Argos returns procedure for faulty goods

MrsDuck

Can anybody shed some light on an issue I have had with Argos recently?
I appologise in advance for the lenghthly post but it will save time having to explain fully to any replies.

So I bought a steam mop on 24thJune and on the 22nd of this month, it had stopped producing a sufficient amount of steam. I assumed that a fault had developed with the heating element and wanted a repair or replacement asap and knowing that Argos would probably try and get us to go to the manufacturer, my husband found an article on the Which? website saying that the retailer was responsible to either repair or replace as long as the product had not been bought more than 6 months ago and that up until 6 months, the onus was upon the retailer to prove that the product was in no way faulty to begin with. Neither myself or my husband had damaged the steamer. It had just failed to function properly one day.

As anticipated, Argos told us to contact the manufacturer so my husband showed the sales person the Which? article. She insisted it was company policy as it was more than 30 days etc but when my husband asked how company policy trumps the law and pointed to his phone with the Which? article she said she'd speak to the manager.

She returned (without the mangaer) in tow and told us that, as a"goodwill gesture" and just this once, the manager was prepared to offer a replacement. I can't remember the prescise words she used but we were given the impression that if we were ever to try this sort of thing again we would not be sucessful and that the management would not be so generous a second time.

This angered me even though I was getting the replacement and I demenaded to know how a comapany doing the minimum they were required to do by law was in any way a goodwill getssure. I didn't get a satisfactory answer and because I had been told I would get a replacement and a queue was forming, I decieded to just accept the replacement and leave.

On returning home, still unhappy in the way I'd been dealt with, I fired off a complaint to Argos via email, not before consulting the Martin Lewis Money Saving website and the Argos website itself. On the Martin Lewis website, there is a place where it talks about shops and stores trying this kind of thing on and that we should stand up for our rights without having to contact the manufacturer. The Argos website itself says that they "suggest" customers contact the manufacturers initially, but if goods are faulty, they will repair or replace faulty goods if returned within 6 months from purchase and as long as a receipt is shown as proof of purchase and I did show them my receipt.

This all happened on the 22nd of December and it was this morning when I received a reply saying that as the item is exempt from a 30 day replacemment etc, staff are to give customers the number in which they should contact the manufacturer and that as a retailer, they have no knowledge of the inner workings of electrical items and that this is the policy for any electrical items etc.

Now are Argos saying that because staff hand out a manufacturers number that this fulfills their legal obligation? My research leads me to believe that this is not the case. I did reply to the email to state that not one of my qusestions had been answered to my satisfaction as the two attachmnets with the evidence I was submitting had not even been referred to.

If I am wrong then I would like to know so that I don't make the same "mistake" again when defending my consumer rights, but if I am in the right, as I think I am, then at minimum I'd like an apology from Argos and an immediate change in policy.

Any insight will be much appreciated

bris

They are still entitled to get the item inspected to confirm the fault is due to a manufacturing default. So they did do you a favour by not making you wait until they sent it back to the manufacture to get it inspected.


Sometimes a little knowledge of the law can distract you from a retailers rights. They do also have rights, getting a replacement there and then was a good result, what more did you want?

Fosterdog

Although you are correct that it is for the retailer to ensure a repair, replacement, or refund are carried out they are also allowed to use an outside agent to carry out an assessment/repair on their behalf. In this case that agent is the manufacturer as it often is with electrical items, as they have both the knowledge of the appliance and the parts to carry out an assessment and repair.

At most their obligation to you was to make the phonecall to the manufacturer on your behalf, however these things are almost always quicker, easier, and far more efficient if you call them yourself.

You having a replacement for wrongly quoting your rights is a goodwill gesture and above the bare minimum they had to do by law.

zoob

Fosterdog wrote: »

Although you are correct that it is for the retailer to ensure a repair, replacement, or refund are carried out they are also allowed to use an outside agent to carry out an assessment/repair on their behalf. In this case that agent is the manufacturer as it often is with electrical items, as they have both the knowledge of the appliance and the parts to carry out an assessment and repair.

At most their obligation to you was to make the phonecall to the manufacturer on your behalf, however these things are almost always quicker, easier, and far more efficient if you call them yourself.

You having a replacement for wrongly quoting your rights is a goodwill gesture and above the bare minimum they had to do by law.

Very well set out Fosterdog your 100% correct

Les79

In my experience of working in retail/call center, the phrase "She returned (without the mangaer) in tow and told us that, as a"goodwill gesture" and just this once, the manager was prepared to offer a replacement." has a specific meaning...


It means some combination of:


- You being correct


- The staff wanting to save face a bit


- The staff not wanting you to think that their mither-free approach this time around is something that they will do again, so as to discourage you from taking the mick with future items/returns (that is the most likely reason btw)


Gotta learn how to NOT go into a rage after such a comment. Just smile and nod, then walk out with your replacement steam mop. If a similar situation crops up in the future just rinse and repeat and, unless you've made a fool of yourself previously with them, they will utter the same phrase.

