Consumer rights after partial refund

powerful_Rogue

Tried having a search online, but either searching the wrong terms or nothings jumping out at me!

Item purchased November 2023 which developed a fault. Return/refund offered or partial refund to keep the item and repair myself. I accepted the latter.

June 2024 item has developed a completely seperate unrelated issue.

Does the acceptance of a partial refund prevent the purchaser of any further claims under their consumer rights?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

Does the acceptance of a partial refund prevent the purchaser of any further claims under their consumer rights?

It's an interesting question to which I've not seen an answer, the way the wording of the regs flow seem to suggest it is a final remedy as there isn't any mention of further remedies after receiving a price reduction.

I don't think there is any harm in attempting to seek a further remedy, it would only be an issue if the retailer turned around as said you've had a price reduction and so have reached the end of your rights (or if you was going to small claims and needed a solid position to stand upon). 

That said even without consumer rights you are entitled to seek damages, I guess it depends on the specifics as to how that ties in with product lifespan, usage and previous price reduction.

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Does the acceptance of a partial refund prevent the purchaser of any further claims under their consumer rights?

It's an interesting question to which I've not seen an answer, the way the wording of the regs flow seem to suggest it is a final remedy as there isn't any mention of further remedies after receiving a price reduction.

I don't think there is any harm in attempting to seek a further remedy, it would only be an issue if the retailer turned around as said you've had a price reduction and so have reached the end of your rights (or if you was going to small claims and needed a solid position to stand upon). 

That said even without consumer rights you are entitled to seek damages, I guess it depends on the specifics as to how that ties in with product lifespan, usage and previous price reduction.

Thank you. I dropped the company a message this morning and will wait to see what they come back with. When they gave a partial refund in December, they did say if there was any other issues to get in touch, so hopefully should be promising.

powerful_Rogue

Just an update, I contacted the seller (was purchased 3rd party on Amazon) and they kept saying as it was outside of their 90 day return policy there was nothing they could do. I replied saying I was claiming under my consumer rights and not their return policy, but just got the same reply back.

Spoke to Amazon who reached out to them twice to try and get a return address which the comapny would not provice. Amazon have issued a refund and told me to dispose of the item.

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Does the acceptance of a partial refund prevent the purchaser of any further claims under their consumer rights?

It's an interesting question to which I've not seen an answer, the way the wording of the regs flow seem to suggest it is a final remedy as there isn't any mention of further remedies after receiving a price reduction.

I don't think there is any harm in attempting to seek a further remedy, it would only be an issue if the retailer turned around as said you've had a price reduction and so have reached the end of your rights (or if you was going to small claims and needed a solid position to stand upon). 

That said even without consumer rights you are entitled to seek damages, I guess it depends on the specifics as to how that ties in with product lifespan, usage and previous price reduction.

I don't think there needs to be an answer as you would retain the same rights as long as the issue isn't related.
EG if you bought a car a bonnet started flaking a bit of paint you could get a reduction, and if bonnet started flaking all over then you might have a battle to get more of a reduction. But if the engine packed up, then you would have the same redress as if you haven't taken a reduction for the bonnet.

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Does the acceptance of a partial refund prevent the purchaser of any further claims under their consumer rights?

It's an interesting question to which I've not seen an answer, the way the wording of the regs flow seem to suggest it is a final remedy as there isn't any mention of further remedies after receiving a price reduction.

I don't think there is any harm in attempting to seek a further remedy, it would only be an issue if the retailer turned around as said you've had a price reduction and so have reached the end of your rights (or if you was going to small claims and needed a solid position to stand upon). 

That said even without consumer rights you are entitled to seek damages, I guess it depends on the specifics as to how that ties in with product lifespan, usage and previous price reduction.

I don't think there needs to be an answer as you would retain the same rights as long as the issue isn't related.
EG if you bought a car a bonnet started flaking a bit of paint you could get a reduction, and if bonnet started flaking all over then you might have a battle to get more of a reduction. But if the engine packed up, then you would have the same redress as if you haven't taken a reduction for the bonnet.

