Do Big Company Policies (Amazon in this instance) Usurp UK Consumer Rights?

reward70

In accordance with guidance re: How best to post a query on Consumer Rights.

Purchased Item:

What did you buy? A pack of 5 iPhone cables
When did you buy it? Late December 2018
Where from? Amazon Marketplace
How did you pay? Credit card
What went wrong? Cables steadily stopped working over months
What are the vendors telling you? Amazon informed:
• Amazon is not the seller
• The seller is a Marketplace seller and therefore, when the product was purchased I entered into a contract with the seller of the item (presumably the implication is that I did not enter into a contract with Amazon)
• The seller is responsible for any claim I have arising out of my purchase. I was informed to: please see paragraph 12 of a link for further information (I am unable to replicate the link due to website rules)

What solution or remedy are you looking for? I have gained the solution requested: I have gained recompense from Amazon: they finally provided a full refund.

MSE and contributors to the forums may ask why the ‘eck am I posting here?

The primary reason for posting is to gain clarification; there is also an altruistic element.

There are a few other aims of this post including the above:
• Who is right: Amazon or MSE regards UK consumer rights law?
• Should consumers cut to the quick via the way in which they complain?
• Encourage consumer rights
• Encourage environmentally friendliness

Who is right: Amazon or MSE regards UK consumer rights law?
Although Amazon eventually did the right thing regards a refund, the process took a long time and a great amount of energy involving a couple of chats via the Amazon website (representatives take Amazon policies as their edict, not the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015) and then emails. I am sure large companies such as Amazon know that most people cannot be bothered to argue the case, as their time is worth more than the time taken to gain a refund in most cases.

I performed a number of actions, many of which are not listed (already too long a post):

I followed the SADFART rules:
When the item arrived, it was as described and deemed, to the untrained eye, to be of satisfactory quality. It did not however, ‘last a reasonable length of time’. Initially the cables worked fine (despite being happy with them, I did not provide immediate feedback as there were a number of poor reviews on the Amazon website) however, one by one, each cable aside from one (that remained in exactly the same position, not having been moved at all) failed, despite normal use and appropriate care.

I initially discussed with a sales representative and then manager via webchat. I was continually quoted "Amazon Policies" do not enable a refund to be processed as "this item passed 6 months of the warranty"; further informing "so for now we cannot assist you regarding this item".

Due to annoyance I resorted to an email. Summary:
• I called to complain about a product that is not fit for purpose: it has not lasted a reasonable time to be considered fit for purpose
• I asked for a refund under UK consumer rights laws

I quoted/specified/clarified:
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015
• The SADFART rules
• I made a contractual agreement with Amazon, not the manufacturer
• Consumer rights apply regardless of where the retailer is based
• The contractual agreement was made with the Amazon shop/website, and that Amazon is the service provider
• When selling in the UK, Amazon agrees to provide my statutory rights
• Consumers have rights that a shop or service provider cannot change
• Due to the above, it is for Amazon to deal with

Should consumers cut to the quick via the way in which they complain?
Certain websites such as Amazon request customers to use their webchat or use a dedicated telephone line to resolve issues. Although I am sure there are many reasons why such internal company conflict resolution pathways exist, some are beneficial to both the company and the consumer whilst some are poor for the consumer: some pathways exist to stymie problems, not necessarily resolve them, as is the case with my complaint. Some webchat/telephone pathways waste a great deal of time and energy, causing annoyance, not resolve. Would it not be simpler, if knowing your consumer rights, to bypass them, instead opting to send an email to gain refunds that UK consumer rights laws afford?

If my thoughts are correct, I am sure many consumers waste swathes of time complaining, only to accept Amazon’s policy statements to be correct, thereby not gaining a refund. If an email was sent instead, they could bypass much time wasting measures and gain a refund that UK consumer rights laws afford them.

Encourage consumer Rights & Environmental friendliness
There are wider implications: If Amazon and similar companies were to be made more responsible for the quality of the products it sells, there would hopefully ensue less consumer time complaining about products. It would also make products more environmentally friendly as the quality of the products sold would result in greater durability, not requiring greater replacement and in so doing, decrease wastage of materials and transportation etc. Short-term business views may dictate that quicker replacement = greater profits however, higher standards and ethical codes with a view towards the long-term good would place these companies in better stead. Do the HUGE companies such as Amazon need to be encouraged to do that same thing?

I have spent many hours with Mobile phone operators and ISPs, alongside other online companies: many use web chat/telephone calls but due to many reasons, such as cultural differences and language barriers, UK consumers waste a great deal of time in the process, for little if any gain. My two emails resulted in a good outcome however, I'd still like to know whether Amazon were simply being nice to me or whether they were obligated under UK consumer rights laws?

Thanks in anticipation of replies.

BoGoF

Gave up after first couple of paragraphs.

