Tell me if I'm wrong (consumer rights)

theonlywayisup

Cliecost wrote: »

I told them of the fault on the 17th of July, which is 6 months and 28 days after I got it. So for those 28 days they can reduce the refund?

After 6 months the onus was on you to prove the fault. If I am reading your thread correctly, they supplied (and paid?) an expert's report and ruled themselves to be at fault. They could have asked you to engage and pay the report and only reimburse if they were found at fault. You would have been reimbursed but at least you didn't have to pay up front.

Take their offer. Legislation allows them to deduct an amount as you've had use of the item for 6 months and 28 days, £10 is more than reasonable.

Cliecost

mije1983 wrote: »

Genuinely interested in how would you make the law better in your eyes then? How long should people be entitled to a 100% refund for?

Simple. If it's proven that the fault is that of the manufacturer (which it was) and it can't be replaced (they don't sell it anymore) or fixed (they wouldn't as that'd cost too much) then they should issue a full refund within the 6 years written in law already. It's not hard.

Cliecost

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Well you best take the refund, it's repairable but as you can't do it, it'll cost you more than £10.

I think I will.

Cliecost

theonlywayisup wrote: »

After 6 months the onus was on you to prove the fault. If I am reading your thread correctly, they supplied (and paid?) an expert's report and ruled themselves to be at fault. They could have asked you to engage and pay the report and only reimburse if they were found at fault. You would have been reimbursed but at least you didn't have to pay up front.

Take their offer. Legislation allows them to deduct an amount as you've had use of the item for 6 months and 28 days, £10 is more than reasonable.

If they had asked me to prove it's faulty (other than sending photos) I would have taken them to the FO

Les79

Cliecost wrote: »

Simple. If it's proven that the fault is that of the manufacturer (which it was) and it can't be replaced (they don't sell it anymore) or fixed (they wouldn't as that'd cost too much) then they should issue a full refund. It's not hard.

I tell you what then, go and petition the UK government to change the consumer laws.

Until you get that ball in motion (and a lot of people might well back you up, including posters on this thread!) you need to abide by the current law of the land. This allows a company to make such a deduction (usually a bit more than just £10).

So accept that fact and move on in whichever way you see fit.

theonlywayisup

Cliecost wrote: »

If they had asked me to prove it's faulty (other than sending photos) I would have taken them to the FO

Good luck with that.

Cliecost wrote: »

they should issue a full refund within the 6 years written in law already. It's not hard.

No. It says nothing of the sort.

theonlywayisup

Going back to you opening sentence....

Cliecost wrote: »

I might be wrong because the retailer is being quite cut and dry with my options so I thought I'd come here to ask because I had that whole 'blind rage' thing when they told me the options I had.

Yes, you are wrong. I understand it isn't what you want to hear, but actually it's probably the best offer of this kind I have heard on these boards.

6 months 28 days (and however long it takes to collect it) for £10.

You have posted before regarding faulty items and the CRA has been explained to you. This is a very generous offer. Take it and find yourself a brand new table without the laminate.

shaun_from_Africa

Cliecost wrote: »

If they had asked me to prove it's faulty (other than sending photos) I would have taken them to the FO

Taken them to the financial ombudsman for doing something that the law entitles them to do?
They wouldn't just have to ask you to prove it's faulty. They could insist that you prove that the fault was due to a manufacturing defect, something that a photograph wouldn't be able to do.

mije1983

Cliecost wrote: »

Simple. If it's proven that the fault is that of the manufacturer (which it was) and it can't be replaced (they don't sell it anymore) or fixed (they wouldn't as that'd cost too much) then they should issue a full refund within the 6 years written in law already. It's not hard.

What law says that?

I can't believe anyone would honestly think they should be entitled to a full refund after having 6 years of unhindered use of a product. If that was the law, you'd probably see a massive decrease in retailers selling items, and moving into hiring items as that would be far better for their bottom line and wouldn't cost them anywhere near as much.



You want to watch TV tonight? Great, pop down the hire shop and rent one for the evening. Need to return it tomorrow though......

unholyangel

Cliecost wrote: »

Simple. If it's proven that the fault is that of the manufacturer (which it was) and it can't be replaced (they don't sell it anymore) or fixed (they wouldn't as that'd cost too much) then they should issue a full refund within the 6 years written in law already. It's not hard.

The law says you have 6 years to make a claim for action founded on simple contract. There is no law that states goods must last any minimum length of time, never mind 6 years