Returning Faulty Goods After 30 Days as Not Fit for Purpose

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Alderbank said:
If it is one of those then it would be reasonable to expect it to work OK on a Caravan Club site

Even a TV designed for caravan use cannot work magic so unless the Caravan Club promises that every one of their sites and pitches has amazing TV signal strength I'm not sure the relevance of the owners of the site? If the site/pitch has exceptionally poor/no signal then any TV is going to struggle 

As its over 6 months old its for the OP to prove the fault not the seller to disprove it... the signal quality really needs to be judged to have any hope of saying its the TV not the signal.

Just as an aside - even though it's 6 months old they already had an exchange on one so do they actually have to demonstrate it's inherently faulty or just that the replacement hasn't fixed the issue and so the supplier has used up their one chance to repair or replace? 

The 6 months clause is detailed under Right to repair or replacement, Right to price reduction or final right to reject comes under another section and merely states if after one repair or replacement the goods still do not conform the consumer may exercise those rights, read in order it doesn't appear as if the consumer need to prove anything to exercise the final right/price reduction although what the actual answer is I don't know. 

That's kind of how I saw it as well although I don't know if them offering the replacement at first is any kind of legal acceptance of liability and there being a fault or whether it's still open to them to challenge whether the customer actually has any right to anything. 

I suspect (without any real basis in anything) that if it's actually faulty they can probably play the 'one attempt' card but if it's not actually faulty the supplier can still say there's nothing wrong with it so do one. 

RefluentBeans

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Alderbank said:
If it is one of those then it would be reasonable to expect it to work OK on a Caravan Club site

Even a TV designed for caravan use cannot work magic so unless the Caravan Club promises that every one of their sites and pitches has amazing TV signal strength I'm not sure the relevance of the owners of the site? If the site/pitch has exceptionally poor/no signal then any TV is going to struggle 

As its over 6 months old its for the OP to prove the fault not the seller to disprove it... the signal quality really needs to be judged to have any hope of saying its the TV not the signal.

Just as an aside - even though it's 6 months old they already had an exchange on one so do they actually have to demonstrate it's inherently faulty or just that the replacement hasn't fixed the issue and so the supplier has used up their one chance to repair or replace? 

The 6 months clause is detailed under Right to repair or replacement, Right to price reduction or final right to reject comes under another section and merely states if after one repair or replacement the goods still do not conform the consumer may exercise those rights, read in order it doesn't appear as if the consumer need to prove anything to exercise the final right/price reduction although what the actual answer is I don't know. 

That's kind of how I saw it as well although I don't know if them offering the replacement at first is any kind of legal acceptance of liability and there being a fault or whether it's still open to them to challenge whether the customer actually has any right to anything. 

I suspect (without any real basis in anything) that if it's actually faulty they can probably play the 'one attempt' card but if it's not actually faulty the supplier can still say there's nothing wrong with it so do one. 

I think it would depend if they replaced it under warranty? The warranty may be written that they don’t have to admit fault or be generous in replacing. 

In all honesty - I think after 12 months the right to reject should be limited. OP hasn’t stated if this works at home, whether it’s the same campsite or different campsites, or even if the product was sold with that intended purpose. The line has to be drawn somewhere or it’s genuinely unfair on manufacturers and retailers. 

The question is whether it’s faulty or not. And the onus is, to show it is faulty, whether that be sending it off for assessment independently, or testing it at home where signal is known to be good. If it’s not faulty then I don’t really see why the retailer should take the loss on it in all honesty. 

tightauldgit

RefluentBeans said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Alderbank said:
If it is one of those then it would be reasonable to expect it to work OK on a Caravan Club site

Even a TV designed for caravan use cannot work magic so unless the Caravan Club promises that every one of their sites and pitches has amazing TV signal strength I'm not sure the relevance of the owners of the site? If the site/pitch has exceptionally poor/no signal then any TV is going to struggle 

As its over 6 months old its for the OP to prove the fault not the seller to disprove it... the signal quality really needs to be judged to have any hope of saying its the TV not the signal.

