eBay - Wrong item received but used

unholyangel

soolin wrote: »

As per the above the right to a partial refund is only one remedy open to the seller, but not one that can be enforced. Seller can insist on having the item back and in the same state that it was sent.

Even on eBay a buyer can go to law if they cannot resolve an issue, but going to court to inisist on apparently wanting to keep an item, have a partial refund and claim compensation doesn't exactly seem a winner.

However, I doubt the OP will come back to update.

Yes, it can be enforced.

From the explanatory notes of the CRA:

136.The section provides that, if repair or replacement was impossible or if the consumer’s goods continue to be substandard after the consumer has either:

already undergone one repair or replacement of the goods by the trader; or

sought a repair or replacement but this was not carried out within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenient to the consumer,

the consumer may either:
keep the goods and insist on a reduction in the price; or

reject the goods and obtain a refund which may, in some circumstances, be subject to a deduction to take account of any use the consumer has had of the goods.

Plus, nothing in the consumer rights act would prevent you claiming damages (and the act plainly states this itself) rather than exercising one of the rights granted by the consumer rights act.

(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.

Also, I didn't mention compensation so not sure why you've got a bee in your bonnet about that.

soolin

unholyangel wrote: »

Yes, it can be enforced.

From the explanatory notes of the CRA:



Plus, nothing in the consumer rights act would prevent you claiming damages (and the act plainly states this itself) rather than exercising one of the rights granted by the consumer rights act.



Also, I didn't mention compensation so not sure why you've got a bee in your bonnet about that.

Bee in my bonnet? the Op clearly states ' would be also nice to get a compensation.'.

marliepanda

136.The section provides that, if repair or replacement was impossible or if the consumer!!!8217;s goods continue to be substandard after the consumer has either:

already undergone one repair or replacement of the goods by the trader; or

sought a repair or replacement but this was not carried out within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenient to the consumer,

the consumer may either:
keep the goods and insist on a reduction in the price; or

reject the goods and obtain a refund which may, in some circumstances, be subject to a deduction to take account of any use the consumer has had of the goods.

Are we just playing the selectively bold the quote game to prove our point? And ignore the things the consumer has to do in order to invoke that right.

Okay then!

unholyangel

soolin wrote: »

Bee in my bonnet? the Op clearly states ' would be also nice to get a compensation.'.

Yes, but you were responding to my post when you said it. A post which said the OP might need to take legal action. That part of your post was speaking about court action - which isn't something OP mentioned.

unholyangel

marliepanda wrote: »

Are we just playing the selectively bold the quote game to prove our point? And ignore the things the consumer has to do in order to invoke that right.

Okay then!

No, thats why I quoted the whole section rather than selectively quoting....

marliepanda

unholyangel wrote: »

No, thats why I quoted the whole section rather than selectively quoting....

But the OP has done neither of the things that your quote requires!

already undergone one repair or replacement of the goods by the trader; or Nope

sought a repair or replacement but this was not carried out within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenient to the consumer, Nope!

unholyangel

marliepanda wrote: »

But the OP has done neither of the things that your quote requires!

already undergone one repair or replacement of the goods by the trader; or Nope

sought a repair or replacement but this was not carried out within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenient to the consumer, Nope!

I didn't say he had. I was simply saying that a reduction in price is one remedy available under the CRA - I then went on to quote the whole section so it was clear under what circumstances.

Just the same I detailed that - in any event - its open to the OP to claim damages instead of any potential remedy given by the CRA.

[Deleted User]

unholyangel wrote: »

They can't make any deduction for use in the first 6 months (unless its a motor vehicle) because the consumer rights act strictly prohibits traders from doing so.

Are you actually saying that someone can use goods for 6 months and then return for a full refund and there is nothing a retailer can do about that? Really? Did you actually say that?

marliepanda

unholyangel wrote: »

Just the same I detailed that - in any event - its open to the OP to claim damages instead of any potential remedy given by the CRA.

People can claim anything they like, it doesn't mean that they will be successful. OP claims they were forced to install the lower spec item. I doubt that would stand up in court as something they were forced to do in order to get compo.

I don't think anyone here has said any different.

unholyangel

camelot1971 wrote: »

Are you actually saying that someone can use goods for 6 months and then return for a full refund and there is nothing a retailer can do about that? Really? Did you actually say that?

No, I'm saying that within the first 30 days if the goods do not conform, you can insist on rejecting the goods. After that you need to allow the retailer 1 attempt to repair or replace before you can again insist on rejecting the goods. If that rejection comes within the first 6 months, the CRA prohibits retailers from making a deduction for use.

Perhaps you should be asking parliament "did you actually legislate that?".

The CCRs allow a deduction for use to be made, but that is for change of mind returns (not where goods fail to conform) and only if the consumer received all the necessary information, their handling goes beyond what is reasonable and that handling diminishes the value of the goods as a result. If a trader failed to provide that information at all then not only would they be unable to make a deduction for diminished value, but you'd have up to 1 year & 14 days to cancel and return the goods. The law can be funny like that.