Taking Amazon to court

Arunmor

Some battles are worth fighting and after this length of time this isn't one of them.

eskbanker

born_again said:

Alderbank said:

born_again said:

TomB_on_the_Sax said:

I can't get 'Quote to work properly so this is in reply to the 120 day post at the bottom of page 1.

It's over 120 days. in fact it's over 3 years. That's the problem. Both Amazon & Mastercard point blank refuse to do anything over 3 years, however the law states 5 years for Scotland & 6 for England & Wales.

 Timescale is rule of thumb 6 (UK) or in Scotland 5 years.

With respect, Scotland is still (at time of writing) UK. Perhaps you mean E&W?  

In reality it should be the same for all, but Scotland seem to make their own laws/rules in certain cases.

Depends exactly what you mean by 'should' (and 'reality') here - the Scottish legal system has always been a separate entity from that applying in England and Wales, although there is plenty of post-1707 UK-wide legislation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law

However, we're in danger of thread drift here....

Alderbank

born_again said:

Alderbank said:

born_again said:

TomB_on_the_Sax said:

I can't get 'Quote to work properly so this is in reply to the 120 day post at the bottom of page 1.

It's over 120 days. in fact it's over 3 years. That's the problem. Both Amazon & Mastercard point blank refuse to do anything over 3 years, however the law states 5 years for Scotland & 6 for England & Wales.

 Timescale is rule of thumb 6 (UK) or in Scotland 5 years.

With respect, Scotland is still (at time of writing) UK. Perhaps you mean E&W?  

In reality it should be the same for all, but Scotland seem to make their own laws/rules in certain cases.

BTW you missed NI 🤦‍♀️

Touché! 
I forgot about The Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. It seems very similar to the Limitation Act 1980 which only applies to England & Wales.

cr1mson

DullGreyGuy said:

cr1mson said:

I remember this issue back in 2020 whereby some airpod pros experienced some sound quality issues and Apple did some kind of service programme for those affected which lasted for 3 years after original purchase.

You will need to prove that the defect was present at time of purchase now I would have throught that will be very easy for Amazon to argue that it wasn't as it hasn't presented until now it wasn't present at that time. Those affected by the original issue presented soon after purchase so surely Amazon would just say that this is an entirely separate issue that has developed as product is over 3 years old.

Also as others have mentioned they can make a deduction for use of the product in the past 3 years.

And finally would expect them to ask why you didn't take advantage of the service programme to have them serviced as reasonably well publicised. I don't have airpods and was aware.

Sorry if sounds harsh but sometimes the energy/time required exceeds the likely benefits and best just to move on and spend your energy/time on something else.

You mean this one https://support.apple.com/en-gb/airpods-pro-service-program-sound-issues 

Yep that one glad I hadn't misremembered!

DullGreyGuy

cr1mson said:

DullGreyGuy said:

cr1mson said:

I remember this issue back in 2020 whereby some airpod pros experienced some sound quality issues and Apple did some kind of service programme for those affected which lasted for 3 years after original purchase.

You will need to prove that the defect was present at time of purchase now I would have throught that will be very easy for Amazon to argue that it wasn't as it hasn't presented until now it wasn't present at that time. Those affected by the original issue presented soon after purchase so surely Amazon would just say that this is an entirely separate issue that has developed as product is over 3 years old.

Also as others have mentioned they can make a deduction for use of the product in the past 3 years.

And finally would expect them to ask why you didn't take advantage of the service programme to have them serviced as reasonably well publicised. I don't have airpods and was aware.

Sorry if sounds harsh but sometimes the energy/time required exceeds the likely benefits and best just to move on and spend your energy/time on something else.

You mean this one https://support.apple.com/en-gb/airpods-pro-service-program-sound-issues 

Yep that one glad I hadn't misremembered!

It's unusual... they often quietly disappear after the window for making a claim closes. This one by default has closed (it was manufactured before Oct 2020 and was a 3 year period) but the article is still available. 

TomB_on_the_Sax

Hello everyone,

The act is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I had all this confirmed by the Consumer Rights people.

As for proof, I have a piece of paper that the people in Apple kindly filled out for my wife.

eskbanker

TomB_on_the_Sax said:

Hello everyone,

The act is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I had all this confirmed by the Consumer Rights people.

As for proof, I have a piece of paper that the people in Apple kindly filled out for my wife.

That Act forms the basis of many threads on here and doesn't include your grand statement that was being questioned:

TomB_on_the_Sax said:

However the law states that if it is a known manufacturing issue, then you area allowed a refund or replacement if you notice the problem within 5 years.

so if you're going to rely on that then you need to find a definitive and authoritative source....

Aylesbury_Duck

TomB_on_the_Sax said:

Hello everyone,

The act is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I had all this confirmed by the Consumer Rights people.

As for proof, I have a piece of paper that the people in Apple kindly filled out for my wife.

Yes, we know which act is applicable, but your assertion that  "the law states that if it is a known manufacturing issue, then you area allowed a refund or replacement if you notice the problem within 5 years"  isn't quite correct.  

Who are these "Consumer Rights people" you've been speaking to?  They either don't understand consumer rights themselves, or you've misunderstood what they've told you.

If the "proof" you describe is an inspection report from Apple, then that's a good start, but as several have advised, you've a long way to go to get what at best is likely to be a fraction of the purchase price back.

RefluentBeans

What does the piece of paper actually say? Apple are well known to be ‘well if you bought it from us this is what we’d do’ - but they often choose not to do anything to help consumers who didn’t buy them (a choice as plenty of other manufacturers help consumers directly). 

If the piece of paper says ‘they’ve inspected the product and they ascertain the fault is, on the balance of probabilities, inherent and has taken 3 years to become evident.’ then I am genuinely surprised as Apple doesn’t admit much like that (and their store staff aren’t qualified to make those statements, especially if it hasn’t been seen by a technical member of staff and in stead just seen by a sales assistant). 

If I had to guess the piece of paper will likely say ‘we are aware of a select number of products in this batch of AirPods that were known to be faulty and we offered a period of exchanges to allow the faulty units to be swapped out. This program rang for 3 years from purchase, for purchases made before October 2020. This serial number matches this batch, and if the product had been in the 3 year return window we’d have offered a free replacement. This does not affect your consumer rights’. If it is something like that, where the serial number was looked up but the product wasn’t taken apart (to find the manufacturing defect) then I think the letter is next to useless other than confirming what you could’ve done on Apples website yourself - check the returns window, check your serial number, check the sales date and see you’re no longer eligible for a return. 

Again - I just stress, Apple is very good at ‘well next time but from us because of you did this is what we’d have done’. Their retail employees do not work for manufacturing and for all intents and purposes Apple Retail (the shops) are not the same as Apple Manufacturing (who make the products). Apple could’ve done something for you if they wanted to. They didn’t as it’s outside of the program and you didn’t buy it from them so there’s no obligation. 

As others have said this program was well above the standard of law - and the law allows the retailer to take off value for age of the product. So you won’t be claiming back £200 you’ll be claiming (an absolute maximum of) £100 + fees, and this is optimistic. As a general rule of thumb, my calculations would be how many years you’ve had the product (~3 years) vs the Statute of limitation placed within the act (6 years, for E&W - your locale may vary). Thus 50% refund seems best case scenario to me, and I don’t know how much the AirPods Pro cost at your purchase date, but £200 seems generous. Claiming for £100 is at NMW is slight less than 10 hours work. It’s not a lot of money for the amount of work you’ll have to put in to it. 

In all reality, you would probably win when you sent a LBA, and the lawyers got involved. But that is because it’s a lose lose for the company - they have to shell out for a legal defence to defend a £100 claim (or maybe even more), money which they can’t claim back. So you would win, but only because it’s a nuisance lawsuit; and I am very anti-weaponising the legal system to win, so will never condone it.

it’s ultimately up to you. But if they choose to defend the claim, then you’ll be facing an uphill battle for more than £100 refund, and I don’t really know how much that is worth it. They may call your bluff, and see if you’ve got the conviction to go through with the lawsuit. 

ArbitraryRandom

TomB_on_the_Sax said:

The act is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I had all this confirmed by the Consumer Rights people.

I'm not sure what you actually asked the consumer rights people (or who they are...) but if they told you that you were entitled to a full refund or replacement then I'm fairly sure you didn't give them all the details you've given here. 

Why not look at the law yourself? It's here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true

Can you quote for us the section that says goods must last 6 years or you're entitled to a full refund/replacement?  
(You can ctrl+f to search for key words)






To save you time, you won't find it - because that's not what the law says... it says goods must be of a satisfactory quality taking into account factors such as the price you paid, other goods of the same type, and the durability (which is what posters on here have been saying). 

It does say goods must be free from 'minor defects' - but if you follow that through to what your rights actually are (skip to section 24) then you are at best entitled to a partial refund taking into account the time that you have already had the item (again why people are saying that wireless headphones have a life expectantly of around 3 years, so any refund you receive will likely be less than the cost of taking court action in the first place). 


You are more than welcome to not believe us - but the law is there for you to see yourself...