MrsDuck

I suppose I just wanted the staff to take a serious look at the article and either agree that I was right and replace the item without adressing down or to explain that they accept it is their legal responsibilty and contact the manufacturer on my behalf if that is the minimum they are required to do by law etc.

MrsDuck

Fosterdog wrote: »

Although you are correct that it is for the retailer to ensure a repair, replacement, or refund are carried out they are also allowed to use an outside agent to carry out an assessment/repair on their behalf. In this case that agent is the manufacturer as it often is with electrical items, as they have both the knowledge of the appliance and the parts to carry out an assessment and repair.

At most their obligation to you was to make the phonecall to the manufacturer on your behalf, however these things are almost always quicker, easier, and far more efficient if you call them yourself.

You having a replacement for wrongly quoting your rights is a goodwill gesture and above the bare minimum they had to do by law.[/QUOTE

Thanks Fosterdog but I am still a bit confused by what you mean by wrongly quoting my rights after you've already stated it is the responsibility for the manufacturer to issue a repair, replacement or refund? Can you elaborate? I can't see the difference. I wasn't necessarily demanding a replacement nor thinking that was my right, although I will admit to hoping that is what they would do and I would have gladly accepted them to take the item from me and arrange a repair even if it meant using an outside contractor. I just didn't want them to fob me off by insisting I contact the manufacturer when my contract was with them. Also it says on the Martin Lewis website that stores often try this kind of thing on and not to let them.
If the manager had bothered to come out and look at the article, done some research and explained to me why I had "misunderstood" my rights if indeed that is the case, in a pleasant way then there would have been no issues.

MrsDuck

Les79 wrote: »

In my experience of working in retail/call center, the phrase "She returned (without the mangaer) in tow and told us that, as a"goodwill gesture" and just this once, the manager was prepared to offer a replacement." has a specific meaning...


It means some combination of:


- You being correct


- The staff wanting to save face a bit


- The staff not wanting you to think that their mither-free approach this time around is something that they will do again, so as to discourage you from taking the mick with future items/returns (that is the most likely reason btw)


Gotta learn how to NOT go into a rage after such a comment. Just smile and nod, then walk out with your replacement steam mop. If a similar situation crops up in the future just rinse and repeat and, unless you've made a fool of yourself previously with them, they will utter the same phrase.

Thanks for your reply. I hate the term "goodwill gesture" when I believe I am in the right. It's like a red rag to a bull. I am one of those people who are very principled and my husband would agree with you that we had the steam mop replaced so that should have been an end to it but as I told him, I would have gladly given up the steam mop replacement and gone down the repair route if it meant not letting the store get away with in my opinion, fobbing me off, but the worst part of it was how they spoke to me. Not as a customer, but as a naughty child and I just don't want them to be allowed to get away with that. I'm pretty stubborn that way

MrsDuck

bris wrote: »

They are still entitled to get the item inspected to confirm the fault is due to a manufacturing default. So they did do you a favour by not making you wait until they sent it back to the manufacture to get it inspected.


Sometimes a little knowledge of the law can distract you from a retailers rights. They do also have rights, getting a replacement there and then was a good result, what more did you want?

I wanted either of two things.
One they could have taken the item from me and agreed to arrange a repair with the manufacturer, took a contact number from me and agreed to telephone me when my repair was done and was ready at the store for me to collect.
Two they could have replaced the item there and then without a fuss.
What I objected to was the way in which I was treated. It made me think that if they made me feel awful for coming into store and asserting my rights, then maybe I'd think twice in the future and not "bother them."

pmduk

MrsDuck wrote: »

I wanted either of two things.
One they could have taken the item from me and agreed to arrange a repair with the manufacturer, took a contact number from me and agreed to telephone me when my repair was done and was ready at the store for me to collect.

Do you realise it's often quicker and easier for you to contact the manufacturer yourself and make any necessary arrangements? You might have been without your steam mop for a shorter period as well.

MrsDuck

pmduk wrote: »

Do you realise it's often quicker and easier for you to contact the manufacturer yourself and make any necessary arrangements? You might have been without your steam mop for a shorter period as well.

I realise that some people say this is the case but ater reading many other similar posts on this forum, I have serious doubts. If the store had insisted that it would be quicker to go direct but then still offered me a choice, that would have been fine. I do admit I was hoping they'd think that it would be easier to just give me a replacement there and then and if that is my right then there's nothing wrong with that, and had they told me they would sort out a repair for me, that is their right and I would have accepted it. The point is that have my consumer rights been denied by them insisting I contact the manufactuer and if not then why does it seem to say different on the Martin Lewis website?