EU legacy 2 year consumer rights cover

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Straightbat said:

Update and first thanks to all.  

It was an independent repair shop that told me about the EU 2 year cover malarkey.  Fortunately researching it led me to this site, the fount of all knowledge.  

I contacted the repair shop who had reckoned it was a common fault which would probably be repaired for £75 when they sent it off to confirm diagnosis and fix.  But in the nick of time after I got back to them they retrieved it just as it had been "heated up" ready to be opened. 

I have now had Currys response too, who sent me a letter specifying that they required the diagnostic report as described by a poster earlier in this thread (thank you).  I was pleasantly surprised at how readily apple are willing to provide these reports exactly as required by Currys, having run their own diagnostics first (which they had done before I took it to the repair shop).  So now I have the necessary documentation as requested by Curry's so that they can "look to provide a contribution towards a repair or replacement".

I just need to check what my rights are for the extent of the remedy - whether just a "contribution" is legal and how much it should be.

Currys will have to either repair, replace or refund. Which option they choose is upto them. 

Although it can come down to this, this isn't particularly correct.

If the OP acquires an inspection in their favour they have the right to a repair or replacement. 

If that is impossible, too expensive or the trader refuses then the OP has the right to a refund (subject to a reduction as you mentioned). 

Currys as a company know this but often with big companies rights and company policy can become blurred with staff advising customers what they've been told to say or what they interpret. 

If posters are armed with the correct info to remind the trader that they have the obligation in the first instance to repair/replace they are more likely to see the result they are entitled to. 

There is also a fourth option of a price reduction whilst keeping the goods, this should be the difference between what was paid for and what was received, in the event of ordering a 64GB device but getting a 32GB and the consumer arriving at a point where they are entitled to and wish for a price reduction then the value of that is obvious. 

With goods that require repair I think a logical deduction can be made that the current value of the goods is £x minus the cost of repair (well in fact the value is less than that as a trader would require some profit or a personal customer some aspect of a bargain for the trouble if acting as a buyer in that equation but I don't think that comes into play here). Thus seeking the cost of repair as a price reduction, assuming not too expensive, appears fair, particularly as that is an obligation the trader should have met to begin with.

With an iPad people may wish to retain the goods, or more importantly all the data on it, rather than be imposed with a refund and as their rights typically entitled them to that I think it's important for that right to be laid out fully and correctly  

You've near enough posted the same in your reply. You said if the report is in their favour they have the right to a repair or replacement. If the trader refuses then theyhave the right to a refund (subject to refund). - So it is the retailer that chooses! The customer can make a preference, but that's it.

Sorry but I'm afraid it's not near enough the same, you said

Currys will have to either repair, replace or refund. Which option they choose is upto them. 

Which implies if the trader offers a refund the customer must accept because it's the trader's choice. That is not correct and is very different to the correct information because the trader doesn't have a choice, they have an obligation and the consumer has a right. 

So just to repeat myself

Currys [or most big companies] as a company know this but often with big companies rights and company policy can become blurred with staff advising customers what they've been told to say or what they interpret. 

If posters are armed with the correct info to remind the trader that they have the obligation in the first instance to repair/replace they are more likely to see the result they are entitled to. 

Jenni_D

You're right ... but the effective impact is the same - the consumer can express a preference but ultimately the seller gets to choose the most cost-effective (to them) resolution, and the consumer may need to instigate legal action to get their remedy of choice.

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Straightbat said:

Update and first thanks to all.  

It was an independent repair shop that told me about the EU 2 year cover malarkey.  Fortunately researching it led me to this site, the fount of all knowledge.  

I contacted the repair shop who had reckoned it was a common fault which would probably be repaired for £75 when they sent it off to confirm diagnosis and fix.  But in the nick of time after I got back to them they retrieved it just as it had been "heated up" ready to be opened. 

