Amazon refusing to replace faulty item that has gone up in price

Ditzy_Mitzy

Manxman_in_exile said:

eeperman said:

... I can't see any provision that suggests that the offer of a refund trumps the requirement to repair/replace if I ask for it. The question of it being disproportionate is an interesting one, but I would argue that Amazon have the ability to go to Asus and get the item repaired and replaced by Asus so repair/replacement is neither impossible or excessively expensive.

Hmmm.   I see your point.

I'm beginning to think that amazon offering a refund does not override your right to either a repair or a replacement...

I don't think it does, but Amazon are able to claim that replacement would be disproportionate in the circumstances given the current sale price of the routers is approximately £150 more than the OP paid for them.  Amazon themselves are controlling the price of said routers, which some might look upon as fait accompli, but the legislation doesn't appear to prohibit that.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Jenni_D said:

eeperman said:

(b)is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

I can't see any provision that suggests that the offer of a refund trumps the requirement to repair/replace if I ask for it. The question of it being disproportionate is an interesting one, but I would argue that Amazon have the ability to go to Asus and get the item repaired and replaced by Asus so repair/replacement is neither impossible or excessively expensive.

I've highlighted Amazon's "get out" from providing a repair or replacement.

It does have to be true though Not sure how that would be demonstrated.

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

eeperman said:

... I can't see any provision that suggests that the offer of a refund trumps the requirement to repair/replace if I ask for it. The question of it being disproportionate is an interesting one, but I would argue that Amazon have the ability to go to Asus and get the item repaired and replaced by Asus so repair/replacement is neither impossible or excessively expensive.

Hmmm.   I see your point.

I'm beginning to think that amazon offering a refund does not override your right to either a repair or a replacement...

I don't think it does, but Amazon are able to claim that replacement would be disproportionate in the circumstances given the current sale price of the routers is approximately £150 more than the OP paid for them.  Amazon themselves are controlling the price of said routers, which some might look upon as fait accompli, but the legislation doesn't appear to prohibit that.  

In terms of monetary value, I would say Amazon's price to buy it, at the time of replacement, would be the cost rather than their sale price (as presumably they can buy as many as they want from the supplier).

powerful_Rogue

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

eeperman said:

... I can't see any provision that suggests that the offer of a refund trumps the requirement to repair/replace if I ask for it. The question of it being disproportionate is an interesting one, but I would argue that Amazon have the ability to go to Asus and get the item repaired and replaced by Asus so repair/replacement is neither impossible or excessively expensive.

Hmmm.   I see your point.

I'm beginning to think that amazon offering a refund does not override your right to either a repair or a replacement...

I don't think it does, but Amazon are able to claim that replacement would be disproportionate in the circumstances given the current sale price of the routers is approximately £150 more than the OP paid for them.  Amazon themselves are controlling the price of said routers, which some might look upon as fait accompli, but the legislation doesn't appear to prohibit that.  

True, but as the OP has been offered a full refund, he can shop around and see if anywhere is selling the router cheaper. If no-where is, then it seems reasonable to say the increased price is the current going rate.

eeperman

Hi folks,

Latest update. I sent a snotty letter to Amazon head office and then this evening I thought I would try one last time to persuade someone on the phone to see sense. Anyway, I must have got lucky because I got through to someone who then went off and spoke to their manager. So far so similar, except this time the manager must have been feeling more generous because they immediately ordered me a new twin pack and have arranged for Evri to come and collect the old ones. So, the lesson seems to be: keep ringing until you find someone who agrees with you. Now I just have to eat humble pie when they receive that letter....

So all's well that ends well. Thank you for the lively debate about UK consumer law, I have thoroughly enjoyed it and thank you to everyone who went to the time and effort to help me.

Manxman_in_exile

Jenni_D said:

eeperman said:

Thanks Manxman, 

I was of the impression that I had the right to repair/replacement:

Section 19(3) CRA 2015

If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer's rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);

(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

Section 23 CRA

Right to repair or replacement

(1)This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

(3)The consumer cannot require the trader to repair or replace the goods if that remedy (the repair or the replacement)—

(a)is impossible, or

(b)is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

I can't see any provision that suggests that the offer of a refund trumps the requirement to repair/replace if I ask for it. The question of it being disproportionate is an interesting one, but I would argue that Amazon have the ability to go to Asus and get the item repaired and replaced by Asus so repair/replacement is neither impossible or excessively expensive.