If gist is that Amazon refunded you something you bought from a 3rd party seller then they did more than they need to.

reward70

Regards 'given up': understand. I provided quick details to enable readers to get to the point immediately and greater detail for those wishing to gain greater detail.

In reply to your answer (thanks): as the main thrust of my post was to clarify what exactly are UK Consumer rights: The SADFART rules seem to be of no use (unless I'm missing something from them?): should they be amended if purchasing from third parties via Amazon or sites like this?

MH1927

UK Consumer Rights are against the Seller.

Using Marketplace you did not purchase from Amazon and you therefore have no rights against them.


Edited in an Error, Thanks Manxman

Manxman_in_exile

AIUI (I'm no expert) your consumer rights are against the person who sold you the goods. If you are buying from a third party (not Amazon) through Amazon Marketplace, your consumer rights are against that third party and not Amazon. (Someone will correct me if I'm wrong).


As the first reply to your post says, Amazon seem to have done something that they weren't obliged to by law.


What sort of change do you think is required? If you buy a car advertised on AutoTrader (or wherever) and it turns out to be duff, do you want to sue Auto Trader?

Manxman_in_exile

MH1927 wrote: »

UK Consumer Rights are against the Seller.

Using Marketplace you did not purchase from Amazon and you therefore have rights against them.

Did you mean "...no rights..."?

LilElvis

What remedy you were entitled to would also depend upon how long it was after the date of purchase that you informed the seller/ Amazon of the faults.

reward70

Hi,

Thanks for replies so far. In reply:

Regards reply to MH1927:
That's the point of my post: I'm not clear on this myself. I thought that if Amazon is selling the item in the UK, as they presumably make a profit (from either the buyer/seller/both) they take responsibility it's sale and thereby are responsible for UK Consumer rights laws

Regards reply to Manxman in exile:

I thought the 'person' who sold the goods was Amazon (purchased via their shop/website) and that they are ultimately the seller. I'm confused regards consumer rights when it involves a 'third party seller' aspect and is what I'd like to gain clarification upon. I presumed (it appears incorrectly from your reply and the first reply from BoGoF).
Regards Amazon's actions: seems good so far.
Regards law/rights: I remain confused although understand with clarity the point regards a car advertised on AutoTrader: if this is a similar concept, then at least with Auto-trader, it appears clear that Auto-trader is not the seller whereas with the Amazon website, all things sold seem to be 'mushed together'.

Perhaps that is all the clarity required and perhaps I need to be more observant however, I still think it's unclear.

reward70

In reply to LilElvis:

That's exactly the point: What remedy are consumers entitled to. The pack of cables were purchased December 2018. One by one they failed: from memory: one failed within two months but as I had four others, I did not think it worthwhile complaining. A second and a third cable then failed in short succession, at approximately six months from the point of purchase. I had meant to get in contact with Amazon services at this point however, I was too busy in general. The fourth failed approximately four weeks ago. One continues to work (it is static, having never been moved from the same position).

From the SADFART guidance, I don't think it unreasonable to think that cables should last for a longer time period than approximately 8 months. Obviously, this all depends upon what is a reasonable length of time to think the cables should last.

Manxman_in_exile

I've never bought anything on Amazon, let alone Amazon Marketplace, but I'm aware that sellers on the Marketplace don't necessarily have any connection (if any at all) with Amazon.


I would have thought that you must be able to identify the seller before clicking "Add to basket" or whatever. Are you saying it's not clear from the website? As I say, I never go there.

LilElvis

reward70 wrote: »

In reply to LilElvis:

That's exactly the point: What remedy are consumers entitled to. The pack of cables were purchased December 2018. One by one they failed: from memory: one failed within two months but as I had four others, I did not think it worthwhile complaining. A second and a third cable then failed in short succession, at approximately six months from the point of purchase. I had meant to get in contact with Amazon services at this point however, I was too busy in general. The fourth failed approximately four weeks ago. One continues to work (it is static, having never been moved from the same position).

From the SADFART guidance, I don't think it unreasonable to think that cables should last for a longer time period than approximately 8 months. Obviously, this all depends upon what is a reasonable length of time to think the cables should last.

As you only reported the fault after more than six months from purchase then the onus was actually on you to prove that the cables failed due to an inherent fault rather than misuse, accidental damage etc. Having proved such a fault then it would have been up to the seller whether they wished to repair, replace or refund - and any refund could have been reduced to reflect the period of use which you did have. As for the potential longevity of the product none of us can guess what would be seen as reasonable as we don't know how much you paid - though it wouldn't be anywhere near as long for cheap ones as the genuine Apple cables - a couple of pounds versus £19 so six months might actually be a fair lifespan.

As your rights were against the seller, you were not asked to prove an inherent fault and you weren't entitled to a full refund Amazon appear to have been more than generous in providing you with a full refund.