I have now had Currys response too, who sent me a letter specifying that they required the diagnostic report as described by a poster earlier in this thread (thank you).  I was pleasantly surprised at how readily apple are willing to provide these reports exactly as required by Currys, having run their own diagnostics first (which they had done before I took it to the repair shop).  So now I have the necessary documentation as requested by Curry's so that they can "look to provide a contribution towards a repair or replacement".

I just need to check what my rights are for the extent of the remedy - whether just a "contribution" is legal and how much it should be.

Currys will have to either repair, replace or refund. Which option they choose is upto them. 

Although it can come down to this, this isn't particularly correct.

If the OP acquires an inspection in their favour they have the right to a repair or replacement. 

If that is impossible, too expensive or the trader refuses then the OP has the right to a refund (subject to a reduction as you mentioned). 

Currys as a company know this but often with big companies rights and company policy can become blurred with staff advising customers what they've been told to say or what they interpret. 

If posters are armed with the correct info to remind the trader that they have the obligation in the first instance to repair/replace they are more likely to see the result they are entitled to. 

There is also a fourth option of a price reduction whilst keeping the goods, this should be the difference between what was paid for and what was received, in the event of ordering a 64GB device but getting a 32GB and the consumer arriving at a point where they are entitled to and wish for a price reduction then the value of that is obvious. 

With goods that require repair I think a logical deduction can be made that the current value of the goods is £x minus the cost of repair (well in fact the value is less than that as a trader would require some profit or a personal customer some aspect of a bargain for the trouble if acting as a buyer in that equation but I don't think that comes into play here). Thus seeking the cost of repair as a price reduction, assuming not too expensive, appears fair, particularly as that is an obligation the trader should have met to begin with.

With an iPad people may wish to retain the goods, or more importantly all the data on it, rather than be imposed with a refund and as their rights typically entitled them to that I think it's important for that right to be laid out fully and correctly  

You've near enough posted the same in your reply. You said if the report is in their favour they have the right to a repair or replacement. If the trader refuses then theyhave the right to a refund (subject to refund). - So it is the retailer that chooses! The customer can make a preference, but that's it.

Sorry but I'm afraid it's not near enough the same, you said

Currys will have to either repair, replace or refund. Which option they choose is upto them. 

Which implies if the trader offers a refund the customer must accept because it's the trader's choice. That is not correct and is very different to the correct information because the trader doesn't have a choice, they have an obligation and the consumer has a right. 

So just to repeat myself

Currys [or most big companies] as a company know this but often with big companies rights and company policy can become blurred with staff advising customers what they've been told to say or what they interpret. 

If posters are armed with the correct info to remind the trader that they have the obligation in the first instance to repair/replace they are more likely to see the result they are entitled to. 

Of course the trader has a choice. If it's too expensive to repair or replace, then they refund. (Or any combination of those)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Straightbat said:

Update and first thanks to all.  

It was an independent repair shop that told me about the EU 2 year cover malarkey.  Fortunately researching it led me to this site, the fount of all knowledge.  

I contacted the repair shop who had reckoned it was a common fault which would probably be repaired for £75 when they sent it off to confirm diagnosis and fix.  But in the nick of time after I got back to them they retrieved it just as it had been "heated up" ready to be opened. 

I have now had Currys response too, who sent me a letter specifying that they required the diagnostic report as described by a poster earlier in this thread (thank you).  I was pleasantly surprised at how readily apple are willing to provide these reports exactly as required by Currys, having run their own diagnostics first (which they had done before I took it to the repair shop).  So now I have the necessary documentation as requested by Curry's so that they can "look to provide a contribution towards a repair or replacement".

I just need to check what my rights are for the extent of the remedy - whether just a "contribution" is legal and how much it should be.

Currys will have to either repair, replace or refund. Which option they choose is upto them. 

Although it can come down to this, this isn't particularly correct.

If the OP acquires an inspection in their favour they have the right to a repair or replacement. 

If that is impossible, too expensive or the trader refuses then the OP has the right to a refund (subject to a reduction as you mentioned). 

