FOS is a Joke

NoOne2

Edit - Off Track to Original Post

powerful_Rogue

NoOne2 wrote: »

August 15 Purchased
PC kept crashing in games on and off and fans went on Jet Speed.
Tried drivers and all to no avail.

Oct 15 letter sent
Jan/Feb 16 Manufacture Live support contacted , the suspected issues

Item tested in another 2x PC's , and high temps and fans

March 16 - 2nd letter sent

Manufacturer asked for test Software to be used, results showed too high temps and with crashing , they deemed as faulty and for UK to deal with it.

No response - from seller
June/July taken to CC

Can I ask why the process was so drawn out? Almost four months after you sent the first letter before you contact the manufacturer?

5 months between letters, how come you didn't chase this up inbetween?

Fosterdog was right in post 41. You are relying on the faulty item being dealt with under the Sales of Goods Act. A suitable remedy is repair, which you rejected. You should have accepted the repair, as now you're down the money and also have a faulty item.

NoOne2

Edit - Off Track to Original Post

powerful_Rogue

NoOne2 wrote: »

The repair is not strictly true, due to two factors, that was only recently and for a person to be back in the position they were, they would either have to have the full warranty of the product of replacement etc or full refund, this was not the case.

True to an extent, however you can't drag the matter out and then expect the warranty to be reset. Where did you get this information from?

NoOne2 wrote: »

Point 2

There is no obligation on manufacturers to offer warranties (or
guarantees). Any rights of redress against the manufacturer, given to the consumer under a product warranty, are in addition to their
statutory rights against the retailer. This means that the retailer (not the manufacturer) should be their first port of call when a product turns out to be faulty.

Spot on. However in quite a few instances it's a lot quicker to deal with the manufacturer then the retailer.

NoOne2 wrote: »

However, if a good has an inherent fault, the retailer cannot evade
responsibility by simply referring the consumer to a manufacturer’s
warranty. A warranty does not replace or limit a customer’s statutory rights. If they wish, consumers are entitled to rely on the remedies available to them under sale of goods legislation rather than their rights under a warranty.

Again true, however quite a lot of retailers just send the faulty item off to the manufacturer to be repaired. Doing this yourself often gets the item back to you a lot quicker.

NoOne2 wrote: »

The contract was with the Seller , so this is the mistake happening here, since there was non seller to return to, the customer can claim under Section 75,

At most the CC should have picked up the item and dealt with it, but they rejected manufacturer emails saying there is a fault.

But you also rejected the manufacturer performing the repair - which would have put you back into the position of having a fully working item. In my opinion, the credit card was in the right and performed their function correctly.

Are you saying that if the credit card had come and collected the item, sent it to the manufacturer and then returned it to you when it was repaired you would have accepted this option?

NoOne2

Edit - Off Track to Original Post

bertiewhite

I can't comment on Financial Ombudsman performance but I recently had to use the Comms Ombudsman and although the process took 3 months, they gave me excellent service.

cono1717

NoOne2 wrote: »

That's been proven, and a full refund can be claimed.

You're wrong, a full refund can be requested but the retailer only has to refund, repair or replace and they have the legal right to choose, they are not required to do one specific one.

You still haven't answered rouge's question. Would you accept a repair?

Depending on the answer to that it shifts the case from either the FOS being in the wrong or you being in the wrong.

Sometimes the credit card company will ask you to get independent verification of a fault. If it asks for this, and then approves the claim, it should also reimburse you for costs incurred in getting the expert opinion. Most claims go ahead without this, but it's a possibility your lender will ask.

When you read that, it should be clear cut as, it was proven there is a fault from emails, before the item was inspected.

Emails are not the same as a independent verification and even if they were the card company can still get a repair rather than refund you.

This sounds like the card company either wanted a independent report and you stood your ground, or they wanted to repair it and you again, stood your ground.

NoOne2

Edit - Off Track to Original Post

LilElvis

A warranty is provided by a manufacturer and is in addition to your consumer rights, and as such you have no entitlement to a "full warranty" on a replacement unless the manufacturer wishes to provide it. You would still have the balance of your 6 years of consumer rights to fall back on should another problem arise.

neilmcl

NoOne2 wrote: »

This was already explained, you do not need to accept a repair or even a replacement.

After a reasonable period of time (SOGA) then I'm afraid this is exactly what you have to do! After 2 months it would be deemed that you have accepted the goods and therefore could not reject for a full refund. The remedies from thereon would be one of repair, replacement or refund and you will not be able to insist on which remedy this is.