who is right or wrong (Very Retailer)

PHK

As its more than six months since purchase the OP needs to prove the fault is inherent. It seems the best way to do this would be to contact Nintendo under their warranty. Otherwise they'd need an independent report which would cost money.

I take a slight issue with advice that the retailer must deal with it themselves. They are certainly responsible but that's not the same as them physically handling the matter. 

 If a retailer wants to use another company at their expense then that's fine as long as the consumer isn't deprived of their rights. 

Retailers sell things but they aren't technicians, engineers or inspectors. Better that they honestly say who'll physically be handling the matter than pretending its them but using a third party.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

PHK said:

As its more than six months since purchase the OP needs to prove the fault is inherent. It seems the best way to do this would be to contact Nintendo under their warranty. Otherwise they'd need an independent report which would cost money.

I take a slight issue with advice that the retailer must deal with it themselves. They are certainly responsible but that's not the same as them physically handling the matter. 

 If a retailer wants to use another company at their expense then that's fine as long as the consumer isn't deprived of their rights. 

Retailers sell things but they aren't technicians, engineers or inspectors. Better that they honestly say who'll physically be handling the matter than pretending its them but using a third party.

You are 100% correct  

That said, if someone came here to say their parcel hadn't been delivered and the retailer was saying they (the customer) had to contact the courier and get a non-receipt code before they (the retailer) can do anything they'd be told that's not correct.

As tightauldgit points out this go to the manufacturer thing is fine if they are acting as a third party with the trader taking responsibility for their obligations but that's not what they email says.

I've seen "it's quicker" or "it's easier", that is true but only for the retailer. It would be equally quick and easy if these big companies had software integrated with the manufacturers allowing the customer to report an issue online via the retailer's website with it being sent to whoever and either accepted and collection booked or a call back requesting more information, the system could be integrated in store for staff use when customers drop goods in store.

But hey why bother when you can get away with passing the leg work to the customer? 

I understand for an independent shop such a set up may not be available but these big companies like Very, AO, Argos, etc have direct relationships with the brands, both the retailers and the brands are multi million pound businesses, with the technology we have there is no need for this burden to be placed upon the consumer.

Regardless of all that, the email OP received doesn't say "please contact our third party who will under take our obligations on our behalf", it says "go away and deal with it yourself".

In terms of passed 6 months, my question would be are Nintendo independent? I don't think so, they clearly have a vested interest in protecting themselves from the implications of admitting to widespread issues that might end up with a product recall. Same with phones, there are shops that will fix consoles and their opinion should be more independent than that of the manufacturer. 

Of course if the customer doesn't want to seek an inspection and would prefer to have it dealt with under warranty because it's easier that is their choice and in such an instance has nothing at all to do with the retailer.