Currys as a company know this but often with big companies rights and company policy can become blurred with staff advising customers what they've been told to say or what they interpret. 

If posters are armed with the correct info to remind the trader that they have the obligation in the first instance to repair/replace they are more likely to see the result they are entitled to. 

There is also a fourth option of a price reduction whilst keeping the goods, this should be the difference between what was paid for and what was received, in the event of ordering a 64GB device but getting a 32GB and the consumer arriving at a point where they are entitled to and wish for a price reduction then the value of that is obvious. 

With goods that require repair I think a logical deduction can be made that the current value of the goods is £x minus the cost of repair (well in fact the value is less than that as a trader would require some profit or a personal customer some aspect of a bargain for the trouble if acting as a buyer in that equation but I don't think that comes into play here). Thus seeking the cost of repair as a price reduction, assuming not too expensive, appears fair, particularly as that is an obligation the trader should have met to begin with.

With an iPad people may wish to retain the goods, or more importantly all the data on it, rather than be imposed with a refund and as their rights typically entitled them to that I think it's important for that right to be laid out fully and correctly  

You've near enough posted the same in your reply. You said if the report is in their favour they have the right to a repair or replacement. If the trader refuses then theyhave the right to a refund (subject to refund). - So it is the retailer that chooses! The customer can make a preference, but that's it.

Sorry but I'm afraid it's not near enough the same, you said

Currys will have to either repair, replace or refund. Which option they choose is upto them. 

Which implies if the trader offers a refund the customer must accept because it's the trader's choice. That is not correct and is very different to the correct information because the trader doesn't have a choice, they have an obligation and the consumer has a right. 

So just to repeat myself

Currys [or most big companies] as a company know this but often with big companies rights and company policy can become blurred with staff advising customers what they've been told to say or what they interpret. 

If posters are armed with the correct info to remind the trader that they have the obligation in the first instance to repair/replace they are more likely to see the result they are entitled to. 

Of course the trader has a choice. If it's too expensive to repair or replace, then they refund. (Or any combination of those)

That sounds very familiar, perhaps a bit incomplete, did I not already say that in this thread?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If that is impossible, too expensive or the trader refuses then the OP has the right to a refund (subject to a reduction as you mentioned). 

There is also a fourth option of a price reduction whilst keeping the goods,

Solely for the sake of being pedantic, that still doesn't give the trader a choice, it relieves them of the obligation to repair/replace giving the consumer the right to choose between the final right to reject or a price reduction.

That doesn't change your original post not being particularly correct, whilst I'm always happy to discuss if you are going to say things that I've said against what I've said it does seem a bit pointless really so will leave it there  

Jenni_D said:

You're right ... but the effective impact is the same - the consumer can express a preference but ultimately the seller gets to choose the most cost-effective (to them) resolution, and the consumer may need to instigate legal action to get their remedy of choice.

Yes indeed  

Straightbat

powerful_Rogue said:

Straightbat said:

It sounds as though they are going to give me a cash settlement and leave the repair or replacement to me.  However I cannot see how anything less than £285 would be appropriate if  they should repair or replace, as that amount has a significant built-in reduction in value anyway.  Plus they should offer expenses of arranging the repair and compensation for the time and trouble!

You was doing so well up till that point. How much would you seek for your 'time and trouble'?

What is appropriate in principle is not always practical. However without me even asking Currys offered to pay any expenses I incurred in obtaining the technical report.

Jenni_D

Straightbat said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Straightbat said:

It sounds as though they are going to give me a cash settlement and leave the repair or replacement to me.  However I cannot see how anything less than £285 would be appropriate if  they should repair or replace, as that amount has a significant built-in reduction in value anyway.  Plus they should offer expenses of arranging the repair and compensation for the time and trouble!

You was doing so well up till that point. How much would you seek for your 'time and trouble'?

What is appropriate in principle is not always practical. However without me even asking Currys offered to pay any expenses I incurred in obtaining the technical report.