Just as an aside - even though it's 6 months old they already had an exchange on one so do they actually have to demonstrate it's inherently faulty or just that the replacement hasn't fixed the issue and so the supplier has used up their one chance to repair or replace? 

The 6 months clause is detailed under Right to repair or replacement, Right to price reduction or final right to reject comes under another section and merely states if after one repair or replacement the goods still do not conform the consumer may exercise those rights, read in order it doesn't appear as if the consumer need to prove anything to exercise the final right/price reduction although what the actual answer is I don't know. 

That's kind of how I saw it as well although I don't know if them offering the replacement at first is any kind of legal acceptance of liability and there being a fault or whether it's still open to them to challenge whether the customer actually has any right to anything. 

I suspect (without any real basis in anything) that if it's actually faulty they can probably play the 'one attempt' card but if it's not actually faulty the supplier can still say there's nothing wrong with it so do one. 

I think it would depend if they replaced it under warranty? The warranty may be written that they don’t have to admit fault or be generous in replacing. 

In all honesty - I think after 12 months the right to reject should be limited. OP hasn’t stated if this works at home, whether it’s the same campsite or different campsites, or even if the product was sold with that intended purpose. The line has to be drawn somewhere or it’s genuinely unfair on manufacturers and retailers. 

The question is whether it’s faulty or not. And the onus is, to show it is faulty, whether that be sending it off for assessment independently, or testing it at home where signal is known to be good. If it’s not faulty then I don’t really see why the retailer should take the loss on it in all honesty. 

I have some sympathy for that, but at the end of the day the supplier has to follow what the law says. If they didn't think it was actually faulty then they probably should have flagged it up when they did the first exchange. 

I also think quite often expecting a consumer to prove something is faulty is too much of a burden and expecting them for example to go get an independent report for something that's worth £100 is just silly. There's also a danger that sellers could do just enough to get it over the 6 month mark knowing that it's too difficult for the customer to return after that which wouldn't be fair either. Finding the balance is really difficult   

I think there are some simple checks that could be done - as you say if it works at home and not at the campsite then it's probably not faulty at all. But if it has the same issue at home and the campsite then I think they should probably accept it's faulty. 

RefluentBeans

I agree with everything you’ve said. But the OP has phrased everything in an odd way. Firstly, the title - this isn’t s product that’s slightly past the 30 day mark to return. They are also well past the 14 day statutory right to reject. So the first question of ‘Am I within my rights to reject the TV as not fit for purpose and claim a full refund?’ Is clearly no - the time to reject the product has passed. 

From what I can see the OP hasn’t stated that the product is faulty. They’re insisting the product isn’t fit for the purpose they want it for. It depends entirely on what it was sold as - if it was sold as a camping product then I agree that there is definitely some validity. It depends on what the intended purpose was and what the consumer purpose was. If I bought a Tesla and went back to them and said it doesn’t handle off-tossing very well and for that price I expected more, they’d say it’s a road car not an off-roader. Product is fit for purpose, just not fit for my purpose. 

But the comment about it being being just over the 6 month mark is also not really warranted here. From what OP has said, they bought it 14 months ago. Tested the product at home, and the sound wasn’t good. They didn’t challenge it. It then depends when they first reported the issues to the supplier - it sounds recent. It doesn’t sound like the supplier was running out the clock. 

This, as unfortunate as it is for the customer, is on the customer to at least attempt to show there is some fault with the TV. At the moment, the issues of input lag and issues with audio and visual becoming out of sync could be very well be weak signal. Or it could be a fault. The very least OP could do is test it at home, where presumably the signal is good. 

