henry vacuum-replaced if faulty?

Debt_Free_Chick

KathrynPenguin wrote: »

Aah I may have misled you a little. It developed the fault after being used for one week BUT I'd bought it 6 weeks earlier.

The bottom line is, if you had to take the retailer to the small claims court to get a refund, is the Court likely to agree that "it is to be expected" that a brand new vacuum cleaner would normally develop a fault after 6 weeks?

There are no hard and fast rules, but I think the Court would rule that "no, it's normal and the retailer should refund or exchange, immediately".

Just my view, but even though it had been bought weeks earlier, the fault developed after only one week's use.

In any event, the retailer would have to prove that the vacuum was in 100% good order when sold - and that the fault didn't already exist when sold, to materialise after a week's use.

In such circumstances, do not accept a repair. Simply insist on a refund or exchange

KathrynPenguin

We are getting a refund now anyway as it can't be repaired.

Normally I wouldn't have even bought from Argos - it was only for the upgrade. So when I get the money back I'll buy from somewhere better - Amazon or JL spring to mind as I've always had excellent service when I've had problems.

stoveman

couldnt be bothered to read all the posts as half drunk lol but thought i just post in case it hadent been mentioned already.

Henry cleaners come with 3 years guarentees

I used to work in comet and within the first 2 years its a straight swap and the final year was a inspection then replacemnet if not easily fixed.
EDIT:
Just read the 2 post aboves and with regards to buying it 6 weeks ago but only using it for 1 week, thats not nthe suppliers problem it goes from date of purchase, but either way its genrally a swap with these cleaners anyways

stoveman

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Because it developed a fault after only one week - which would strongly suggest that it was faulty at the time of purchase. I would have insisted on a replacement or refund.

It is for the retailer to prove that it wasn't faulty when bought. As a consumer, you keep reminding them of that until they refund/exchange.

How can a supplier prove that it wasnt faulty at date of purchase when they buy them in from Henrey? they dont test every single appliance that wuld be ridiculus, that why they can offer a refund OR a free repair

Debt_Free_Chick

stoveman wrote: »

How can a supplier prove that it wasnt faulty at date of purchase when they buy them in from Henrey? they dont test every single appliance that wuld be ridiculus, that why they can offer a refund OR a free repair

That's the point, though. The regulations require the retailer to sell goods that are "fit for purpose". Otherwise, the retailer must refund or exchange. It's only if a fault develops over time that a repair can be offered instead.

No-one can prove, categorically, that the vacuum was fault-free - but it would be highly unlikely to develop a "wear & tear" fault after one week's use, so the likelihood is that it wasn't fit for purpose when sold.

Unless the retailer can prove otherwise, then the consumer should insist on a replacement or refund, rather than a repair.

Inactive

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Unless the retailer can prove otherwise, then the consumer should insist on a replacement or refund, rather than a repair.

Try doing that with a new car that develops a fault after a couple of weeks.:rolleyes:


Nobody is " breaking any law " in offering a repair, yes most retailers will offer a swop/refund, but they don't have to.

Debt_Free_Chick

Inactive wrote: »

Try doing that with a new car that develops a fault after a couple of weeks.:rolleyes:

Not sure whether sales of cars are covered under precisely the same section of the Sale of Goods Act (etc) or not Pretty sure that new cars are covered.

Nobody is " breaking any law " in offering a repair, yes most retailers will offer a swop/refund, but they don't have to.

In certain circumstances they are!

Your rights ...

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.
• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

The bold is mine. So you can insist on a refund, if you are "within a reasonable time".

Your rights under the Sale of Goods Act explained here

Inactive wrote: »

Try doing that with a new car that develops a fault after a couple of weeks.:rolleyes:

But you need to know your rights in order to enforce them

adandem

Yes they do, EVEN ARGOS:rotfl:

Our 18 month old one needed a repair and I phoned Numatic first as I was prepared for the usual Argos fob off. A very nice lady told me that their policy is not to repair but for the retailer to replace, she also said she got lots af Argos customers phoning with similar queries.


I went into Arogs armed with facts and they did replace it (after they'd phoned Numatic and questioned 5 other staff members:rolleyes: ).;)

Inactive

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

[*]If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)[/LIST]The bold is mine. So you can insist on a refund, if you are "within a reasonable time".

You must be reading something that I am not.

It says can " request " not " insist on ", and as usual, the " reasonable time " is not defined, so open to abuse on both sides.

I do not know of anyone that has bought a " new " car and had it replaced for a single, repairable fault.

Debt_Free_Chick

Inactive wrote: »

You must be reading something that I am not.

It says can " request " not " insist on ", and as usual, the " reasonable time " is not defined, so open to abuse on both sides.

There would be little point in the legislation giving consumers the right to request a refund, if the retailer were not obliged to do so

See page 4 of the Retailers' Guide to the SOGA, under the heading "Remedies"

If a product that was faulty at the time of sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer is legally entitled to:

a full refund, if this is within a reasonable time of the sale ("reasonable time" is not defined in law but is often quite short);

(The bold is the author's - not mine).

I do not know of anyone that has bought a " new " car and had it replaced for a single, repairable fault.

That doesn't mean that they don't have that right. Maybe they didn't know? Maybe they were happy to accept a repair?

many people accept a repair to a new car as there isn't normally one of the exactly the same spec sitting around, ready to be driven off in exchange.