Richer Sounds 6 year warranty

DullGreyGuy

BoGoF said:

trogg said:

Thanks all, I was about to say that I've just read their terms and conditions but thanks Alderbank for looking them up for me,
I know under the Consumer Rights Act I should expect it to last at least 6 years so I could go down that route but I would need to prove an inherent fault which would be difficult.
So, it looks like I'll have to take the voucher and go shopping
Many years ago I managed (after many months) to get a TV exchanged 18 months after the 12 month warranty had run out be using the old 'Sale of goods act' so it is worth pursuing sometimes, but not on this occasion I fear.
Thinking about it, I've recently purchased a new van, comes with a 3 year warranty and cost me almost £40,000.... So I can't complain about a 5 year old TV I suppose 😉

You misunderstand the CRA as well. Even if you could show inherent fault you are not entitled to a new TV. You are entitled the cost of a 5 year old TV (or a replacemwnt 5 year old tv) which I would estimate to be less than the 40% vouchers you have.

No, the retailer could choose if to repair, replace or refund. You can express a preference but they can go against if another method is materially lower cost.

For any item over 6 months old they are entitled to reduce the refund to reflect use... this is not the same as saying they only have to give you the secondhand value. At 5 years old there probably isn't the greatest difference to be honest but if the item is 7 months old then "use" could be much smaller reduction than secondhand value... clearly some item's value goes off a cliff the second they are used. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

BoGoF said:

trogg said:

Thanks all, I was about to say that I've just read their terms and conditions but thanks Alderbank for looking them up for me,
I know under the Consumer Rights Act I should expect it to last at least 6 years so I could go down that route but I would need to prove an inherent fault which would be difficult.
So, it looks like I'll have to take the voucher and go shopping
Many years ago I managed (after many months) to get a TV exchanged 18 months after the 12 month warranty had run out be using the old 'Sale of goods act' so it is worth pursuing sometimes, but not on this occasion I fear.
Thinking about it, I've recently purchased a new van, comes with a 3 year warranty and cost me almost £40,000.... So I can't complain about a 5 year old TV I suppose 😉

You misunderstand the CRA as well. Even if you could show inherent fault you are not entitled to a new TV. You are entitled the cost of a 5 year old TV (or a replacemwnt 5 year old tv) which I would estimate to be less than the 40% vouchers you have.

The consumer is entitled to a replacement or repair, the guidance notes on the CRA stipulate a replacement should typically be identical, including new if originally new.

The consumer can not insist upon a remedy of replacement if it is disproportionate than repair (and vice versa) and it's more common for a repair to undertaken due to cost.

Where the trader fails in their obligation to repair/replace the consumer may exercise the final right to reject subject to a deduction for use after 6 months, Business Companion guidance (compiled by the likes of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and the Department for Business and Trade) stipulates the deduction should be as stated, for use, and not market/second hand value. 

That does ultimately lead to the same conclusion (to be less than the 40% vouchers you have) but the working out was based on misunderstanding the CRA  

DullGreyGuy said:

No, the retailer could choose if to repair, replace or refund. You can express a preference but they can go against if another method is materially lower cost.

The CRA doesn't offer the trader any choices, as I've noted before they have an obligation to repair or replace and where that is impossible or they fail to meet their obligations the consumer has the right to exercise either the final right to reject or seek a price reduction.

Whilst again that ultimately leads to the same conclusion this idea it's the retailer's choice, rather than the consumer's rights, may lead people to believe they must accept a refund when pushing for repair/replace may result in the remedy they both prefer and are entitled to.  

The comparison of "disproportionate" falls solely under the right to a repair/replacement and makes no reference to refunds. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23

(3)The consumer cannot require the trader to repair or replace the goods if that remedy (the repair or the replacement)—

(a)is impossible, or

(b)is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

Where one is disproportionate the consumer is still entitled to the other. 

If the consumer stipulates one or the other with the exceptions above but the trader states they are going to refund they are not abiding by the legislation, but of course there is no punishment for that (perhaps except misleading actions under CPRs depending upon the specifics, but alas it's doubtful to be enforced).