who is right or wrong (Very Retailer)

david632

i bought a switch in December which now is broken , i have tried to get this returned to very but they say , its not there problem and to take it up with the manufacture , i quoted the consumer rights act 2015 were the contract is with the retailer but they informed me i was wrong and i had to return this to the manufacture and not them , this is what they said

 (Hi David. I am afraid that isn't quite right. The consumer rights act 2015 gives us the option to choose how we deal with faulty items under warranty. The warranty comes from the manufacturer not us. And also our contract with you was to provide you with the goods and this was completed/fulfilled. We cannot and will not provide support for faulty items. It wouldn't be possible as we are not the manufacturer. We cannot accept this back without the authorisation to do so from Nintendo., As such we can only advise as we have. We recommend contacting the Manufacturer directly as your first port of call on any Fault in the First Instance. This is because the Manufacturer are best placed to troubleshoot the issue and offer a fix/repair or replacement if the item is covered by the Manufacturing Warranty on it. If it is covered by the Warranty but they cannot offer a repair or replacement under the warranty they will provide a reference number for us that authorises us to accept the item back as a return for refund instead.)

my question is . who is right ?

thanks

pramsay13

They are completely wrong but in saying that it if it's still under warranty it might be easier / more productive to contact Nintendo and see what they are saying. 

powerful_Rogue

Very sloppy wording, but the jist is correct.

Bear in mind after 6 months the onus is on you to prove the item was inherently faulty when purchased.

What's your issue of sending it back?

david632

powerful_Rogue said:

Very sloppy wording, but the jist is correct.

Bear in mind after 6 months the onus is on you to prove the item was inherently faulty when purchased.

What's your issue of sending it back?

the charging port wont take a charge , think its blown

powerful_Rogue

david632 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Very sloppy wording, but the jist is correct.

Bear in mind after 6 months the onus is on you to prove the item was inherently faulty when purchased.

What's your issue of sending it back?

the charging port wont take a charge , think its blown

Charging port can easily be user damage.

Again, why don't you want to send it to Nintendo?

david632

powerful_Rogue said:

david632 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Very sloppy wording, but the jist is correct.

Bear in mind after 6 months the onus is on you to prove the item was inherently faulty when purchased.

What's your issue of sending it back?

the charging port wont take a charge , think its blown

Charging port can easily be user damage.

Again, why don't you want to send it to Nintendo?

sorry misread your comment , just me being stubborn  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

Very sloppy wording, but the jist is correct.

Bear in mind after 6 months the onus is on you to prove the item was inherently faulty when purchased.

What's your issue of sending it back?

If they told the OP they are entitled to a remedy with them (Very) but as it's longer than 6 months they'd be required to demonstrate the goods do not conform or alternatively as the item is still under warranty then this is an alternative avenue to pursue which may be easier that would be correct.

What they've said is 

The consumer rights act 2015 gives us the option to choose how we deal with faulty items under warranty. 

Nope

The warranty comes from the manufacturer not us. 

Correct

And also our contract with you was to provide you with the goods and this was completed/fulfilled.

Nope

We cannot and will not provide support for faulty items.

Nope

It wouldn't be possible as we are not the manufacturer.

Nope

We cannot accept this back without the authorisation to do so from Nintendo

Nope

As such we can only advise as we have. We recommend contacting the Manufacturer directly as your first port of call on any Fault in the First Instance. This is because the Manufacturer are best placed to troubleshoot the issue and offer a fix/repair or replacement if the item is covered by the Manufacturing Warranty on it

They can recommend what they want but tied with the rest of the information very misleading.

If it is covered by the Warranty but they cannot offer a repair or replacement under the warranty they will provide a reference number for us that authorises us to accept the item back as a return for refund instead.

Nope

The jist is very far from correct, it's an example of a company attempting to deny the consumer their right to remedy and likely committing an offence under the CPRs by misleading them about their rights.

A fine example of how large companies get by on brand, marketing and exposure rather than respecting the consumer. 

david632

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Very sloppy wording, but the jist is correct.

Bear in mind after 6 months the onus is on you to prove the item was inherently faulty when purchased.

What's your issue of sending it back?

If they told the OP they are entitled to a remedy with them (Very) but as it's longer than 6 months they'd be required to demonstrate the goods do not conform or alternatively as the item is still under warranty then this is an alternative avenue to pursue which may be easier that would be correct.

What they've said is 

The consumer rights act 2015 gives us the option to choose how we deal with faulty items under warranty. 

Nope

The warranty comes from the manufacturer not us. 

Correct

And also our contract with you was to provide you with the goods and this was completed/fulfilled.

Nope

We cannot and will not provide support for faulty items.

Nope

It wouldn't be possible as we are not the manufacturer.

Nope

We cannot accept this back without the authorisation to do so from Nintendo

Nope

As such we can only advise as we have. We recommend contacting the Manufacturer directly as your first port of call on any Fault in the First Instance. This is because the Manufacturer are best placed to troubleshoot the issue and offer a fix/repair or replacement if the item is covered by the Manufacturing Warranty on it

They can recommend what they want but tied with the rest of the information very misleading.

If it is covered by the Warranty but they cannot offer a repair or replacement under the warranty they will provide a reference number for us that authorises us to accept the item back as a return for refund instead.

Nope

The jist is very far from correct, it's an example of a company attempting to deny the consumer their right to remedy and likely committing an offence under the CPRs by misleading them about their rights.

