Consumer rights act and faulty goods

Alderbank

ro1892 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

ro1892 said:

I understand that if the replacement/repair develops a fault within 6 months then you can reject for a refund, but if the 6 months starts from the date of delivery of the original item (1 August in this example), then there's been almost 1 month of the 6 month period where the customer has not been able to use the item, so if the replacement developed a fault after 1 February then the customer could not reject it (even though they have only had 5 months usage).

What would be a reasonable timeframe for returning plus replacement before going down the chargeback/section 75 route?

No matter when, subject to the statute of limitations, the replacement develops a fault you are within your rights to reject the goods. The only relevance of the 6 months, which I believe would be from the original purchase, is who the burden of proof lies with... within 6 months its up to them to prove you broke it or its fair wear and after 6 months its up to you to prove its faulty. Clearly both directions can be contested by the other party if they disagree with the evidence.

If you go via your bank they'll almost certainly do a chargeback, if you are within the time limits which may mean you just get an invoice from the company a few weeks later (as per the post today about someone with damage to a Hertz hire car that they chargebacked)

I'd hope that if both the original and the replacement both failed within 4 months of delivery, it would point to a faulty product/design fault so might be easier to argue 

born_again said:

Well without knowing item cost can't say on S75. But they could argue that you have to return.

Chargeback for faulty is it has to be faulty when received, not develop a fault later on. But even so item has to be returned unless retailer is being obstructive & not allowing return. As you indicated  this is not claimable via a chargeback, only the debit amount can be recovered.

Possibly.
If they sold a total of four units and two failed within 4 months, that 50% failure rate might suggest a design fault. But if total sales were 40,000 then a failure rate of 0.01% becomes less impressive.

Conversely, 'breaking' two items in such quick succession might work against you, suggesting to some that the item is being used inappropriately or outside its design parameters.

ro1892

Guess it's always a gamble when buying something. I'll keep evidence of all communication, photos/videos of faults, online reviews from other customers showing faults (wish I'd seen these before buying) and hopefully that will help with the section 75 claim if I do need to go down that route.

Whilst nothing is guaranteed, I'm pleased I paid on a credit card, so at least I can try the section 75 route.

DullGreyGuy

ro1892 said:
According to @born_again I don't believe I can do a chargeback here as the item wasn't faulty on arrival but developed a fault after 38 days. I'll ask the bank to do a section 75 rather than chargeback so there's less chance of receiving an invoice from the retailer.

born_again said:

Well without knowing item cost can't say on S75. But they could argue that you have to return.

Chargeback for faulty is it has to be faulty when received, not develop a fault later on. But even so item has to be returned unless retailer is being obstructive & not allowing return. As you indicated  this is not claimable via a chargeback, only the debit amount can be recovered.

I will bow to their much greater knowledge than mine on Chargeback processes but the very concept of inherent faults is the fact it was actually faulty/substandard when it was delivered to you, you just didn't know at the time but its that underlying problem that then later presented when the poor soldering gave way or whatever the problem is. 

ro1892

DullGreyGuy said:

ro1892 said:
According to @born_again I don't believe I can do a chargeback here as the item wasn't faulty on arrival but developed a fault after 38 days. I'll ask the bank to do a section 75 rather than chargeback so there's less chance of receiving an invoice from the retailer.

born_again said:

Well without knowing item cost can't say on S75. But they could argue that you have to return.

Chargeback for faulty is it has to be faulty when received, not develop a fault later on. But even so item has to be returned unless retailer is being obstructive & not allowing return. As you indicated  this is not claimable via a chargeback, only the debit amount can be recovered.

I will bow to their much greater knowledge than mine on Chargeback processes but the very concept of inherent faults is the fact it was actually faulty/substandard when it was delivered to you, you just didn't know at the time but its that underlying problem that then later presented when the poor soldering gave way or whatever the problem is. 

I hadn't actually thought about it that way. The consumer rights act section 19, subsection 14 states:

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.

So that states unless the retailer can prove otherwise, the fault existed when the goods were delivered, meaning maybe a chargeback could work as the goods would be deemed to be faulty when received.

born_again

ro1892 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

ro1892 said:
According to @born_again I don't believe I can do a chargeback here as the item wasn't faulty on arrival but developed a fault after 38 days. I'll ask the bank to do a section 75 rather than chargeback so there's less chance of receiving an invoice from the retailer.

born_again said:

Well without knowing item cost can't say on S75. But they could argue that you have to return.

Chargeback for faulty is it has to be faulty when received, not develop a fault later on. But even so item has to be returned unless retailer is being obstructive & not allowing return. As you indicated  this is not claimable via a chargeback, only the debit amount can be recovered.

I will bow to their much greater knowledge than mine on Chargeback processes but the very concept of inherent faults is the fact it was actually faulty/substandard when it was delivered to you, you just didn't know at the time but its that underlying problem that then later presented when the poor soldering gave way or whatever the problem is. 

I hadn't actually thought about it that way. The consumer rights act section 19, subsection 14 states:

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.

So that states unless the retailer can prove otherwise, the fault existed when the goods were delivered, meaning maybe a chargeback could work as the goods would be deemed to be faulty when received.

Chargebacks have nothing to do with consumer rights. They are based on card regulations.
1st question we ask on cases like this is did it work when received. Yes. sorry nothing we can do.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ro1892 said:

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.

So that states unless the retailer can prove otherwise, the fault existed when the goods were delivered, meaning maybe a chargeback could work as the goods would be deemed to be faulty when received.

The chargeback process is in addition to consumer rights and is handled according to the bank's processes (which presumably are regulated to ensure they stick to their policies) but the chargeback process doesn't have to mirror consumer rights.

S75 on the other hand does mirror consumer rights. 

ro1892 said:

So the retailer doesn't have any incentive to quickly arrange a replacement in that case. They might as well take their time so the 6 month clock ticks down and if the replacement breaks then it's on the consumer to prove. Feels like a bit of a loophole if you ask me

Yes possibly but the repair/replacement must be carried out in a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience (both of which are subjective) and if that wasn't met you'd be entitled to reject.

You'd hope most businesses want these things done and dusted rather than playing games. A lot of the threads we see on here retailers jump straight to refund without bothering to repair/replace (which is, and at the same time isn't, correct). 

Consumer rights offer a lot of protection but of course won't be 100% fool proof  

ro1892

born_again said:

Chargebacks have nothing to do with consumer rights. They are based on card regulations.
1st question we ask on cases like this is did it work when received. Yes. sorry nothing we can do.

Thanks. S75 it is then if it goes that far

RefluentBeans

Has the retailer said why that it’s taking 3 weeks for sorting the issue out? I don’t think it’s necessarily unfair to ask for you to send the item back and them reimburse for payment. 

It obviously depends on what it is - like I wouldn’t mind doing it for a laptop but sending a fridge is obviously harder.