**Confronting Currys' obstruction of UK consumer rights: information needed/appreciated**

Cark

Apologies for further update, but another response to my OP seems to have come in while I was struggling to write today's post. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of that post, but can assure the poster that Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not automatically kick in just because a credit card holder rings up the card provider to allege that good s purchased on that card have turned out to be unfit for purpose.

As with much else about consumer legislation, there's long been a tendency on MSE for some to think that just because a County Court exists, or just because Section 75 exists, they're the route to getting problems sorted to a complainant's advantage.

The assumption is ill-founded: credit card companies will not refund a product purchase price under Section 75 on the word of the card holder. Mindful of the 2015 legislation, all credit card companies invoke an investigative rigmarole, this to establish that the cardholder hasn't simply changed her/his mind about the goods, and has invented various "faults" so as to avoid having to pay for the cost of returning the item, a cost which, in the case of a large heavy item, can often be considerable.

If in our case we had a new TV set which simply wouldn't switch on, then so rare and so simple a technical issue might in theory  be dealt with instantly. As the situation in our case is far wider than an elementary product failure but also embraces evidence of retailer failure of duty under the terms of the consumer legislation, Section 75 recourse is, unfortunately,  inappropriate.

Cark

powerful_Rogue said:

Or use the webchat option to arrange curry's to collect the item.

As mentioned in the OP, Webchat is not available / isn't functioning.

Cark

Diamandis said:

I'm sure if you still asked on the phone they would help. 

As made abundantly clear in my OP, Currrys says it will not deal with a question of return/refund over the phone. That being the case, there's no-one at Currys to actually talk to on the phone.

If there was, I wouldn't need to be penning such a lengthy post on MSE.

theonlywayisup

Cark said:

Apologies for further update, but another response to my OP seems to have come in while I was struggling to write today's post. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of that post, but can assure the poster that Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not automatically kick in just because a credit card holder rings up the card provider to allege that good s purchased on that card have turned out to be unfit for purpose.

As with much else about consumer legislation, there's long been a tendency on MSE for some to think that just because a County Court exists, or just because Section 75 exists, they're the route to getting problems sorted to a complainant's advantage.

The assumption is ill-founded: credit card companies will not refund a product purchase price under Section 75 on the word of the card holder. Mindful of the 2015 legislation, all credit card companies invoke an investigative rigmarole, this to establish that the cardholder hasn't simply changed her/his mind about the goods, and has invented various "faults" so as to avoid having to pay for the cost of returning the item, a cost which, in the case of a large heavy item, can often be considerable.

If in our case we had a new TV set which simply wouldn't switch on, then so rare and so simple a technical issue might in theory  be dealt with instantly. As the situation in our case is far wider than an elementary product failure but also embraces evidence of retailer failure of duty under the terms of the consumer legislation, Section 75 recourse is, unfortunately,  inappropriate.

Goodness me.  I said.

How did you pay?  Read the article on this site regarding Section 75 and Chargeback. 

I neither said S75 'automatically kicks in' or that the merchant will refund 'on the word of the cardholder'.  

As you haven't said what the issue is we can only guess at what remedies may be relevant, hence why I told you to read the article.  

born_again

Cark said:

The assumption is ill-founded: credit card companies will not refund a product purchase price under Section 75 on the word of the card holder. Mindful of the 2015 legislation, all credit card companies invoke an investigative rigmarole, this to establish that the cardholder hasn't simply changed her/his mind about the goods, and has invented various "faults" so as to avoid having to pay for the cost of returning the item, a cost which, in the case of a large heavy item, can often be considerable.

If in our case we had a new TV set which simply wouldn't switch on, then so rare and so simple a technical issue might in theory  be dealt with instantly. 

So you expect a full refund on your say so, without any proof of a fault. 
As someone who works in this field, we do believe what a customer says. But you have to evidence the fault so it can be assessed.
If the fault is as you say, then it would be a simple case of getting a 3rd party TV repairer to look at it and give you a report stating the issue.

So this TV has been faulty since you got it on 24/11  less than a month?

Manxman_in_exile

Cark said:

...

I made it clear in my OP I was looking for help assistance / advice in tracking down Currys senior management. ...

I suspect that that simple request got lost in your first post of over 1,000 words (excluding screenshots)

pmduk

You do realise such letters to senior executives of most large companies are automatically diverted to customer services?

KeithP

Just a simple question...

When presented with the following screen, you told us that none of the options offered were appropriate.

Why did you decide 'other' wasn't a suitable option?

Gavin83

I’m starting to get really hacked off with people starting threads on this forum with extremely bad attitudes and providing minimal information. If you simply wanted to know what the next steps were when you’re unable to contact Curry’s then surely the original post could have been shortened to a few lines.

Anyway it appears you received the answers you wanted and you seem clear on your rights so I wish you the best of luck in getting the resolution you hope for.

Manxman_in_exile

KeithP said:

Just a simple question...

When presented with the following screen, you told us that none of the options offered were appropriate.

Why did you decide 'other' wasn't a suitable option?

Most people here would think that a reasonable question - but I suspect the OP will berate you for not staying on topic...