Faulty OLED TV

takman

unholyangel wrote: »

Remind them that the consumer rights act assumes any fault present in the first 6 months is inherent and that the same act states:

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—
(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

You can also try a section 75 claim - you have the same rights against the card company as you do against the retailer.

Yes but in this instance the OP paid for and collected the TV in store so you can't expect them to cover return postage. What if they bought the TV and moved to Australia do you still think the shop should have to pay for return postage?

unholyangel

takman wrote: »

Yes but in this instance the OP paid for and collected the TV in store so you can't expect them to cover return postage. What if they bought the TV and moved to Australia do you still think the shop should have to pay for return postage?

Would you care to point out where the consumer rights act says that the part I quoted doesn't apply if you bought in person?

Even ignoring the act and going off common law - it is for the party in breach to cover the costs of that breach. The only exception to that rule would be where the damages are too remote/not foreseeable (which is what your Australia example would fall into - unless the retailer had been aware upon entering the contract that it was going to be transported to Australia).

ETA: I think you're getting confused with the section about returning rejected goods - which does make an exception for returning them in person. However, the same article states the consumers only obligation is to make the goods available for collection unless he has agreed to return them and the accompanying explanatory notes makes clear that it doesn't prevent the consumer from bringing a claim for damages for the cost of returning the goods in person.

[Deleted User]

Don't post the TV whatever you do - it won't be insurable and you will have to pay if it is damaged in transit. If they arrange to collect, then that is their problem.

martinsurrey

unholyangel wrote: »

Even ignoring the act and going off common law - it is for the party in breach to cover the costs of that breach. The only exception to that rule would be where the damages are too remote/not foreseeable (which is what your Australia example would fall into

So you think Australia is too far but don't think 200miles for what I can only assume is a smallish local shop isn't?

And as you know, if the trader FAILS to offer a repair or replace that doesn't inconvenience the consumer the only remedy available to the consumer is to force a price reduction or final right to rejection

per
section 24 (5) (C)

Both the short term right to reject and the final right to reject are covered by section 20, and part (8) - which means the OP would need to take it back, at their cost.

unholyangel

martinsurrey wrote: »

So you think Australia is too far but don't think 200miles for what I can only assume is a smallish local shop isn't?

And as you know, if the trader FAILS to offer a repair or replace that doesn't inconvenience the consumer the only remedy available to the consumer is to force a price reduction or final right to rejection

per
section 24 (5) (C)

Both the short term right to reject and the final right to reject are covered by section 20, and part (8) - which means the OP would need to take it back, at their cost.

It is a cost that only arises due to breach of contract and as I said, the only exception to the party in breach being liable for those losses is if the loss is unforeseeable.

Thats not the only remedy available. From CRA:

(9)This Chapter does not prevent the consumer seeking other remedies—
(a)for a breach of a term that this Chapter requires to be treated as included in the contract,
(b)on the grounds that, under section 15 or 16, goods do not conform to the contract, or
(c)for a breach of a requirement stated in the contract.

(10)Those other remedies may be ones—
(a)in addition to a remedy referred to in subsections (3) to (6) (but not so as to recover twice for the same loss), or
(b)instead of such a remedy, or
(c)where no such remedy is provided for.

(11)Those other remedies include any of the following that is open to the consumer in the circumstances—
(a)claiming damages;
(b)seeking specific performance;
(c)seeking an order for specific implement;
(d)relying on the breach against a claim by the trader for the price;
(e)for breach of an express term, exercising a right to treat the contract as at an end.

And yes section 8 - which I referenced myself and explained that unless the consumer agreed to return them, the only obligation on the consumer is to make them available for collection and that the explanatory notes explain it doesnt prevent someone from bringing a claim for the cost of returning the goods.

(7)From the time when the right is exercised—
(a)the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and
(b)the consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

And the explanatory notes I mentioned:

111.Subsection (8) clarifies that any reasonable costs of returning rejected goods to the trader (except where the consumer returns the goods in person to where they obtained physical possession of them) is to be borne by the trader. This includes the trader paying postal costs. This applies whether or not the consumer has agreed to return the goods, as mentioned in subsection (7).

112.Subsection (8) does not prevent a consumer from pursuing a damages claim. For example, a consumer might wish to do so in circumstances where returning the goods to the place that the consumer obtained physical possession of them does incur quite substantial costs for the consumer.

macman

If your claim is under the retailer's warranty, and that says RTB, then the distance is irrelevant-you need to get it back to them, and they won't cover your expenses or loss of earnings. What kind of TV shop does not open on a Saturday?
Your other option is to get it fixed under the manufacturer's warranty, assuming that it came with one, given that you appear to be the second owner? 'As new' presumably means 'second hand'.
Why anyone would do a 400 mile round trip to buy a TV is beyond me...

Hermione_Granger

unholyangel wrote: »

Even ignoring the act and going off common law - it is for the party in breach to cover the costs of that breach. The only exception to that rule would be where the damages are too remote/not foreseeable (which is what your Australia example would fall into .

Is this exemption stated anywhere in the Consumer Rights act or is it just your opinion?

Even if it is, who's to say that a judge wouldn't decide that a retailer selling something to someone who travelled 200 miles to pick it up was something that the retailer wasn't foreseeable to that retailer?

After all, where do you draw the line?
How about someone in the Shetland Islands buying a TV from a retailer in Cornwall then expecting that retailer to collect it if it went wrong?

unholyangel

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Is this exemption stated anywhere in the Consumer Rights act or is it just your opinion?

Even if it is, who's to say that a judge wouldn't decide that a retailer selling something to someone who travelled 200 miles to pick it up was something that the retailer wasn't foreseeable to that retailer?

After all, where do you draw the line?
How about someone in the Shetland Islands buying a TV from a retailer in Cornwall then expecting that retailer to collect it if it went wrong?

Did you miss the part of the post you quoted where I said:

Even ignoring the act and going off common law

?

Its a well established doctrine of the law on damages.

Your argument about the judge falls flat because the retailer wasn't just selling to passing foot traffic - they were advertising online and agreed to sell it to someone hundreds of miles away. Plus OP said his PP payment was refunded and he was directed to the shop.

But regardless, as the consumer rights act makes clear, it would still be open for the consumer to claim damages where returning the goods in person came at substantial cost. Are you saying that this wouldn't come under that situation? If not, what would? Where does it state in the act that a consumer needs to return goods in person?

Also as I mentioned above, the consumer is only under an obligation to return the goods IF the consumer agrees to return rejected goods. If there is no such agreement then the consumers only obligation is to make the goods available for collection.