John Pye

sharpeydl

Hi all,

I recently bought three items from John Pye Auctions. One I returned and got a refund because they didn't allow anyone to view the item. Another one was a TV where they gave a three month guarantee. And the third one a coffee machine that had a John Lewis price tag on so was clearly ex display not second hand or a returned item. I didn't view it before buying but it is working perfectly (six weeks of pretty heavy use). 

I saw a previous thread now closed on this company and their business model. The consensus was that consumer law did not apply because the goods are second hand and people have an opportunity to view the items. I have a few questions though as I don't want to recommend this company to others if I've just been lucky. 

Firstly does the Consumer Credit Act 1974 still apply to goods bought via John Pye's online auction? 

Secondly does putting a picture on a lot with a John Lewis price tag and/or listing the item as "John Lewis" create a reasonable expectation that the item is new and not second hand? And if yes does that mean consumer protection law applies as the buyer had a reasonable expectation that the item is new and not second hand? 

Many thanks in advance! 

y3sitsm3

I'm not sure why you would think the CCA would apply.  Presumably if you don't pay you don't get the goods.  There is no element of credit on offer.

Having a JL price tag on it means nothing, other than it being in a JL store at some point.  John Pye make it quite clear these are returns and ex-display.  Presumably it is the latter, not new.

sharpeydl

I thought the CCA would apply as I paid for the item on a credit card. 

Also ex-display is new, it hasn't been used. 

y3sitsm3

sharpeydl said:

I thought the CCA would apply as I paid for the item on a credit card. 

Also ex-display is new, it hasn't been used. 

You'd get S75 protection if the item cost between £100 and £30000 but that only gives you the same rights against the finance company as the retailer.

Ex-display is not new.  It's been manhandled by countless people.  If it was new there wouldn't be a discount for ex-display items.  They make it clear what they're selling.  Returns and ex-display.  Not new.

RFW

sharpeydl said:

Secondly does putting a picture on a lot with a John Lewis price tag and/or listing the item as "John Lewis" create a reasonable expectation that the item is new and not second hand? And if yes does that mean consumer protection law applies as the buyer had a reasonable expectation that the item is new and not second hand? 

No. Why would it? If anything it gives the impression that it is a second. If it was new and perfect and had a John Lewis label on it would still be being sold by John Lewis. The fact that it is in an auction suggests it is not in any way new. Oddly enough, even if the item is brand new and perfect it is generally considered "seconds" when sold in an auction.

As someone who used to be an auctioneer I have sold many items that had retailer labels on that would be anything from a totally damaged reject (considered to be sold for spare parts only) to brand new items. The onus is on the buyer to check, if there isn't a reasonable way to check then I'd consider the worst case scenario and not bid unless that was something I wanted.

Whilst you may have some legal protection you'd need to discuss that with a third party. Ask Trading Standards via your local council.

RFW

Just as an insight. For a while we had a contract with a large retail chain. It wasn't John Lewis and I don't know if it's the same here, it probably isn't.

What would happen is that the retailer would send us overstocks and returns. In electricals it was usually returns. They were untested. There could be anything from a minor scratch where everything was working, to a massive fault that couldn't be repaired.  We paid a percentage of the retail value and then sold the items in auction. We had no say in what we received and generally had no time to check items, we stuck a label on and sold them.

It's likely that most auctioneers don't know what they are selling. Although there are laws regarding safety for electrical items, so it depends how the items are listed for sale.

sharpeydl

y3sitsm3 said:

Ex-display is not new.  It's been manhandled by countless people.  If it was new there wouldn't be a discount for ex-display items.  They make it clear what they're selling.  Returns and ex-display.  Not new.

Sorry but this isn't a mint condition coin. A coffee machine in a JL store has never been used, it's never been plugged in. It's a fully automatic one so no manual mechanisms for people to play about with. As it has never been plugged in let alone made a single cup of coffee I don't see how it can be used. It's purpose is to make coffee and it had never done that. I think you could argue in a small claims court that it is new and an expectation had been created with a JL price tag on it in the pictures that it was ex display and had therefore never been used, hence new. 

The problem with John Pye Auctions is that they lump returns, ex display and second hand all in the same auction. If they separated the items then people would know what they are buying. All they'd have to do is ask the retailer which category the item falls in. Even if they made sure the pictures were actually of the item instead of having a T&C that states the pictures might not be of the actual item then that would make it less of a lottery. 