I've highlighted Amazon's "get out" from providing a repair or replacement.

I would have agreed with you before I read s23 again.  But now I think the OP might be correct.

Para (b) says "... is disproportionate compared to the other [my bold] of those remedies".

That says "other" (singular) and not "others" (plural).  So in this section "other" only applies to either a repair or a replacement - and does not include a refund (in which case it would say "others"). 

What I take s23 to mean is that if the consumer has the right to either a repair or a replacement, then they can ask for a repair, but the trader can choose to replace if a repair is either impossible or is disproportionate compared to a replacement.   On the other hand, if the consumer asks for a replacement then the trader can choose to repair if a replacement would be either impossible or be disproportionate compared to a repair.  

Doesn't that mean that - according to a strict reading of the section - that if a consumer is entitled to either a repair or a replacement, then the only situation in which they wouldn't be entitled to either is if both were impossible?  The trader can't legitimately offer a refund as a remedy unless both replacement and repair are impossible.  So long as at least one of them is possible, that's what the OP is entitled to 

In this case we know that a replacement is possible (or at least the OP says they are still available) so strictly speaking, Amazon can't deny the OP's right to a replacement (or a repair) by offering the OP a refund.

But of course that ignores the practical difficulty of getting amazon to recognise the OP's right to a replacement or a repair and not a refund if they don't want one.   

Not that I'm suggesting the OP does so, but I wonder if it got to a court whether the court would uphold what I think is the OP's statutory right to a replacement or a repair and to turn down a refund if he doesn't want one.  (Especially if - as here - a refund would not allow the OP to buy a replacement at current prices.)  Would a court order Amazon to replace if replacing is possible?

[Edit when I posted this I didn't realise it had been resolved.  Teach me to read right to the end of a thread!]

Manxman_in_exile

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

eeperman said:

... I can't see any provision that suggests that the offer of a refund trumps the requirement to repair/replace if I ask for it. The question of it being disproportionate is an interesting one, but I would argue that Amazon have the ability to go to Asus and get the item repaired and replaced by Asus so repair/replacement is neither impossible or excessively expensive.

Hmmm.   I see your point.

I'm beginning to think that amazon offering a refund does not override your right to either a repair or a replacement...

I don't think it does, but Amazon are able to claim that replacement would be disproportionate in the circumstances given the current sale price of the routers is approximately £150 more than the OP paid for them.  Amazon themselves are controlling the price of said routers, which some might look upon as fait accompli, but the legislation doesn't appear to prohibit that.  

I'm not so sure...

Assuming the OP is entitled to either a repair or a replacement, then under s23 amazon could choose to repair if the OP wanted a replacement but a replacement was either impossible or disproportionate as compared to a repair.

Conversely, if the OP wanted a repair, Amazon could choose to replace if a repair was either impossible or disproportionate as compared to a replacement.

What amazon can't do is offer a refund as an alternative to a repair or a replacement - unless both repair and replacement are impossible.  The legislation doesn't mention a refund as a possible alternative to the right to a repair or replacement. In this case the OP appears to be telling us that a replacement is possible, so that's what he should get (or a repair if also possible).

As mentioned in my earlier post it's perhaps an academic point if amazon pointblank refuse to replace.  But I wonder what a court would say if the OP said Amazon are denying my right to a replacement...

[Edit:  when I posted this I didn't realise it had already been resolved.  Teach me to read right to the end of a thread!]

Manxman_in_exile

eeperman said:

Hi folks,

Latest update. I sent a snotty letter to Amazon head office and then this evening I thought I would try one last time to persuade someone on the phone to see sense. Anyway, I must have got lucky because I got through to someone who then went off and spoke to their manager. So far so similar, except this time the manager must have been feeling more generous because they immediately ordered me a new twin pack and have arranged for Evri to come and collect the old ones. So, the lesson seems to be: keep ringing until you find someone who agrees with you. Now I just have to eat humble pie when they receive that letter....

