Returning a product "Not as described"

Bungles976

arthurfowler said:

I don't know what tests they did, but unless they used it for the 20 hours with your scenario, I don't see how their battery tests could prove you wrong. 

They spent roughly half an hour with it testing the battery to make sure the battery wasn't faulty.

That came back as passing all the test for it therefore in their opinion there was no fault.
My argument with them then (and still is) regardless of if the battery passed the test, it still doesn't match the advertised potential battery life.

Bungles976

user1977 said:

Bungles976 said:

Sandtree said:
I assume you bought it direct from Samsung seeing as thats who you've been engaging with? If they are the manufacturer but you bought it from say Amazon then the below is irrelevant and you havent stopped the clock.

Bought from a Samsung Store, was originally talking direct with Samsung Customer Services. But then moved on to Partner Retail Services Limited who are the third party that operate the stores 

In which case you ought to be dealing purely with Partner Retail Services Ltd, as they're the retailer.

I am now, and have been for the last week.

However, after acknowledging the initial email they are now ignoring them.

Im going back to the store on Friday.... 3rd time lucky I hope.

robatwork

I'm marking this thread for updates so please let us know how it goes.

Maybe you can be a Supreme Court test case as to the legal validity of "Up to xxx".

Bungles976

Just a quick update following several more emails (With no response)

I had a call direct from the store manager who said that they should HAVE accepted the return based on the battery life not being what was advertised.....

HOWEVER

As I am now outside the 30 day window that the 2015 Act allows for they will not issue a refund and the best they can do is run a test to check for faults, and then repair if they find any.

I asked him to put that in an email to me and he refused as believe he knew that he had shot himself in the foot saying that. Wish I had a way of recording phone calls!

I can see the joys of several more emails, and copying in everyone and anyone that I can think may have some impact on the decision.

Alderbank

Bungles976 said:

As I am now outside the 30 day window that the 2015 Act allows for...

Doesn't matter.
The clock stops at the point when you tell them you wish to return it. That was at about day 15?

Think about it - how effective would the law be if the retailer could just ignore you until after the 30 day window had expired and then say 'Gotcha, you're time barred!'

Bungles976

I agree, the problem I have is it was just in a phone call, no way I can prove that they said it.

And the fact he wouldn't put that comment in an email tells me that there is no way he would admit that they said it

Alderbank

It's when you make the request that counts.
I understand that your first attempts were face to face or by phone so you only have your word as evidence for them.
However you also said:

Spoke to customer services again on 17th January, who again agreed with me that it should be accepted as a return and even put it in a email to me.
On the 24th January I forwarded that email and my timeline of trying to return the watch to Partner Retail Services who look after the Samsung Stores. 

Those emails of 17 and 24 Jan are clear evidence that you requested a return within the 30 days.

Bungles976

I agree, I stopped the clock.

I mean there will be no way in getting him to admit that he said they should have accepted the return.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Bungles976 said:

I know the "Up to" reference is a very vague term. But surely they have some responsibility to be semi accurate. Otherwise they could advertise the battery lasts up to 100 hours, but then if it actually doesn't and only lasts 1 hour it still in the bracket....

Also for comparison, my now 2 and half year old Samsung watch was advertised as "up to 3 days battery life - typical usage..."
When it was brand new I would get 2.5-3 days battery life depending on how I used it.

I think my other issue is expectation v reality.
I wouldnt mind if say I was getting 30-35 hours and had half the features turned on. I wouldn't expect to get 40 hours every single charge.

But I also wouldn't expect to have to turn off 80% of the features of the watch to then only get half the potential battery life.

The get out is 'typical use'.  What is the definition of that term?  It's sufficiently vague to allow a counter claim that your personal use exceeds what is typical, therefore the battery life is to be expected to reduce.  I'd presume that most people are expected to simply wear the watch and do something with it every couple of hours; although I cannot speak from personal experience as all my watches are simple timepieces.  

Bungles976

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The get out is 'typical use'.  What is the definition of that term?  It's sufficiently vague to allow a counter claim that your personal use exceeds what is typical, therefore the battery life is to be expected to reduce.  

I agree it's a get out. But that's part of my argument with them.
Having to turn off 80% of the features is surely less than typical usage...