Can I insist on a replacement instead of a repair?

Johnny_T

Hi all,


I've had a AV Receiver since May. I bought it online new from a reputable shop.


One of the outputs recently stopped working (although it is still usable as it has another output) and now it has started switching itself off occasionally.


I've emailed the shop to ask for a replacement as I'm worried that it seems that there is potential for further problems down the line.


The shop have replied promptly and said that they won't provide a replacement but will happily send it off for a repair to the makers of the device. Their website Returns Policy does say that, after 30 days, they'll only offer a repair.


The website/company *are* reputable but I'm wondering if I have rights to insist on a replacement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Act talks a lot about replacement/repair but I can't find anywhere that deals with this particular quandary where the shop are offering a repair but the customer would prefer a replacement?


Anyone know where I stand on this?


Thanks

DCFC79

You bought in may so a few months, they are entitled to get it repaired.

cono1717

Within the first 6 months the onus is on the retailer to prove it's not a manufacturing defect if they can't they need to repair/refund or replace but it's up to them which they do. You can ask but you don't get it by law.

DoaM

With the old SoGA a consumer could request a preference as to the remedy, but the seller could reject that preference if providing it was disproportionately costly versus any of the other remedies.

I don't know if the CRA still has that same guidance but the general intent still holds true.

Johnny_T

DoaM wrote: »

With the old SoGA a consumer could request a preference as to the remedy, but the seller could reject that preference if providing it was disproportionately costly versus any of the other remedies.

I don't know if the CRA still has that same guidance but the general intent still holds true.

Thanks DoaM. Much appreciated

R-O-B_2

DoaM wrote: »

With the old SoGA a consumer could request a preference as to the remedy, but the seller could reject that preference if providing it was disproportionately costly versus any of the other remedies.

I don't know if the CRA still has that same guidance but the general intent still holds true.

Yes the New CRA allows the consumer to chose between repair or replacement "unless one is disproportionate compared with the other."

You can insist on a replacement, and you have good reason which is your loss of faith. As it is their breach of contract, replacement is a remedy available to you.

Page 38 of the Business Companion guidance has a flowchart. Search online for CRA Goods Guidance for Business.

Johnny_T

R-O-B wrote: »

Yes the New CRA allows the consumer to chose between repair or replacement "unless one is disproportionate compared with the other."

You can insist on a replacement, and you have good reason which is your loss of faith. As it is their breach of contract, replacement is a remedy available to you.

Page 38 of the Business Companion guidance has a flowchart. Search online for CRA Goods Guidance for Business.

Hi Rob

Yep, I downloaded that document. That's a great find!

I suppose the catch-all is the definition of "disproportionate".

For instance, if the repair is £200 but a new device is £800 is that disproportionate?

Or £600 vs £800 ??

etc....

Cheers

George_Michael

R-O-B wrote: »

Yes the New CRA allows the consumer to chose between repair or replacement "unless one is disproportionate compared with the other."

You can insist on a replacement, and you have good reason which is your loss of faith. As it is their breach of contract, replacement is a remedy available to you.

Page 38 of the Business Companion guidance has a flowchart. Search online for CRA Goods Guidance for Business.

No they can't.
They can request a replacement but as you have already pointed out, this request can be denied if the retailer considers it disproportionate.

Why do you consider that the OP can claim "loss of faith"?
They bought an item a few months ago which has now failed and the retailer has stated that they will provide a repair service, something that they are legally entitled to do so why should someone lose faith in a company that is complying fully with their legal obligations?

Johnny_T

George_Michael wrote: »

No they can't.
They can request a replacement but as you have already pointed out, this request can be denied if the retailer considers it disproportionate.

Why do you consider that the OP can claim "loss of faith"?
They bought an item a few months ago which has now failed and the retailer has stated that they will provide a repair service, something that they are legally entitled to do so why should someone lose faith in a company that is complying fully with their legal obligations?

I must admit that the company have been good. They have arranged pick-up of the defective item tomorrow (at their expense). They also explained that, if I reported the fault within the month then it's the manufacturer who foots the bill for a replacement but, after a month, it would be them who had to foot the bill unless the manufacturer can't fix it.

My only concern is whether the warranty starts again when the repair is complete or not which I've emailed them to clarify.

k3lvc

Johnny_T wrote: »

My only concern is whether the warranty starts again when the repair is complete or not which I've emailed them to clarify.

Legally no it doesn't - but nor would it with a replacement. They may, as a gesture of goodwill, extend it but you've no rights

Johnny_T

k3lvc wrote: »

Legally no it doesn't - but nor would it with a replacement. They may, as a gesture of goodwill, extend it but you've no rights

Yep, they've just got back to me saying the same thing. Thanks k3lvc