Cex want to charge me the difference for an exchange.

photome

RefluentBeans said:

I agree with everything that’s posted. I would ask for a refund - my bet is they are going to be resistant and so they aren’t refunding you and reselling a new item to you; they are trying to replace it (which they’re legally allowed to do) but pass the costs to you (which they’re not allowed to do - if they’re choosing to replace it). 

But they may just refund you - which would be simpler I think. Means any new purchase is clear and distinct from the previous. 

Reading the OP , they could have had a refund 

born_again

Is this a new or 2nd hand product?

RefluentBeans

sheramber said:

The OP has not said they will not refund, He asked for refund or exchange and Cex replied that an exchange would require an additional payment. 

It is more the case the OP would prefer an exchange. 

My point is that if CEX want to charge more for a replacement the mechanism for that would be to offer a refund, and let the OP buy again. If a replacement is offered, as far as I know, the CRA doesn’t allow for a charge for that. Same with repair. Hence, why the retailer has the choice to repair, replace, or refund. 

The OP can prefer whatever they’d like, but the choice is with CEX in what they want to offer out of repair, replacement, or refund. 

PHK

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

De minimis non curat lex is a legal defence 

The problem is that small track cases are normally handed down orally so getting evidence is difficult. In my experience have dealt with a few sub £50 claims and whilst the cases weren't dismissed costs weren't awarded so the person got their £10 compensation from our defendant but had paid far more that in court fees. In a singular case where they also breached the CPRs they also had to reimburse us costs but net of the £25 award. 

If I'm remembering correctly, the case Thumb is referring to was for £10, the other party didn't engage so it was won by default and eventually the person the claim was against paid up to an amount around £200. 

There was a Twitter thread detailing everything but the search on here is pants, maybe @ThumbRemote still has the link. 

It is interesting as clearly claims for such small amounts are done on principle and I've read on here the courts don't particularly like such claims.

As I say I don't think it's worth the trouble for £7 or such, you'd be better off investing time in something more fruitful, again it's a shame there is an online record of small claims cases, would probably help close a lot of gaps in the points that are debated where where we don't particularly know the exact answers. 

My experience matches @DullGreyGuy but I'll add that the judge was particularly scathing to the claimants in their oral judgement. 

Undervalued

PHK said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

De minimis non curat lex is a legal defence 

The problem is that small track cases are normally handed down orally so getting evidence is difficult. In my experience have dealt with a few sub £50 claims and whilst the cases weren't dismissed costs weren't awarded so the person got their £10 compensation from our defendant but had paid far more that in court fees. In a singular case where they also breached the CPRs they also had to reimburse us costs but net of the £25 award. 

If I'm remembering correctly, the case Thumb is referring to was for £10, the other party didn't engage so it was won by default and eventually the person the claim was against paid up to an amount around £200. 

There was a Twitter thread detailing everything but the search on here is pants, maybe @ThumbRemote still has the link. 

It is interesting as clearly claims for such small amounts are done on principle and I've read on here the courts don't particularly like such claims.

As I say I don't think it's worth the trouble for £7 or such, you'd be better off investing time in something more fruitful, again it's a shame there is an online record of small claims cases, would probably help close a lot of gaps in the points that are debated where where we don't particularly know the exact answers. 

My experience matches @DullGreyGuy but I'll add that the judge was particularly scathing to the claimants in their oral judgement. 

This is the modern (but much lower value) equivalent of when libel cases where tried by jury. It wasn't uncommon for a plaintiff to win but be awarded a derisory halfpenny in damages and left to pay their own costs!  

pinkshoes

@ryrystelladowens are they saying they WON'T refund?

From what you've written they're offering you a full refund then you can purchase another one which is unfortunately £7 more now.

You have the option to take the full refund and buy elsewhere...