Right to reject after 1 failed repair attempt? UPDATE: retailer saying they can just keep repairing

arthurfowler

Hi, can someone help let me know if I am correct? 
If there has been a failed repair attempt, the consumer has the right to reject the goods after only one attempt, is that right? 
I have so far afforded them two attempts, but am becoming exasperated and would prefer just to take the depreciated value (13 months) of the TV. 
Which doesn't specifically mention one, but the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 24 says:

(5)A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations—

(a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted
I would prefer a repair, but they haven't managed to repair it so far and the process is horrible. 

UPDATE:
Currys are now saying two things: 
The repair centre have not decided whether to repair again or provide the depreciated value of the TV. If they decide not to give me the depreciated value of the TV, they will repair as many times as they like. 

The guy kept on saying that they only need to provide the depreciated value within the first 12 months. After that they can repair over and over. 
I was telling him he was wrong (was he?). There is no mention of this being in the first 12 months on Consumer Rights Act. 

The depreciated value they offered was £180 from a £369 TV (owned for 13 months). I asked how they got to that calculation. He said it's the value of the TV over the 5 years, divided by how many months I have owned it. So £369/60 months * 13 months = £79.95 depreciation. I said this to him and he said it's calculated by another team, they take 2-3 weeks to get back to you etc etc. 

Can someone tell me if I am correct?

neilmcl

Yes, this is correct. You are legally entitled to enact your final right to reject after their single attempt of repair.

The toughening of the law was brought in as a response to prevent consumers buying "lemons", ie, goods that spent more times getting repaired than used.

arthurfowler

Thank you. I should add that I bought this as a gift and whilst the delivery address is correct, the billing address on the invoice is not my name or address. It is a family member. This was paid via credit card. I never realised until now, but I imagine that may pose problems trying to get any kind of refund? I didn't even know a payment could go through with the incorrect name and address!

Sandtree

So you were the giver or recipient of the gift? You posts suggest either could be the answer.

The statutory rights are with the person that entered into the contract and so the named buyer/billing address not the recipient.

As to payments -v- names and addresses.... this is somewhat dependent on a combination of the size of the vendor and their merchant services provider. Legally speaking you need to do almost nothing in terms of validation but the less checks you do and the more chargebacks and fraud cases you get the higher the fees you get charged for accepting payments. If you are small then your merchant services provider may give you no wriggle room and say you have to agree the Address Verification Scheme etc.

Back in my day, which was a fair time ago, the only checks beyond the numbers being correct was AVS and that only checked that the numerical elements were correct so both 5 Bobby Street, Worcester, WR3 5DS and 5 Fraudster Row, Birmingham B3 5QA would pass AVS. Names were not checkable in those days either... things may have approved since then though.

arthurfowler

Sorry, yes, I am the giver. 
I called CC company and they said I will have to wait and see. I will possibly have to get the recipient to speak to the retailer and give their card details to get any potential refund. Which is not the worst thing in the world, but not ideal! What's odd is that I initially wanted the warranty in the recipient's name and retailer said they couldn't do it, but now it has ended up that it is indeed in their name, when I would prefer in mine. Oh the irony. 

arthurfowler

UPDATE:
Currys are now saying two things: 
The repair centre have not decided whether to repair again or provide the depreciated value of the TV. If they decide not to give me the depreciated value of the TV, they will repair as many times as they like. 

The guy kept on saying that they only need to provide the depreciated value within the first 12 months. After that they can repair over and over. 
I was telling him he was wrong (was he?). There is no mention of this being in the first 12 months on Consumer Rights Act. 

The depreciated value they offered was £180 from a £369 TV (owned for 13 months). I asked how they got to that calculation. He said it's the value of the TV over the 5 years, divided by how many months I have owned it. So £369/60 months * 13 months = £79.95 depreciation. I said this to him and he said it's calculated by another team, they take 2-3 weeks to get back to you etc etc. 

Can someone tell me if I am correct?

Sandtree

They can keep repairing it as many times as they want unless you exercise your "final right to reject" under the CRA which is not time bound beyond the normal law of limitations.

A linear depreciation over an expected lifetime is not an unreasonable mechanism to calculate the value you've had from the item to date. There can be some argument over if 5 years is the appropriate timescale but for a fairly budget TV I wouldnt be arguing too hard over it. 

Manxman_in_exile

arthurfowler said:

Sorry, yes, I am the giver. 
I called CC company and they said I will have to wait and see. I will possibly have to get the recipient to speak to the retailer and give their card details to get any potential refund. ...

I've only skimmed this thread so I may be confused, but what have the recipient's card details got to do with the refund?  If you bought the item (as a gift for someone else) it is you who is entitled to the refund, not the recipient.  Once you have your refund you buy a replacement gift - if you still want to.

arthurfowler

Sandtree said:

They can keep repairing it as many times as they want unless you exercise your "final right to reject" under the CRA which is not time bound beyond the normal law of limitations.

A linear depreciation over an expected lifetime is not an unreasonable mechanism to calculate the value you've had from the item to date. There can be some argument over if 5 years is the appropriate timescale but for a fairly budget TV I wouldnt be arguing too hard over it. 

The 5 years was actually claimed by the agent on the phone to me. If that is how it's calculated, I don't understand how a 50% depreciation is valid.

It was a budget TV. But to lose half it's value in 13 months is what I don't understand. 

The other issue is yes, they are telling me they have not decided as to whether to keep repairing... 

Sorry, I should have made my earlier post clearer. I would have been happy with a £79 reduced value based on how they claimed to calculate it.

However they have only offered £180 for a £369 TV purchased 13 months ago. That is over 50%. 

Sandtree

They've made a simple error, the £79 is what they deduct from the refund to reflect use not what you get as the refund otherwise the longer you have it the more you get.

arthurfowler

What they have offered is £180 and not £79. 
£79 is the calculation off the original value I have the agent over the phone based on how he told me they calculate the reduced value. 

But he simply said that was their decision. Irrespective of this, he also says they also have not decided as to whether to just keep repairing. He said a call back from that team can take 2-3 weeks. So I am unsure what to do next. Should I go to my credit card company and ask them to interject?