Bathroom Taps Refund 'dispute'

LK80

Hi All,

Looking for some advice on and perhaps perspective, on a faulty item refund issue.

We bought 3 taps from soak.com in April 2019 (although not relevant they were then installed in May/June 2019) - just to confirm this was an internet purchase which was delivered to our home. They were paid for by debit card.

In the last couple of months they have started to pit/rust and we sent photos to soak.com asking for a refund or similar.

The initial claim was for 2 of the 3 taps and soak offered us a replacement or refund, we opted for a refund. They subsequently told us that they would take £50 off because the intial order (which included other items) had qualified for a £50 discount and the refund takes it back under the threshold for that offer.

The latest status is that I have responded asking for the full value (and now including the 3rd tap as it's also now showing the early signs of pitting).

My question is: is it fair or right to take back the £50 considering we feel that as all the taps are faulty we wouldn't trust a replacement set so have no choice but to get a refund. Further more when we eventually replace the taps we will have to pay for the labour to do so, therefore we see it as a contribution to something that is ultimately going to cost us!

Any thoughts/guidance very much welcomed!

KatrinaWaves

If your order no longer qualifies for the discount then yes, they can do that.

societys_child

Are you asking if you should get back £50 more than you actually paid?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

societys_child wrote: »

Are you asking if you should get back £50 more than you actually paid?

I think the OP means at the time it was spend £300 and get £50 off.

3 taps were £125 each meaning £375 minus £50 was spent and the retailer want to refund £125 x 2 minus £50.

Personally I'd expect the refund to be £125 x 2 minus two thirds of £50.

(Figures made up for example)

It's not clear if OP has to return the taps? If the retailer isn't asking for a return I wouldn't argue about the refund amount as they are going above what they are required to do.

LK80

Hi all,

Thank you for the replies. To clarify the taps were £180 of a total spend of about £350.

They won't be asking us to return the taps (they are already fitted and would no doubt be damaged in removal).

I get the feeling, from the responses, that soak.com are being fairly accommodating and we should accept their offer it was only that it initially felt like we were losing out on a discount we had been given because of a fault on their part... a fault that ultimately will lead to us paying someone to fit the new taps in the coming months (yes I accept the cost of the taps will be covered by their refund) and even if we had accepted their replacement taps we would still be paying for labour (something they made clear they would not cover).

bris

Ok so with the refund of £180 that leave your spend with them at £170, well below the £300 threshold.


You no longer qualify for the £50 discount.

LK80

Ok thanks for the response. Thankfully my maths ability is adequate enough to have come to that conclusion but I was more interested in the opinion of whether the £50 additional refund could be seen as compensation for the supply of a product that I feel is 'not fit for purpose' and that, no matter what, will end up costing us more because we will have to pay for refitting the taps sooner rather than later. Thanks for the responses I will look to see how this thread can be closed.

Donhilton

If I was soak. I would either request photos or returns.Maybe even engineer report as you could have damage the taps yourself.i don't understand how all 3 have turned out like this. I feel op is using them unresponsiably.

shaun_from_Africa

Donhilton wrote: »

i don't understand how all 3 have turned out like this.

It's very feasible for all 3 of the taps to be showing the same problem if they were all made at the same time.
All it would need is for there to be a manufacturing defect (such as the base metal not being prepared properly or any chrome/zinc plating not being applied correctly) and if this was the case then all of the taps would probably start showing problems around the same time.

Donhilton wrote: »

If I was soak. I would either request photos or returns.

The OP has already sent photographs of the taps and as Soak have agreed a refund, they have obviously accepted that there is a problem which wasn't down to misuse.

Donhilton

They are not leaking so are good quality.

shaun_from_Africa

Donhilton wrote: »

They are not leaking so are good quality.

They have started to pit/rust within 6 months of being fitted so I would suggest that they are far from being good quality.