Which is good of them ... but the cost would be their legal liability anyway (if it found in your favour).

Straightbat

As I now replace the Ipad mini which failed, using the £285 settlement from Currys but not wanting to replace it with the same earlier model, I note that John Lewis offer a 2-year limited warranty on the latest ipad mini which is identical to the Apple limited warranty, except it is for 2 years and not the Apple's one year.

But having successfully gone through a claim under the Consumer Rights law what is the point of these limited warranties in the first place? Hence, what does it matter where you purchase from as long as you are confident that the retailer is subject to UK law and will not quibble in the event of a valid claim.  (I mean, they could quibble about claims under their own warranties anyway.)

And what about UK resellers offering new Apple products brought in from Hong Kong, but offering 2-year warranty nevertheless?  There can be considerable savings buying from them.

I understand that certain retailers like John Lewis and Argos are approved Apple retailers and therefore any repairs under warranty will be undertaken conforming to Apple standards and presumably using Apple parts wherever Apple themselves could.  Perhaps the difference with a UK reseller is that they would have to repair products using other parts?  On the other hand there would be nothing stopping them replacing or refunding a faulty product instead, or perhaps paying you to obtain a repair direct from Apple, which is effectively what Curry's did for me even though I didn't take them up on it.

So the only reason not to buy from a UK reseller would be if you can't trust them to deliver on their customer service and/or warranty undertakings since you could save around £100 (and get a third year of their warranty for only £11.10 - TechintheBasket).

jon81uk

Straightbat said:

But having successfully gone through a claim under the Consumer Rights law what is the point of these limited warranties in the first place? Hence, what does it matter where you purchase from as long as you are confident that the retailer is subject to UK law and will not quibble in the event of a valid claim.  (I mean, they could quibble about claims under their own warranties anyway.)

With the consumer rights, after six months it is up to the customer to prove there was is a manufacturing fault.
Whereas a warranty might have terms where they accept all faults that are not user damage more easily without you needed to get proof.

BT_Broederbund

Straightbat said:

As I now replace the Ipad mini which failed, using the £285 settlement from Currys but not wanting to replace it with the same earlier model, I note that John Lewis offer a 2-year limited warranty on the latest ipad mini which is identical to the Apple limited warranty, except it is for 2 years and not the Apple's one year.

But having successfully gone through a claim under the Consumer Rights law what is the point of these limited warranties in the first place? Hence, what does it matter where you purchase from as long as you are confident that the retailer is subject to UK law and will not quibble in the event of a valid claim.  (I mean, they could quibble about claims under their own warranties anyway.)

Any complaint under warranty is usually far easier to deal with than the back and forth over rights that usually entails if a company isn't willing to play ball.

And what about UK resellers offering new Apple products brought in from Hong Kong, but offering 2-year warranty nevertheless?  There can be considerable savings buying from them.

They won't be based in the UK and those considerable savings may or may not work out depending on whether the item becomes defective

I understand that certain retailers like John Lewis and Argos are approved Apple retailers and therefore any repairs under warranty will be undertaken conforming to Apple standards and presumably using Apple parts wherever Apple themselves could.  Perhaps the difference with a UK reseller is that they would have to repair products using other parts?  On the other hand there would be nothing stopping them replacing or refunding a faulty product instead, or perhaps paying you to obtain a repair direct from Apple, which is effectively what Curry's did for me even though I didn't take them up on it.

Those resellers will almost certainly run with your money, they won't be repairing it with any parts, let alone third-party ones.

So the only reason not to buy from a UK reseller would be if you can't trust them to deliver on their customer service and/or warranty undertakings since you could save around £100 (and get a third year of their warranty for only £11.10 - TechintheBasket).

No, there's an additional reason.  They might send you a bag of sand in a box and you'll be stuffed when it comes to performing a chargeback. And have no one to sue in the UK because their UK address is a virtual address and they have no actual presence in the UK.

And I doubt anyone will offer a third-party warranty on grey imports.