Ear bud success!

ElefantEd

I thought I'd post a positive story, a success in claiming my rights, mostly as a result of the good advice in this forum.

Last December I bought my daughter some J-Lab earbuds from Argos, costing about £30. She used them pretty much continuously, she may have taken them off when having a shower or in bed, but that's about it. However last week the bluetooth stopped working properly. Our initial contact with Argos by phone wasn't very productive - they told my wife that we should contact the manufacturer under their warranty. J-Lab said that we would need to cut the wires, immerse the buds in water and take photos, after which they would replace them.

I don't think so, far too much effort when I know our contract is with the retailer. Argos online webchat is not helpful, they are outsourced and only provide technical support (which we didn't need as we'd already tried to sort the issue without success). However a phone call to Argos and the use of the magical words "Consumer Rights Act 2015" rapidly lead to them agreeing that we could just take it back to the store we bought it from with our emailed receipt and they would deal with it.

We'd actually had the earbuds a couple of days over 6 months so I thought they might only offer a partial refund, but in fact the store staff were very happy to replace them with a new set; the price has actually gone up in the meantime so we're happy with that result.

Really this was to say thanks to all MSE-ers - reading the site really gave us confidence in what to say and what our rights actually were. So thanks!

Jenni_D

Nice result.

Presumably you'd already contacted Argos before the 6 months time limit, so you'd have had a ready-made argument if they tried to reduce the amount of any refund. But regardless of that, how much reduction in value would there have been between 6 months (0% reduction) and 6 months 2 days?  

Sandtree

Jenni_D said:

But regardless of that, how much reduction in value would there have been between 6 months (0% reduction) and 6 months 2 days?  

Under 6 months nil

Over 6 months then whatever use they think someone gets out of the item in 6 months and 2 days... its not just the 2 days they can deduct for

Jenni_D

Can you point to where it states that in the legislation or guidance notes please? The "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" view (IMO) would be that the allowance for deduction starts from the date the burden of proof switches.

shiraz99

Jenni_D said:

Can you point to where it states that in the legislation or guidance notes please? The "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" view (IMO) would be that the allowance for deduction starts from the date the burden of proof switches.

My "reasonable" view would disagree.

In fact, imo, section 24 of the CRA is quite clear on the subject. If the law wanted to state that any deduction after six months would take the first 6 months into account it would've said so. 

Grumpy_chap

My "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" view differs from Jenni and aligns with Sandtree.
I can't reference any specific rule on this.
My thinking is, when I buy something it is brand new. 
If it breaks in the first week, then the value of use (benefit) is virtually nil, the items is still brand new and replacement would need to be brand new, so no loss in value.
If the item is 6 months' old, then a used replacement might be possible.
That may be semantics on a £30 product, but on a TV (for example) a refurbished replacement might be an acceptable outcome if the product failed after 6 months. 
(In the case of earbuds, I simply would not want anything that had been used at all - who knows what has been in someone else's ear?)

ElefantEd said:

J-Lab said that we would need to cut the wires, immerse the buds in water and take photos, after which they would replace them.

This is all about them not wanting the broken item back but not giving out free items without proof that the original was definitely faulty and beyond use.

Sandtree

Jenni_D said:

Can you point to where it states that in the legislation or guidance notes please? The "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" view (IMO) would be that the allowance for deduction starts from the date the burden of proof switches.

(8)If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered, but this is subject to subsections (9) and (10).

(9)No deduction may be made to take account of use in any period when the consumer had the goods only because the trader failed to collect them at an agreed time.

(10)No deduction may be made if the final right to reject is exercised in the first 6 months (see subsection (11)), unless—

(a)the goods consist of a motor vehicle, or

(b)the goods are of a description specified by order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.

So it categorically states that its use since the consumer received the goods (not the end of 6 months) but point (10) excludes such discounts being applied if the rejection happens in the first 6 months unless its a motor vehicle.

Jenni_D

Sandtree said:

Jenni_D said:

Can you point to where it states that in the legislation or guidance notes please? The "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" view (IMO) would be that the allowance for deduction starts from the date the burden of proof switches.

(8)If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered, but this is subject to subsections (9) and (10).

(9)No deduction may be made to take account of use in any period when the consumer had the goods only because the trader failed to collect them at an agreed time.

(10)No deduction may be made if the final right to reject is exercised in the first 6 months (see subsection (11)), unless—

(a)the goods consist of a motor vehicle, or

(b)the goods are of a description specified by order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.

So it categorically states that its use since the consumer received the goods (not the end of 6 months) but point (10) excludes such discounts being applied if the rejection happens in the first 6 months unless its a motor vehicle.

Thanks - always happy to be informed and educated. Every day's a school day, as some might say.  

Grumpy_chap

Jenni_D said:

Thanks - always happy to be informed and educated. Every day's a school day, as some might say.  

Except school holidays, which is when we really get to learn on here
I'm off to write about my new M-Competition