So all's well that ends well. Thank you for the lively debate about UK consumer law, I have thoroughly enjoyed it and thank you to everyone who went to the time and effort to help me.

I think that's what you were entitled to under the legislation.

(Apologies for posting earlier that you weren't entitled to either a replacement or a refund if amazon offered you a full refund.  Reading  your comments and s23 again I think you were right from the outset.)

eeperman

Manxman_in_exile said:

eeperman said:

Hi folks,

Latest update. I sent a snotty letter to Amazon head office and then this evening I thought I would try one last time to persuade someone on the phone to see sense. Anyway, I must have got lucky because I got through to someone who then went off and spoke to their manager. So far so similar, except this time the manager must have been feeling more generous because they immediately ordered me a new twin pack and have arranged for Evri to come and collect the old ones. So, the lesson seems to be: keep ringing until you find someone who agrees with you. Now I just have to eat humble pie when they receive that letter....

So all's well that ends well. Thank you for the lively debate about UK consumer law, I have thoroughly enjoyed it and thank you to everyone who went to the time and effort to help me.

I think that's what you were entitled to under the legislation.

(Apologies for posting earlier that you weren't entitled to either a replacement or a refund if amazon offered you a full refund.  Reading  your comments and s23 again I think you were right from the outset.)

No worries, the law isn’t massively clear and I appreciate your assistance. I think I just got lucky with my 4th call and found a more pragmatic manager. 

tightauldgit

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

eeperman said:

... I can't see any provision that suggests that the offer of a refund trumps the requirement to repair/replace if I ask for it. The question of it being disproportionate is an interesting one, but I would argue that Amazon have the ability to go to Asus and get the item repaired and replaced by Asus so repair/replacement is neither impossible or excessively expensive.

Hmmm.   I see your point.

I'm beginning to think that amazon offering a refund does not override your right to either a repair or a replacement...

I don't think it does, but Amazon are able to claim that replacement would be disproportionate in the circumstances given the current sale price of the routers is approximately £150 more than the OP paid for them.  Amazon themselves are controlling the price of said routers, which some might look upon as fait accompli, but the legislation doesn't appear to prohibit that.  

I'm not so sure...

Assuming the OP is entitled to either a repair or a replacement, then under s23 amazon could choose to repair if the OP wanted a replacement but a replacement was either impossible or disproportionate as compared to a repair.

Conversely, if the OP wanted a repair, Amazon could choose to replace if a repair was either impossible or disproportionate as compared to a replacement.

What amazon can't do is offer a refund as an alternative to a repair or a replacement - unless both repair and replacement are impossible.  The legislation doesn't mention a refund as a possible alternative to the right to a repair or replacement. In this case the OP appears to be telling us that a replacement is possible, so that's what he should get (or a repair if also possible).

As mentioned in my earlier post it's perhaps an academic point if amazon pointblank refuse to replace.  But I wonder what a court would say if the OP said Amazon are denying my right to a replacement...

[Edit:  when I posted this I didn't realise it had already been resolved.  Teach me to read right to the end of a thread!]

Don't the courts tend towards the logic that money fixes everything? They don't really often indulge in ordering people to do things when there's a financial remedy available. So my suspicion is a court would see a full refund as a satisfactory resolution. 

My suspicion is that the right to a repair or replacement is actually a concession to the retailers rather than the consumer - i.e. if you can do a cheap fix or send them another one at cost rather than refund the full purchase price then you are coming out ahead on the deal so you have the right to do that. 

We seem to have found the 1 in a million time here that a consumer product actually appears to increase in value but I suspect that if it went to court then a full refund would be seen as adequate. 

powerful_Rogue

The trader could use this as a get out, S24.

(5)A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations—

(a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract;

(b)because of section 23(3) the consumer can require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or

(c)the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

"I can get you a replacement/organise a repair, but it's going to take 10 weeks, however I can offer you a full/partial refund."