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

Undervalued

Alderbank said:

Amazon just don't seem to do replacements, as a matter of policy.

There have been other threads on this here. My own Amazon experience on the couple of times when I've bought something which broke down or was faulty and I've asked for a replacement, has always been 'return it for a full refund and purchase it again'. 
As we saw with the John Lewis Partnership thread recently, that is marginally better for the buyer (usually) because with a new purchase any warranty is reset.

In this case the OP is unlucky that the price has changed.

Not always true.

I bought a large expensive book recently from Amazon which arrived damage. They sent a replacement the next day and sent a prepaid Royal Mail label, including collection, for returning the damaged book at my convenience in the next 30 days.

sheramber

If sold by Amazon they can replace but if it is only fulfilled by Amazon  they refund and you have to buy again.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

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. 

I think the repair/replace is a preference of seeing the breach remedied, by making the goods conform, rather than ending the contract with a refund.

If anything the final right to reject/price reduction is a concession to the consumer so they don't have to be stuck in a position of not having a remedy because the trader isn't fulfilling their obligation leaving them with goods that not conform for an extended period. 

Although we often see threads on TVs and washing machines, for some items people may be attached to the item, e.g jewellery, or the item may be difficult to replace with another, e.g a car, so a consumer may prefer to request multiple repairs/replacement over a period of years rather than look to the final right to reject/price reduction. 

And that last point is the important bit that is often missed, a price reduction should be, the reduction of price shall be proportionate to the decrease in the value of the goods which were received by the consumer compared to the value the goods would have if they were in conformity, so the cost of repair would be an example of that difference and there no restriction regarding disproportionate for reject vs price reduction so the trader may end up bearing the cost of repair (up to the contract price) either way. 

powerful_Rogue said:

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."

And that is why it's important to advise people of their rights are rather than just saying it's the trader's choice, a large company would hopefully not wish to been seen as not fulfilling their legal obligation (or perhaps more accurately hope you don't know your rights and will go away but is aware of what they should do). A small trader may be unaware of their obligations and become enlightened (or perhaps more accurately simply not want to spend the time debating with a customer who knows what they are entitled to). 

Accurately advising the trader you are entitled to a repair or replacement within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience may see them adhere. 

That should be the point of this forum, to give those seeking help the tools they require (the legislation, or accurate guidance on it, that supports their position) to obtain what they wish, where they are entitled to such.

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

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...

It's true that courts are reluctant to order a remedy that makes a party "do something" (like specific performance of a contract) if payment of some sort of liquidated damages would at least equally compensate the claimant.

But here*: (i) the OP has a statutory right to either a replacement or a repair (unless both are impossible), and (ii) it would appear that a refund of the original price paid would not be sufficient to allow the OP to replace the faulty item.

If the OP can demonstrate (i) that amazon could provide a replacement if they wanted to (and he says that they are still selling them) and (ii) that a full refund of the original price he paid would inadequate to allow him to buy a replacement, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if a court decided to uphold the statutory right and ordered amazon to provide a replacement (or repair if possible).

I think it would be a very confident judge who decided to override statutory rights given to a consumer by Parliament by awarding an inadequate monetary remedy instead.  Plus of course, Amazon can't "buy off" the consumer's rights by offering a refund if the consumer doesn't want a refund.

All academic of course as amazon have subsequently offered to replace.

*  NB - The above is all under the assumption that the consumer/OP does have the statutory right either to a repair or a replacement under the Consumer rights Act in the first place.

noitsnotme

Manxman_in_exile said:

tightauldgit said:

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...

It's true that courts are reluctant to order a remedy that makes a party "do something" (like specific performance of a contract) if payment of some sort of liquidated damages would at least equally compensate the claimant.

But here*: (i) the OP has a statutory right to either a replacement or a repair (unless both are impossible), and (ii) it would appear that a refund of the original price paid would not be sufficient to allow the OP to replace the faulty item.

If the OP can demonstrate (i) that amazon could provide a replacement if they wanted to (and he says that they are still selling them) and (ii) that a full refund of the original price he paid would inadequate to allow him to buy a replacement, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if a court decided to uphold the statutory right and ordered amazon to provide a replacement (or repair if possible).

I think it would be a very confident judge who decided to override statutory rights given to a consumer by Parliament by awarding an inadequate monetary remedy instead.  Plus of course, Amazon can't "buy off" the consumer's rights by offering a refund if the consumer doesn't want a refund.

All academic of course as amazon have subsequently offered to replace.

*  NB - The above is all under the assumption that the consumer/OP does have the statutory right either to a repair or a replacement under the Consumer rights Act in the first place.

Let’s say hypothetically that a court did order Amazon to replace, what happens when they just ignore that order?  Bailiffs would hardly be able to enter the correct Amazon building and forcibly remove the correct item.  The best they could achieve is payment or perhaps some other goods totalling what the OP originally paid.  Which is no different than Amazon offering a full refund of the original amount anyway.

Manxman_in_exile

The OP could hypothetically nuke amazon HQ...

(There would be no point in asking or answering any questions on this forum if the traders concerned could always hypothetically ignore statute law and court orders and could just make up their own rules.  What if Amazon hypothetically said "From 02 April 2023 we no longer consider ourselves bound by the consumer Rights Act 2015"?  Would that hypothetically be something we just had to live with?)






Hold on - perhaps they already have...?

noitsnotme

You started it 😆

Andy_L

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. 

Isn't that referring to the choice between repair or replace though?
Eg you cannot insist on a replacement if that is "disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies." ie a repair

unforeseen

If the OP can demonstrate (i) that amazon could provide a replacement if they wanted to (and he says that they are still selling them) 

Are they still selling the same item though? Are the SKU's the same? If not then they are not the same item. 

eeperman

Morning, OP here

New routers arriving today and getting ready to package up the old ones. 

Couple of points:
The original item was available on the Amazon website. My order even had a button to “Order Again” and the ASIN identifier was identical. 

I would have been more than happy if Amazon had offered to repair the broken router, but they only offered a refund on the new, much lower price. 

I think it would have been hard to argue that the cost of repair was disproportionate as the item was still covered by a manufacturer warranty. Had the warranty expired I would have had more sympathy.