A fine example of how large companies get by on brand, marketing and exposure rather than respecting the consumer. 

Thanks for the Information , much appreciated 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Very sloppy wording, but the jist is correct.

Bear in mind after 6 months the onus is on you to prove the item was inherently faulty when purchased.

What's your issue of sending it back?

If they told the OP they are entitled to a remedy with them (Very) but as it's longer than 6 months they'd be required to demonstrate the goods do not conform or alternatively as the item is still under warranty then this is an alternative avenue to pursue which may be easier that would be correct.

What they've said is 

The consumer rights act 2015 gives us the option to choose how we deal with faulty items under warranty. 

Nope

The warranty comes from the manufacturer not us. 

Correct

And also our contract with you was to provide you with the goods and this was completed/fulfilled.

Nope

We cannot and will not provide support for faulty items.

Nope

It wouldn't be possible as we are not the manufacturer.

Nope

We cannot accept this back without the authorisation to do so from Nintendo

Nope

As such we can only advise as we have. We recommend contacting the Manufacturer directly as your first port of call on any Fault in the First Instance. This is because the Manufacturer are best placed to troubleshoot the issue and offer a fix/repair or replacement if the item is covered by the Manufacturing Warranty on it

They can recommend what they want but tied with the rest of the information very misleading.

If it is covered by the Warranty but they cannot offer a repair or replacement under the warranty they will provide a reference number for us that authorises us to accept the item back as a return for refund instead.

Nope

The jist is very far from correct, it's an example of a company attempting to deny the consumer their right to remedy and likely committing an offence under the CPRs by misleading them about their rights.

A fine example of how large companies get by on brand, marketing and exposure rather than respecting the consumer. 

As I said, the jist was correct, the wording was very sloppy.

tightauldgit

david632 said:

i bought a switch in December which now is broken , i have tried to get this returned to very but they say , its not there problem and to take it up with the manufacture , i quoted the consumer rights act 2015 were the contract is with the retailer but they informed me i was wrong and i had to return this to the manufacture and not them , this is what they said

 (Hi David. I am afraid that isn't quite right. The consumer rights act 2015 gives us the option to choose how we deal with faulty items under warranty. The warranty comes from the manufacturer not us. And also our contract with you was to provide you with the goods and this was completed/fulfilled. We cannot and will not provide support for faulty items. It wouldn't be possible as we are not the manufacturer. We cannot accept this back without the authorisation to do so from Nintendo., As such we can only advise as we have. We recommend contacting the Manufacturer directly as your first port of call on any Fault in the First Instance. This is because the Manufacturer are best placed to troubleshoot the issue and offer a fix/repair or replacement if the item is covered by the Manufacturing Warranty on it. If it is covered by the Warranty but they cannot offer a repair or replacement under the warranty they will provide a reference number for us that authorises us to accept the item back as a return for refund instead.)

my question is . who is right ?

thanks

Well there might be a word of their reply that is right, but no more than three. 

The CRA makes a retailer responsible for the conformity of their product and is completely separate to and not affected by any manufacturer's warranty that exists. 

While they can dispute the nature of the fault here and whether it was inherent or not - they don't appear to be doing that but simply refusing to repair or replace it. If they are saying they CAN'T repair or replace it then they should offer you a refund (deducting a little bit for usage) or a reduced price to keep the item. 

If it was me, I would write back to them and remind them of their obligations and point out that you are happy to return the item to Nintendo for them to look at provided retailer confirms that this is happening under the terms of the CRA and would constitute their one attempt to repair/replace. 

I'd also ask for your case to be escalated to someone who understands the consumer rights act - possibly a member of their legal team. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Very sloppy wording, but the jist is correct.

Bear in mind after 6 months the onus is on you to prove the item was inherently faulty when purchased.

What's your issue of sending it back?

If they told the OP they are entitled to a remedy with them (Very) but as it's longer than 6 months they'd be required to demonstrate the goods do not conform or alternatively as the item is still under warranty then this is an alternative avenue to pursue which may be easier that would be correct.

What they've said is 

The consumer rights act 2015 gives us the option to choose how we deal with faulty items under warranty. 

Nope

The warranty comes from the manufacturer not us. 

Correct

And also our contract with you was to provide you with the goods and this was completed/fulfilled.

Nope

We cannot and will not provide support for faulty items.

Nope

It wouldn't be possible as we are not the manufacturer.

Nope

We cannot accept this back without the authorisation to do so from Nintendo

Nope

As such we can only advise as we have. We recommend contacting the Manufacturer directly as your first port of call on any Fault in the First Instance. This is because the Manufacturer are best placed to troubleshoot the issue and offer a fix/repair or replacement if the item is covered by the Manufacturing Warranty on it

They can recommend what they want but tied with the rest of the information very misleading.

If it is covered by the Warranty but they cannot offer a repair or replacement under the warranty they will provide a reference number for us that authorises us to accept the item back as a return for refund instead.

Nope

The jist is very far from correct, it's an example of a company attempting to deny the consumer their right to remedy and likely committing an offence under the CPRs by misleading them about their rights.

A fine example of how large companies get by on brand, marketing and exposure rather than respecting the consumer. 

As I said, the jist was correct, the wording was very sloppy.

Jist means general meaning, the general meaning of that is go away and get someone else to deal with it because we don't have to which is not correct.

The wording isn't poor or sloppy, it's actually well written, to achieve the agenda of getting the customer who doesn't know their rights to go away.