I feel very lucky that the pictures online were of my coffee machine and that it is working perfectly! 

theonlywayisup

sharpeydl said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Ex-display is not new.  It's been manhandled by countless people.  If it was new there wouldn't be a discount for ex-display items.  They make it clear what they're selling.  Returns and ex-display.  Not new.

I think you could argue in a small claims court that it is new and an expectation had been created with a JL price tag on it in the pictures that it was ex display and had therefore never been used, hence new. 

The only expectation of this being new with a JL price label is when you buy it from JL.  Period.

It is not new but you don't seem to want to be convinced.   Ex display is not new, it is [drum roll] ex display. 

y3sitsm3

sharpeydl said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Ex-display is not new.  It's been manhandled by countless people.  If it was new there wouldn't be a discount for ex-display items.  They make it clear what they're selling.  Returns and ex-display.  Not new.

Sorry but this isn't a mint condition coin. A coffee machine in a JL store has never been used, it's never been plugged in. It's a fully automatic one so no manual mechanisms for people to play about with. As it has never been plugged in let alone made a single cup of coffee I don't see how it can be used. It's purpose is to make coffee and it had never done that. I think you could argue in a small claims court that it is new and an expectation had been created with a JL price tag on it in the pictures that it was ex display and had therefore never been used, hence new. 

The problem with John Pye Auctions is that they lump returns, ex display and second hand all in the same auction. If they separated the items then people would know what they are buying. All they'd have to do is ask the retailer which category the item falls in. Even if they made sure the pictures were actually of the item instead of having a T&C that states the pictures might not be of the actual item then that would make it less of a lottery. 

I feel very lucky that the pictures online were of my coffee machine and that it is working perfectly! 

It's NOT new.  This isn't difficult.

If you went into JL and they tried to fob you off with the display model at full price you'd be spitting feathers because it's not new. It's been handled by countless customers and likely has some wear and tear to prove it. The fact that nobody has made a cup of coffee with it doesn't magically make it new.

sharpeydl

"BUYERS' RIGHTS: CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 – WHAT CAN THE BUYER EXPECT?

The buyer is entitled to goods that are:

• as described
• of satisfactory quality
• fit for their purpose, including any specific purpose made known to the seller
• yours to sell (for example, not stolen or still on hire purchase)

WHAT IF THE GOODS FAIL TO MEET THE ABOVE STANDARDS?

If the goods fail to meet these standards when a consumer receives and inspects them, or within the first 30 days after delivery, they can reject them. When a consumer rejects goods, they can claim a full refund, including all postage costs, plus compensation for any other reasonable losses they incur. This can include the extra cost of buying a satisfactory replacement elsewhere, or compensation for any damage caused by the goods."

This is from a County Council Trading standards department entitled "Internet auction sites and marketplaces" - https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/businessadvice/goodsandservices/internetauctions

So John Pye does have to sell products that work unless they state it doesn't work and is just sold as parts. There's no distinction between new and second hand goods. I'd argue an item such as a coffee machine that didn't make coffee because it is broken wouldn't meet the "fit for purpose" test. 

y3sitsm3

sharpeydl said:

"BUYERS' RIGHTS: CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 – WHAT CAN THE BUYER EXPECT?

The buyer is entitled to goods that are:

• as described
• of satisfactory quality
• fit for their purpose, including any specific purpose made known to the seller
• yours to sell (for example, not stolen or still on hire purchase)

WHAT IF THE GOODS FAIL TO MEET THE ABOVE STANDARDS?

If the goods fail to meet these standards when a consumer receives and inspects them, or within the first 30 days after delivery, they can reject them. When a consumer rejects goods, they can claim a full refund, including all postage costs, plus compensation for any other reasonable losses they incur. This can include the extra cost of buying a satisfactory replacement elsewhere, or compensation for any damage caused by the goods."

This is from a County Council Trading standards department entitled "Internet auction sites and marketplaces" - https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/businessadvice/goodsandservices/internetauctions

So John Pye does have to sell products that work unless they state it doesn't work and is just sold as parts. There's no distinction between new and second hand goods. I'd argue an item such as a coffee machine that didn't make coffee because it is broken wouldn't meet the "fit for purpose" test. 

But your coffee maker does make coffee.  What on earth are you going on about?

It's also worth noting that you have no consumer rights against John Pye unless they also happened to own the goods they're selling or took it upon themselves to misrepresent them. Your rights (if you have any) would be against whoever put the lot up for sale. If they're not a business your rights would essentially be non-existent unless they misdescribed the item (which is NOT the same as not saying it's broken.)