Monica Vinader lost my ring when it went in for repairs

124»

Comments

  • the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
    the_lunatic_is_in_my_head Posts: 7,272
    Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    edited 27 March 2023 at 9:49AM
    Does the CRA even apply to lost items, though? If it was faulty or defective then maybe but even then surely the 'deduction for use' would be sense-checked against the market value of the item? If 5 year old rings were regularly selling for 80% of their new value second-hand then I think it would be a hard sell to say that the deduction for use should be 75%. 
    If a consumer returned something under their rights and it was then lost their rights still apply, the retailer should then replace, if they can't/won't/it's too expensive the right to reject is the consumer's next option (or a price reduction but that's no help if the trader lost the goods). 

    In terms of use it's hard to say, it's been suggested here before that cars are easy to value on rejection as their depreciatio is a common measurable concept, however, as an extreme, if you drove off the lot in a brand new car and it fell apart 5 metres down the road I don't think it would be suggested that the large "drive it off the forecourt" depreciation would be a fair value to place on use (motor vehicles are exempt from the no deduction within 6 months rule).

    With TVs, washing machines, etc they generally have a lifespan to measure against, with everything being oh so smart these days some can probably keep a record of how long they've been used for to compare against a potential manufacturer statement.  

    With a ring it's hard to say, I don't think the mark up on high street jewellers really affects the depreciation (as a percentage) in the same way if you pay £1000 for a TV that happened to be on sale for £500 somewhere else wouldn't. 

    A £250 ring to some people should last a lifetime, to others it's a kinder egg toy, very subjective really. 

    Your example of "selling for 80% ... hard sell to say that the deduction for use should be 75%" is interesting but I've purchase many things that are worth more than I paid as they are collectable once no longer manufactured but I don't think I'd be entitled to claim more than I paid if rejecting the goods so I don't think IMHO market value has much to do with use really.  
    If I was a car dealer (which luckily I'm not) I'd probably argue that if someone drove their new car to the end of the street and it fell apart then I'd be within my rights to replace it with another one that had a couple of miles on the clock rather than having to order something brand new from the factory. Of course it gets more complicated because you've got the issue of it potentially having been registered previously which might affect the value. As a consumer I'd probably see it differently of course.

    On the other hand if it was a limited edition Ferrari which i had paid £400k for but was changing hands for £1m then as the consumer I would be arguing that I have lost a £1m asset not a £400k one.

    When it comes to loss then I think it can only be market value that is relevant - say you had sold the ring on Ebay for £250 and the courier lost it, would they be able to argue that you only paid £100 for it so you're only getting £100? I don't think so. But as with everything it comes down to evidence, and in most cases of consumer goods it's hard to evidence what the actual market value of something is. Which is why I think they use heuristics like 'discounts for usage' to approximate it. Plus of course a court would apply some logic to things to see if they seem reasonable.  


    With car the consumer could reject it within 30 days meaning a refund is due so the replacement suggestion doesn't fit the scenario. Also the guidance says the replacement should usually be identical to what was sold meaning were the goods new the replacement should usually be new:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/5

    This section details a consumer’s right to insist on repair or replacement of faulty goods, the cost of which must be borne by the trader. This includes the trader bearing any costs involved in the removal of an installed item and reinstallation of a replacement. A replacement would usually need to be identical, that is of the same make and model and if the goods were bought new then the replacement would need to be new.

    What would fall under unusual I have no idea and we can only speculate :) 

    A brand new car depreciates disproportionally so if you look at market value that consumer having driven a few miles would lose a lot if market value was paid as the refund. 

    With the courier it's different in one sense as they are offering parcel cover, I guess if you enforced your rights to say the service wasn't carried out with due care and skill and the item was worth more than paid then the extra from market value would be damages? Same with the Ferrari perhaps? 

    It's seems an unfair burden on the trader to pay market value where the good exceed their depreciated value and it also seems unfair for the consumer to suffer market value where second hand goods come with a stigma and thus are "under priced", for want of a better word. 
  • tightauldgit
    tightauldgit Posts: 2,628
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite


    It's seems an unfair burden on the trader to pay market value where the good exceed their depreciated value and it also seems unfair for the consumer to suffer market value where second hand goods come with a stigma and thus are "under priced", for want of a better word. 
    To my mind the purpose of the law is generally to put you back in the position that you were before whatever incident occurred. If I have an asset I could sell for £1000 then I don't see how its unfair for a trader to have to make good the £1000, or fair for me to receive £200 just because of some fictional 'depreciated value' which has no basis in reality. 

    Equally, if second hand goods are 'under priced' (and what exactly does that mean anyway?) then you can go buy one for that low price so why should you receive more than that again because of some fictional 'depreciated value'   
  • the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
    the_lunatic_is_in_my_head Posts: 7,272
    Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    edited 27 March 2023 at 10:19AM


    It's seems an unfair burden on the trader to pay market value where the good exceed their depreciated value and it also seems unfair for the consumer to suffer market value where second hand goods come with a stigma and thus are "under priced", for want of a better word. 
    To my mind the purpose of the law is generally to put you back in the position that you were before whatever incident occurred. If I have an asset I could sell for £1000 then I don't see how its unfair for a trader to have to make good the £1000, or fair for me to receive £200 just because of some fictional 'depreciated value' which has no basis in reality. 

    Equally, if second hand goods are 'under priced' (and what exactly does that mean anyway?) then you can go buy one for that low price so why should you receive more than that again because of some fictional 'depreciated value'   
    I think the principle is to put you in the position that you would had been in had the breach of contract not occurred (which in this instance does support the market value aspect to be fair).

    Regarding under priced a second hand TV has unknowns, it could have been loved and cared for or it could have sat next to a wood burner throwing out dust and heat significantly reducing it's lifespan. A second hand TV as a replacement for my well cared for TV wouldn't necessarily be the same thus a refund of second hand market value doesn't represent the value of my TV. (I know we are talking about rings and not cars or TVs, it's just to illustrate the point).
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 605.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.3K Life & Family
  • 246.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards