Taking Amazon to court

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would agree that given the court gets the same filing/hearing fee for a £1 claim as a £300 claim I can't see it being thrown out as being too low... but I wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed as frivolous or if found in the OPs favour costs aren't awarded. 

That is only looking at it from one side.
Say the OP claimed £25 as that is due under CRA.
The judge could well ask Amazon why they didn't pay when they were given the LBA. They were liable so the reason it did end up in court is Amazon's fault, not the OP.

There's nothing to say anything is due... google life expectancy earbuds. Three years as a max is not an unreasonable durability. 

The OP has repeatedly dodged if the manufacturing fault with that batch was actually found in their product OR if the issue was the cause of the problem they have had (all they've said is that apple checked the batch number and said they would have replaced) - without getting an independent report into their product specifically proving both of those facts, the cost of which would boost the claim up to probably around £50 plus fee) then the claim is without merit (IMO). 

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would agree that given the court gets the same filing/hearing fee for a £1 claim as a £300 claim I can't see it being thrown out as being too low... but I wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed as frivolous or if found in the OPs favour costs aren't awarded. 

That is only looking at it from one side.
Say the OP claimed £25 as that is due under CRA.
The judge could well ask Amazon why they didn't pay when they were given the LBA. They were liable so the reason it did end up in court is Amazon's fault, not the OP.

There's nothing to say anything is due... google life expectancy earbuds. Three years as a max is not an unreasonable durability. 

The OP has repeatedly dodged if the manufacturing fault with that batch was actually found in their product OR if the issue was the cause of the problem they have had (all they've said is that apple checked the batch number and said they would have replaced) - without getting an independent report into their product specifically proving both of those facts, the cost of which would boost the claim up to probably around £50 plus fee) then the claim is without merit (IMO). 

OP tells judge Apple have stated theirs are part of a bad batch and would have replaced if bought direct. The judge would have to decide if that's proof the OP ones were inherently faulty. Apple hardly want to admit the sell faulty products, I can't see the need for anyone independent.  So can't see a judge overruling Apple saying they weren't faulty.

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would agree that given the court gets the same filing/hearing fee for a £1 claim as a £300 claim I can't see it being thrown out as being too low... but I wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed as frivolous or if found in the OPs favour costs aren't awarded. 

That is only looking at it from one side.
Say the OP claimed £25 as that is due under CRA.
The judge could well ask Amazon why they didn't pay when they were given the LBA. They were liable so the reason it did end up in court is Amazon's fault, not the OP.

There's nothing to say anything is due... google life expectancy earbuds. Three years as a max is not an unreasonable durability. 

The OP has repeatedly dodged if the manufacturing fault with that batch was actually found in their product OR if the issue was the cause of the problem they have had (all they've said is that apple checked the batch number and said they would have replaced) - without getting an independent report into their product specifically proving both of those facts, the cost of which would boost the claim up to probably around £50 plus fee) then the claim is without merit (IMO). 

OP tells judge Apple have stated theirs are part of a bad batch and would have replaced if bought direct. The judge would have to decide if that's proof the OP ones were inherently faulty. Apple hardly want to admit the sell faulty products, I can't see the need for anyone independent.  So can't see a judge overruling Apple saying they weren't faulty.

'Being part of a bad batch' where a percentage of products have a fault isn't relevant to the OPs statutory rights if the fault the OP experienced is unrelated to the issue... especially given the scheme run by apple (as retailer, not manufacturer) was in addition to the customer's statutory rights, and apple would now NOT replace the pods given the replacement scheme being referred to has ended (it was 3 years after the first retail sale of the batch in Oct 2020).  

And you've glossed over the issue of the life expectancy - if these pods do have the fault that led to the replacement scheme, they somehow managed to last their full life expectancy without issue (unless the OP has something from apple or independently supporting the idea they should have lasted more than 3 years from purchase)

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would agree that given the court gets the same filing/hearing fee for a £1 claim as a £300 claim I can't see it being thrown out as being too low... but I wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed as frivolous or if found in the OPs favour costs aren't awarded. 

That is only looking at it from one side.
Say the OP claimed £25 as that is due under CRA.
The judge could well ask Amazon why they didn't pay when they were given the LBA. They were liable so the reason it did end up in court is Amazon's fault, not the OP.

There's nothing to say anything is due... google life expectancy earbuds. Three years as a max is not an unreasonable durability. 

The OP has repeatedly dodged if the manufacturing fault with that batch was actually found in their product OR if the issue was the cause of the problem they have had (all they've said is that apple checked the batch number and said they would have replaced) - without getting an independent report into their product specifically proving both of those facts, the cost of which would boost the claim up to probably around £50 plus fee) then the claim is without merit (IMO). 

OP tells judge Apple have stated theirs are part of a bad batch and would have replaced if bought direct. The judge would have to decide if that's proof the OP ones were inherently faulty. Apple hardly want to admit the sell faulty products, I can't see the need for anyone independent.  So can't see a judge overruling Apple saying they weren't faulty.

'Being part of a bad batch' where a percentage of products have a fault isn't relevant to the OPs statutory rights if the fault the OP experienced is unrelated to the issue... especially given the scheme run by apple (as retailer, not manufacturer) was in addition to the customer's statutory rights, and apple would now NOT replace the pods given the replacement scheme being referred to has ended (it was 3 years after the first retail sale of the batch in Oct 2020).  

And you've glossed over the issue of the life expectancy - if these pods do have the fault that led to the replacement scheme, they somehow managed to last their full life expectancy without issue (unless the OP has something from apple or independently supporting the idea they should have lasted more than 3 years from purchase)

I haven't glossed over it as I don't know what would be expected, I leave that research to others.
My point was if the OP showed that a refund is due then I don't see why it would be in your word frivolous, even if was a small amount that was claimed
If the OP doesn't prove their case then OPs loses, but doesn't mean it was frivolous.

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would agree that given the court gets the same filing/hearing fee for a £1 claim as a £300 claim I can't see it being thrown out as being too low... but I wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed as frivolous or if found in the OPs favour costs aren't awarded. 

That is only looking at it from one side.
Say the OP claimed £25 as that is due under CRA.
The judge could well ask Amazon why they didn't pay when they were given the LBA. They were liable so the reason it did end up in court is Amazon's fault, not the OP.

There's nothing to say anything is due... google life expectancy earbuds. Three years as a max is not an unreasonable durability. 

The OP has repeatedly dodged if the manufacturing fault with that batch was actually found in their product OR if the issue was the cause of the problem they have had (all they've said is that apple checked the batch number and said they would have replaced) - without getting an independent report into their product specifically proving both of those facts, the cost of which would boost the claim up to probably around £50 plus fee) then the claim is without merit (IMO). 

OP tells judge Apple have stated theirs are part of a bad batch and would have replaced if bought direct. The judge would have to decide if that's proof the OP ones were inherently faulty. Apple hardly want to admit the sell faulty products, I can't see the need for anyone independent.  So can't see a judge overruling Apple saying they weren't faulty.

'Being part of a bad batch' where a percentage of products have a fault isn't relevant to the OPs statutory rights if the fault the OP experienced is unrelated to the issue... especially given the scheme run by apple (as retailer, not manufacturer) was in addition to the customer's statutory rights, and apple would now NOT replace the pods given the replacement scheme being referred to has ended (it was 3 years after the first retail sale of the batch in Oct 2020).  

And you've glossed over the issue of the life expectancy - if these pods do have the fault that led to the replacement scheme, they somehow managed to last their full life expectancy without issue (unless the OP has something from apple or independently supporting the idea they should have lasted more than 3 years from purchase)

I haven't glossed over it as I don't know what would be expected, I leave that research to others.
My point was if the OP showed that a refund is due then I don't see why it would be in your word frivolous, even if was a small amount that was claimed
If the OP doesn't prove their case then OPs loses, but doesn't mean it was frivolous.

Frivolous means bringing a suit with no basis in law or fact.

The OP hasn't proved their pods were faulty and hasn't proved how long they should reasonably have been expected to last... which would be fine if we were within the first 6 months after purchase, but after that point the burden of proof is on the buyer. 

Sticking your finger in the air and saying 'I don't know why they stopped working but I think they should have lasted 6 years therefore I want £60 (or whatever the figure would work out as)' is the very definition of frivolous. Should the OP bother to do the legwork to actually prove their argument then that would be entirely different (and that's regardless of the actual value of the claim as I already said I didn't think the low value was relevant given the fees are tiered). 