I think it’s a hard one as the CRA is clearly written expecting there to be only a handful of faults to occur - like with clothing, or ‘simple’ products. Cars are multicomponent - so one fault localised to one component could be considered a separate fault to another component (eg the bonnet likely hasn’t affected the engine - so two components are different). 

I think the issue is, though, if the final right to reject after one failed replacement or repair gives consumers the option to demand a refund even if the components of the fault are different (the bonnet and engine) then I would expect the price reduction to also be honoured with the same finality as the consumers rights. 

But it would have to go to court to see which way the dust settles, and feel it’s not going to be a black and white issue. Like if in your scenario - if the engine failed before the bonnet I think you’d be less likely to convince a judge that you should get a further price reduction than if the bonnet failed before the engine, as I can definitely see that as a loophole that could be exploited (building a product with a made to fail minor component and offer a price reduction to get around the consumer rights act). 

I’d be interested to see if anyone’s got any cases of something going to court, but feel it’s such a small amount of cases that get offered a price reduction, and even less that fail after that, and far less that would end up in court. Plus obviously small claims don’t lay down precedence for future cases; but would be interesting for hear what situations win or lose. 

Okell

I'm not sure how the acceptance of a partial refund and keeping the item would affect a consumer's rights under the CRA?

If it did acceptance of a partial refund would have the effect of limiting a consumer's rights under the legislation, which is prohibited by s57 of the Act.

But rather a moot point if @powerful_Rogue has now been refunded by Amazon - if not the trader

powerful_Rogue

Some very interesting points raised.

In my situation it was a hottub. Delivered in November, notice it had a slow leak in December. Contacted the retailer who offered a full refund on return, or a partial refund (33%) if I could find the leak and resolve it myself. I accepted the partial refund and managed to resolve the issue.

Now something has gone which means the hottub won't heat up. Seems to be a common issue with this defunct brand. Luckily Amazon stepped in and assisted.

PHK

Okell said:

I'm not sure how the acceptance of a partial refund and keeping the item would affect a consumer's rights under the CRA?

If it did acceptance of a partial refund would have the effect of limiting a consumer's rights under the legislation, which is prohibited by s57 of the Act.

But rather a moot point if @powerful_Rogue has now been refunded by Amazon - if not the trader

This has come up before in the past. The short answer is that the legislation is unclear. 

It seems to have been written with the idea that faults are unlikely, when they do happen they are obvious, prevent the item from performing it's function and therefore won't be other problems. (Think washing machine that seizes up with normal use or stool that collapsed because of a knot in the wood)

If a consumer exercises their final right and one of the remedies under the law is a partial refund then it is reasonable in the circumstances to hold that this is a final settlement. 

That makes sense for some things but as the complexity of items increases then it becomes more likely that a further problem occurs. The law is silent on that issue. 

As far as I know, this hasn't been tested in court. Mainly because complicated items like cars are mainly dealt with under warranties rather than consumer rights. 

HillStreetBlues

https://www.fsp-law.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/

Whilst there is no specific rule, it is anticipated that the reduction should reflect the difference in value between what the consumer paid and the value of what they actually got (it is suggested that if the buyer accepts a reduction in respect of a particular fault, that does not prevent them from pursuing the full range of remedies for any further fault which emerges).

The author is a member of the Legal 500,
Can't seem to find much else

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

https://www.fsp-law.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/

Whilst there is no specific rule, it is anticipated that the reduction should reflect the difference in value between what the consumer paid and the value of what they actually got (it is suggested that if the buyer accepts a reduction in respect of a particular fault, that does not prevent them from pursuing the full range of remedies for any further fault which emerges).

The author is a member of the Legal 500,
Can't seem to find much else

That’s an interesting article. It seems to be that they’re using the logic that it’s a revision of contract, changing the sale price (eg original price of car £5000, after the issue with the bonnet £4700) so doesn’t affect the consumer rights. Makes me wonder if you could accept a partial refund and then insist on the final right to reject (assuming no repairs or replacements take place).

I think it’s a very complex issue. And there does seem to be some wiggle room, potentially on purpose to allow for judges to make decisions based on the situation in front of them.