Very.co.uk sent me a laptop with cracked screen, how long should refund take?

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

...
The issue with this is the trader can reduce the refund for diminished value for excessive handling (subject to required information) and the question is likely to be asked as to why damage to an expensive item wasn't mentioned casting the impression it was the consumer who damaged the goods rather than them arriving in this condition.
...

Ah.  That's a good point about possibly reducing the refund for "excessive handling".  Hadn't considered that.

But i'm not convinced it makes a difference.  If it were me I'd be 100% open about it and be telling the trader that despite the fact that the goods were delivered to me "absolutely smashed to pieces" that I was still exercising my right to cancel/withdraw from the contract under the distance selling regs (for want of a better description) rather than because the goods did not conform under the CRA.

Whichever way the consumer tries to get a refund (either by cancellation or by "not conforming") they still have to persuade either the seller or a court that the goods arrived in that faulty condition.  (I think       ).

But it's all a bit academic as it's really only talking about a few days one way or the other to get a refund.

And just to make it clear  -  I think the OP is being a little bit impatient.  (Which is not to say that they should not pursue Very very vigourously for a refund... )

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The CRA does state the refund must be without undue delay and as Manxman says in any event within 14 days beginning with the day on which the trader agrees that the consumer is entitled to a refund both of which could be subjective depending upon the circumstances. 

To my mind, that point should be either the minute you inform them the goods they delivered were faulty OR, if I'm being generous, the moment the good arrive back with them.  I would argue that should their subsequent examinations suggest/prove that the fault/damage was caused by the purchaser, then that would be the point to start processes to either reduce or cancel the refund.   I.e. The same principle as innocent until proven guilty - if the purchaser tells the retailer they've delivered faulty goods  (and wants a refund) the retailer should accept.

Three weeks after receipt of the returned goods it just ridiculous.  I get that departments can get busy but it shouldn't be on the purchaser to bear the inconvenience of the retailers failure to either deliver functional goods or to staff up their returns department adequately. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The CRA does state the refund must be without undue delay and as Manxman says in any event within 14 days beginning with the day on which the trader agrees that the consumer is entitled to a refund both of which could be subjective depending upon the circumstances. 

To my mind, that point should be either the minute you inform them the goods they delivered were faulty OR, if I'm being generous, the moment the good arrive back with them.  I would argue that should their subsequent examinations suggest/prove that the fault/damage was caused by the purchaser, then that would be the point to start processes to either reduce or cancel the refund.   I.e. The same principle as innocent until proven guilty - if the purchaser tells the retailer they've delivered faulty goods  (and wants a refund) the retailer should accept.

Three weeks after receipt of the returned goods it just ridiculous.  I get that departments can get busy but it shouldn't be on the purchaser to bear the inconvenience of the retailers failure to either deliver functional goods or to staff up their returns department adequately. 

In principle I agree with you that a big retailer could sort something like this out much quicker, the issue for the OP is that when exercising the short term right to reject for a refund it isn't taken the goods didn't conform so the retailer can inspect them (well they could inspect them anyway but would specifically be looking to demonstrate they did conform which comes with providing a remedy within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience). If OP wasn't going down the short term right to reject then there is the option of a repair or replacement before a refund. 

The other issue is even if Very agreed the screen was damaged, say in transit, and agreed the OP could return for a refund, in the extra 7 days they are being told to wait there isn't anything they can do* in such a short time to force the refund other than bug Very. A case of having rights but perhaps it not being practical to enforce them or perhaps a case of poor service rather than than any specific breach of consumer rights when factoring in the short term right to reject requirements. 

*OP may have recourse with their card company beyond their consumer rights.