All I said was that "I would not be surprised" if the court either threw it out or declined to award fees - and you are entitled to disagree - after all both of us know better than to claim to know how a court will fall on any specific case. 

HillStreetBlues

I wouldn't say the OP has or hasn't proved they are faulty, the OP would point to Apple stating batch is faulty then that might be enough or might not.
There is nothing defined what counts, one judge might accept it, another requiring more.

Would I claim, no, as the bigger picture is Amazon might decide to bar me and that to me wouldn't be worth the risk even if I won.

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

I wouldn't say the OP has or hasn't proved they are faulty, the OP would point to Apple stating batch is faulty then that might be enough or might not.
There is nothing defined what counts, one judge might accept it, another requiring more.

Would I claim, no, as the bigger picture is Amazon might decide to bar me and that to me wouldn't be worth the risk even if I won.

The issue is that Apple is very good at saying ‘if it was bought from us we’d have done this’ but that isn’t a legal claim. Apple retail is, for all intents and purposes, just another store. In the same way Samsung stores are not the people who manufacture phones and TV’s - they just sell directly to consumers. 

OP hasn’t said what is in Apples letter they gave them - but I doubt that it is anything of substance, and certainly wouldn’t be anything written by an engineer/technical member of staff. The program Apple ran to refund/replace certain products is above the law. Unfortunately the OP missed the chance to resolve it via that scheme, presumably because the fault wasn’t evident at that point. Apples claims are that the fault should be evident within the first couple of weeks of wearing, but opened it up to 3 years, which is very, very generous. 

If the letter says ‘our bad, this is s genuine fault and not from user use, and we expect the product to have lasted for another X months’ then I will eat my hat. Instead I think the letter will just say that it would’ve been part of the program but that finished in October, explained what the program is/was, and that this program doesn’t affect statutory rights. 

The other thing to note is people use their listening devices for wildly different amount of time and purposes. If the OP listens for 10 hours a day in an office it will last less time than someone who listens for 1 hour a day whilst walking the dog. It’s the reason that saying products should last for X years is often misguided as heavy users will just wear them out a lot faster than the average consumer. 

With regards to the court case - I don’t think it’s frivolous but I don’t think it’s worth perusing. From the tone of the OP, they’re expecting specific performance (a replacement) which the court won’t award - instead the court will award damages; deducting money for the time of ownership vs expected use. I think £50-£100 before fees would be realistic. 

Ultimately the OP probably won’t reply to further messages - the advice I gave earlier I think is still valid. If they ask for £100 rather than replacement or a full refund, Amazon will likely agree. But I hadn’t considered your comment about them closing the account - I can see them doing that the second the LBA is received to be honest. And I believe they’re pretty hot on finding accounts that try to evade their ban. 

HillStreetBlues

I doubt no one will ever know if the OP has strong enough evidence unless it's submitted as is. We can all try to guess, but that's all it can be. Weaker cases will have been won, stronger cases will have ben lost.
It's a pity so few return with final result as it's like debating how an film will finish and then missing the ending so nobody knows.

TomB_on_the_Sax

Hello everybody.

I thought I would give an update as all this takes time.

I raised a claim with Edinburgh Sheriff Court. It costs £20 to do so. I was asking for the original price of the Airpods.

They hired a lawyer and yesterday I got a an email saying that I had not provided evidence that the Airpods were faulty (I had). But would I accept £100?

No, I want the full price.

What about £150 then?

No.

So today they have settled for the full price.

The whole thing has taken 6 months. I have not been impressed with Amazon's after sales service.

It would have been a lot cheaper for them if they had engaged with me properly in the first place.

Okell

Well done.  For the sake of £20 I think it's always worth following up by issuing a court claim.  I'm always surprised that so many posters don't think it's worth it.

What I'd really be interested to know is whether Amazon now take any retaliatory action against you like closing your account.  It's often stated on here that if you take any action against Amazon - like issuing a court claim - then they'll close any accounts you have with them and effectively blacklist your card details and your address - but I'm beginning to think this might be an urban myth.

Let us know what happens