Do I lose my consumer rights if I accept a partial refund for a faultly product?

Darryl93

I purchased a bed from LaRedoute which was described as solid oak. Shortly after assembling, we noticed that the side panels are peeling as they are oak veneer not solid oak. LaRedoute have offered a refund or replacement if I return the bed to them, however I do not wish to desemble and do without a bed until they replace. I mentioned that I would accept a partial refund which they have now offered, however they state that if I accept the partial refund then I cannot return the bed if there are any further faults. Is this appropriate as I would still expect to be covered if there are any further unrelated faults? 

bris

They set the terms, they offered a solution which you either accept or reject.

As the bed is faulty, not as described they should however arrange the return to them and not making you do it.

You should only need to make the bed available for collection.

Try reminding them of this, it might get you a better partial refund. 

MarvinDay

bris said:

They set the terms, they offered a solution which you either accept or reject.

However, they terms they have set are illegal as by stating that the OP cannot attempt to claim for any further faults, they are attempting to deny them their statutory rights.
It might be permissible for them to base the partial refund on the OP not being able to claim for any further veneer peeling off but they can't impose a ban on them claiming for other faults that may arise.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP when the goods do not conform to the contract you have the right to a repair or replacement, where that doesn't happen for whatever reason you then have the final right to reject or the right to a price reduction.

Your situation reads as if you and the retailer have agreed that it isn't possible to make the goods conform (as they don't have a solid oak bed or perhaps supplying one would be disproportionately expensive) and you are exercising your right to accept the goods with their faults in exchange for a price reduction.

It is only my take on the legislation but, a price reduction appears to be a final remedy so if further issues develop you no longer have any consumer rights and perhaps may wish to attempt to haggle for a better reduction to allow for this consideration or satisfy yourself that the bed of of sufficient build quality to last as long as it should. 

MarvinDay

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It is only my take on the legislation but, a price reduction appears to be a final remedy so if further issues develop you no longer have any consumer rights and perhaps may wish to attempt to haggle for a better reduction to allow for this 

If that was the case, imagine the following.
You buy a new car for £50,000 but when you go to collect it, you notice a few blemishes on part of the interior trim so you complain to the dealer.
It turns out that a replacement trim panel may takes months to get hold of so the dealer asks if you would be willing to accept a partial refund of £200 to take the car as it is and you accept.

5 or 6 months down the line, the gearbox seizes due to an internal manufacturing defect but because you accepted a £200 price reduction for the faulty trim, you would have no legal comeback against the dealer for the gearbox.

There's nothing stated in the CRA that states that accepting a price reduction means that you give up your right to claim for any further faults that may occur in the future.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

MarvinDay said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It is only my take on the legislation but, a price reduction appears to be a final remedy so if further issues develop you no longer have any consumer rights and perhaps may wish to attempt to haggle for a better reduction to allow for this 

There's nothing stated in the CRA that states that accepting a price reduction means that you give up your right to claim for any further faults that may occur in the future.

The regs do state that the consumer may exercise one, not both, i.e if you accept a price reduction you can not then exercise the final right to reject. 

This would only leave the option of further price reductions but there is no mention of further price reductions for additional aspects not conforming to contract, plus the price reduction may be up to the full value of the contract, so the section reads to me as being final, I may very well be incorrect, sadly the guidance notes don't appear to answer this either, it would be interesting to know a definitive answer. 

MarvinDay

To be honest, I'm surprised that there isn't something about this either in the CRA or the guidance notes as a partial price reduction/partial refund is something that does get offered fairly often.

I did find this:
https://www.fsp-law.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/
which I know is only one law related website out of a great many and there may well be others with a different opinion but this is what they state:

Whilst there is no specific rule, it is anticipated that the reduction should reflect the difference in value between what the consumer paid and the value of what they actually got (it is suggested that if the buyer accepts a reduction in respect of a particular fault, that does not prevent them from pursuing the full range of remedies for any further fault which emerges).

Darryl93

Thanks all for the responses. We went back to LaRedoute saying that we do not believe their suggestion is appropriate and that the CRA doesn't state that accepting a price reduction would mean that we give up our rights to claim for any further fault that might occur. We also said that if they are seeking a final settlement whereby we would forfeit our statutory rights then we would expect the settlement sum offered to cover this additional factor along with the existing fault and the fact that the bed was not as advertised. LaRedoute then responded apologising for any confusion and confirmed that accepting the refund would not affect our statutory rights. Problem solved.