eBay retailer refusing fix/replacement?

otbc.ncfc

Hi all

Just wondered if anyone's able to give a little advice please!

I purchased a mobile phone for £230 in Mar 2016 labelled manufacturer refurbished from Currys PC World eBay store. Over the past ten days it's gone completely wrong - there's a very well known manufacturer defect with the phone model and it won't even turn on anymore.

From my understanding, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that even though the phone is outside of the 12 month warranty they offered, because it's well below what a 'normal consumer' would expect in terms of it going wrong so quickly after purchase I am still entitled to it being repaired or replaced.

The retailer is refusing to fix or replace the unit, and seems to be completely ignoring any rights I might have under this Act so is there anything I can do to get them to follow their rights without having to go all the way to the end (ie. Small Claims Court)?

Thanks (and Happy New Year!)

[Deleted User]

You purchased second hand and it's well past the (voluntary) warranty they offered. You won't have any success in court..

chancesare_2

You bought from eBay. You have no redress via eBay or Paypal as you are outside of their guarantee timeframes.

What were the terms of their warranty?

otbc.ncfc

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You purchased second hand and it's well past the (voluntary) warranty they offered. You won't have any success in court..

Really? The updated CRA says if you purchase even items marked as refurbished via eBay, you have the same rights as if those items were purchased new:
"As with new goods, if you’ve bought a factory reconditioned [item] from a retailer, your Consumer Rights Act rights still stand and your [item] should be of a satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.

If it's faulty, you can claim for a refund or replacement in the same way you would if it was new.

However, as the [item] is not brand new, you should make allowances for cosmetic damage, and general wear and tear. "

[Deleted User]

otbc.ncfc wrote: »

Really? The updated CRA says if you purchase even items marked as refurbished via eBay, you have the same rights as if those items were purchased new:

While this is correct, you have no idea how old the phone is or how long it has "lasted", so how can you argue that it has "gone wrong" too quickly after purchase? Even if it were brand new, you'd have difficulty arguing this after almost two years.

LilElvis

You're going to have to prove that the phone has an inherent defect by getting an independent report which states that this is the case. The seller will have to reimburse you for the cost of the report as well as providing a remedy (repair, replace or refund - likely partial to reflect the usage you have had).

otbc.ncfc

LilElvis wrote: »

You're going to have to prove that the phone has an inherent defect by getting an independent report which states that this is the case. The seller will have to reimburse you for the cost of the report as well as providing a remedy (repair, replace or refund - likely partial to reflect the usage you have had).

Thanks - it's plastered all over internet forums that this issue is incredibly common with these devices so there's no doubt it's that, luckily!

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

While this is correct, you have no idea how old the phone is or how long it has "lasted", so how can you argue that it has "gone wrong" too quickly after purchase? Even if it were brand new, you'd have difficulty arguing this after almost two years.

The phone was marked as factory refurb, but at the end of the day even if the phone was over 2 years old surely it's not commonly accepted that a £230 phone will completely die and stop working, thus passing the 'beyond what a normal consumer would expect' rule.

Carrot007

otbc.ncfc wrote: »

The phone was marked as factory refurb, but at the end of the day even if the phone was over 2 years old surely it's not commonly accepted that a £230 phone will completely die and stop working, thus passing the 'beyond what a normal consumer would expect' rule.

Is it?

£230 for a phone is the top end of a low cost phone. 2 years therefore would seem reasonable to me. At the low end they are throw away devices.

Though it really depends on the make/model. Want to share?

[Deleted User]

otbc.ncfc wrote: »

The phone was marked as factory refurb, but at the end of the day even if the phone was over 2 years old surely it's not commonly accepted that a £230 phone will completely die and stop working, thus passing the 'beyond what a normal consumer would expect' rule.

You'd have prove that by providing a independent report at your own expense. The cost of this would only be reimbursed if the report corroborates your claim that the fault is inherent.

It's really not enough, particularly in court, for you to say that it is "plastered over internet forums"