If I was OP I would test at home. If the signal is good and the issues are fixed, go back to the manufacturer and ask for advice on how to resolve the issue. If the issue persists at home, then absolutely go down the route of faults, insisting for them to examine the product and see if they can identify the problem in the product, and rightly insist a refund (albeit maybe not 100% as the OP wants). 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

I agree with everything you’ve said. But the OP has phrased everything in an odd way. Firstly, the title - this isn’t s product that’s slightly past the 30 day mark to return. They are also well past the 14 day statutory right to reject. So the first question of ‘Am I within my rights to reject the TV as not fit for purpose and claim a full refund?’ Is clearly no - the time to reject the product has passed. 

There isn't a 14 day statutory right to reject  

There is a 30 day short term right to reject where you may insist upon a refund rather than repair/replace (but with this option it is not taken the goods did not conform and OP is obviously out of time).

There is a 14 days cancellation right for distance and off-premises contracts, however it can be extended to 1 year and 14 days. I don't know if this company has stores so can't say if this was a distance contract or not but if it were given their website says "Orders where goods have been specifically ordered for Customer requirements (schedule and non-stock items) cannot be cancelled." I find it highly doubtful they would have complied with the required information, not that this helps the OP as they are past 1 year and 14 days. 

Beyond this it's repair/replace followed by final right to reject/price reduction, no time limits (other than 6 years in E&Ws to enforce via the court process). 

Correcting my earlier post burden of proof does apply to final right to reject/price reduction after 6 months. 

For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

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

Regarding the TV signal there are two aspects to consider, the first is how the goods were described by the retailer and any public statement made by the manufacturer (who might be the same in this instance) and whether it was made known to the trader (either directly or implied) that the goods were to be used for a particular purpose. 

A link to the product in question would be helpful if OP is still readding  

PHK

Actually  I think it's quite complicated to prove whether the TV is inherently faulty.

A TV doesn't work on its own, it requires a suitable aerial and power supply. If these aren't satisfactory (eg the power supply is noisy or low voltage) then even the most expensive best TV won't work.

Indeed the symptoms the OP is reporting seem very much like poor signal and or noisy power.

Given that and the time that has passed then I think the OP will struggle to prove that the TV is not fit for purpose unless they can get a test report from a qualified person.

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

I agree with everything you’ve said. But the OP has phrased everything in an odd way. Firstly, the title - this isn’t s product that’s slightly past the 30 day mark to return. They are also well past the 14 day statutory right to reject. So the first question of ‘Am I within my rights to reject the TV as not fit for purpose and claim a full refund?’ Is clearly no - the time to reject the product has passed. 

There isn't a 14 day statutory right to reject  

There is a 30 day short term right to reject where you may insist upon a refund rather than repair/replace (but with this option it is not taken the goods did not conform and OP is obviously out of time).

There is a 14 days cancellation right for distance and off-premises contracts, however it can be extended to 1 year and 14 days. I don't know if this company has stores so can't say if this was a distance contract or not but if it were given their website says "Orders where goods have been specifically ordered for Customer requirements (schedule and non-stock items) cannot be cancelled." I find it highly doubtful they would have complied with the required information, not that this helps the OP as they are past 1 year and 14 days. 

Beyond this it's repair/replace followed by final right to reject/price reduction, no time limits (other than 6 years in E&Ws to enforce via the court process). 

Correcting my earlier post burden of proof does apply to final right to reject/price reduction after 6 months. 

For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

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

Regarding the TV signal there are two aspects to consider, the first is how the goods were described by the retailer and any public statement made by the manufacturer (who might be the same in this instance) and whether it was made known to the trader (either directly or implied) that the goods were to be used for a particular purpose. 

A link to the product in question would be helpful if OP is still readding  

Thank you for correcting me - genuine mistake. Useful information to know. As you say, unlikely to help much in this case as it still is on the consumer to prove the fault is 1) there and 2) was there at purchase. 

I think at this point - it’s debating hypotheticals and assumptions. Without a product description or link it is impossible to advise further.