEM is you don't understand the legislation. Firstly, as mentioned, the retailer has every right to determine that a fault actually exists, they don't just have to take you at your word. Secondly, whilst yes you have a short term right to reject within 30 days, the onus is actually on YOU to prove that a fault exists and is inherent to manufacture.

1telboy

Thank you Neilmci for your reply. The websites of Citizens Advice, Which, and Moneysaver all say the following. 1. If consumer complains within 30 days of purchase then he/she is entitled to a full refund immediatly, which must be paid within 14 days. (No mention of proving/disproving a fault).
2. If consumer complains after 30 days from purchase but within the following 6 months then the retailer has to be given 1 opportunity to prove/disprove a fault.
3. If consumer complains after 30 days from purchase and after the following 6 monthe then the onus is on the consumer to prove that a fault exists.

waamo

CAB etc often get things wrong. What they say does not and cannot trump actual legislation.

Wealdroam put links to the actual legislation in post 4 above. It would probably be useful for you to read it.

neilmcl

1telboy wrote: »

Thank you Neilmci for your reply. The websites of Citizens Advice, Which, and Moneysaver all say the following. 1. If consumer complains within 30 days of purchase then he/she is entitled to a full refund immediatly, which must be paid within 14 days. (No mention of proving/disproving a fault).
2. If consumer complains after 30 days from purchase but within the following 6 months then the retailer has to be given 1 opportunity to prove/disprove a fault.
3. If consumer complains after 30 days from purchase and after the following 6 monthe then the onus is on the consumer to prove that a fault exists.

Can you quote exactly what was stated on these sites rather than what you believe you read.

We've supplied the correct information along with links to the actual legislation, if you want to ignore this then that's up to you.

shaun_from_Africa

1telboy wrote: »

If consumer complains within 30 days of purchase then he/she is entitled to a full refund immediatly, which must be paid within 14 days. (No mention of proving/disproving a fault).

Think about that statement logically for a minute.
If that really was the case it would mean that anyone could return absolutely anything back to a shop within 30 days for any reason that they liked even if the return was simply due to a change of mind.

unholyangel

While the act itself does say:

(15)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.

The explanatory notes provides:

118.Subsection (15) requires a trader to provide any refund due to the consumer without undue delay and at the latest within 14 days from when the trader agrees that the consumer is entitled to it. For example, if a consumer rejects goods because of a technical fault which cannot be seen without testing or detailed examination, the 14-day period would start once the trader had carried out the appropriate tests and found the goods were indeed faulty. In contrast, if it was clear from looking at the goods that they breached the relevant requirement under the Act, there is unlikely to be any reason for the trader not to agree immediately that the consumer is entitled to a refund. In any case, there must be no undue delay, so the trader could not delay payment unnecessarily, for example in order to wait for time-consuming tests which are completely irrelevant.

1telboy wrote: »

2. If consumer complains after 30 days from purchase but within the following 6 months then the retailer has to be given 1 opportunity to prove/disprove a fault.

This part isn't correct at all. They have 1 opportunity to repair/replace - not to prove/disprove the fault.