Can I seek legal action against CeX

eskbanker

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

The issue is the age-old one of the distinction between having rights and being able to enforce them.

When a purchased item doesn't conform to the contract (i.e. doesn't work), then the Consumer Rights Act does grant you the right to reject it within 30 days for a refund (and other rights beyond that).

However, if the retailer asserts that the returned item isn't the one that was sold, or that the purchaser damaged it, then that muddies the water, and so it becomes harder to make the claim stick.  If the retailer is insistent on either point then ultimately you would need to let a court decide based on the evidence, and it may even be that the issue of a formal Letter Before Action prompts settlement....

I hope it does not come to this, but I am sure it will. Am I correct in saying that it is the responsibility of the retailer to provide evidence that they did not send the item in the way that I received it?

As the claimant you effectively have the burden of proof to make your case, and then the defendant provides whatever evidence they feel contradicts that.

Chaosminion5254

eskbanker said:

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

The issue is the age-old one of the distinction between having rights and being able to enforce them.

When a purchased item doesn't conform to the contract (i.e. doesn't work), then the Consumer Rights Act does grant you the right to reject it within 30 days for a refund (and other rights beyond that).

However, if the retailer asserts that the returned item isn't the one that was sold, or that the purchaser damaged it, then that muddies the water, and so it becomes harder to make the claim stick.  If the retailer is insistent on either point then ultimately you would need to let a court decide based on the evidence, and it may even be that the issue of a formal Letter Before Action prompts settlement....

I hope it does not come to this, but I am sure it will. Am I correct in saying that it is the responsibility of the retailer to provide evidence that they did not send the item in the way that I received it?

As the claimant you effectively have the burden of proof to make your case, and then the defendant provides whatever evidence they feel contradicts that.

Unfortunately I believe if it did end up in court and it were my burden of proof I would not get very far as there is no way to identify the card as it does not work and the serial number has been removed. I was hoping some form of CCTV would identify that when packaging this item they placed it in the box with blu tack as they have claimed the blu tack did not originate from their end

lincroft1710

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

The issue is the age-old one of the distinction between having rights and being able to enforce them.

When a purchased item doesn't conform to the contract (i.e. doesn't work), then the Consumer Rights Act does grant you the right to reject it within 30 days for a refund (and other rights beyond that).

However, if the retailer asserts that the returned item isn't the one that was sold, or that the purchaser damaged it, then that muddies the water, and so it becomes harder to make the claim stick.  If the retailer is insistent on either point then ultimately you would need to let a court decide based on the evidence, and it may even be that the issue of a formal Letter Before Action prompts settlement....

I hope it does not come to this, but I am sure it will. Am I correct in saying that it is the responsibility of the retailer to provide evidence that they did not send the item in the way that I received it?

As the claimant you effectively have the burden of proof to make your case, and then the defendant provides whatever evidence they feel contradicts that.

I was hoping some form of CCTV would identify that when packaging this item they placed it in the box with blu tack as they have claimed the blu tack did not originate from their end

Doubtful even if they had such CCTV coverage they would still retain (or admit to retaining) the relevant tape after all this time

eskbanker

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

The issue is the age-old one of the distinction between having rights and being able to enforce them.

When a purchased item doesn't conform to the contract (i.e. doesn't work), then the Consumer Rights Act does grant you the right to reject it within 30 days for a refund (and other rights beyond that).

However, if the retailer asserts that the returned item isn't the one that was sold, or that the purchaser damaged it, then that muddies the water, and so it becomes harder to make the claim stick.  If the retailer is insistent on either point then ultimately you would need to let a court decide based on the evidence, and it may even be that the issue of a formal Letter Before Action prompts settlement....

I hope it does not come to this, but I am sure it will. Am I correct in saying that it is the responsibility of the retailer to provide evidence that they did not send the item in the way that I received it?

As the claimant you effectively have the burden of proof to make your case, and then the defendant provides whatever evidence they feel contradicts that.

Unfortunately I believe if it did end up in court and it were my burden of proof I would not get very far as there is no way to identify the card as it does not work and the serial number has been removed. I was hoping some form of CCTV would identify that when packaging this item they placed it in the box with blu tack as they have claimed the blu tack did not originate from their end

If the basis of your case (supported by video) is that the only way you could remove the item from its packaging was to accidentally remove the serial number sticker then that does compromise your case but conversely it doesn't help theirs either.  A civil case operates on the balance of probability rather than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' applicable in criminal cases, so it all comes down to relative credibility, so if your argument sounds more persuasive than theirs (which is presumably that you're a chancer switching a known dud for a good item?) then that ought to convince a court.

Chaosminion5254

eskbanker said:

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

The issue is the age-old one of the distinction between having rights and being able to enforce them.

When a purchased item doesn't conform to the contract (i.e. doesn't work), then the Consumer Rights Act does grant you the right to reject it within 30 days for a refund (and other rights beyond that).

However, if the retailer asserts that the returned item isn't the one that was sold, or that the purchaser damaged it, then that muddies the water, and so it becomes harder to make the claim stick.  If the retailer is insistent on either point then ultimately you would need to let a court decide based on the evidence, and it may even be that the issue of a formal Letter Before Action prompts settlement....

I hope it does not come to this, but I am sure it will. Am I correct in saying that it is the responsibility of the retailer to provide evidence that they did not send the item in the way that I received it?

As the claimant you effectively have the burden of proof to make your case, and then the defendant provides whatever evidence they feel contradicts that.

Unfortunately I believe if it did end up in court and it were my burden of proof I would not get very far as there is no way to identify the card as it does not work and the serial number has been removed. I was hoping some form of CCTV would identify that when packaging this item they placed it in the box with blu tack as they have claimed the blu tack did not originate from their end

If the basis of your case (supported by video) is that the only way you could remove the item from its packaging was to accidentally remove the serial number sticker then that does compromise your case but conversely it doesn't help theirs either.  A civil case operates on the balance of probability rather than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' applicable in criminal cases, so it all comes down to relative credibility, so if your argument sounds more persuasive than theirs (which is presumably that you're a chancer switching a known dud for a good item?) then that ought to convince a court.

Thank you for the help, thanks to everyone elses input aswell. This has at least put my mind at ease that there is at least some action to take if they continue to deny me a refund 

caprikid1

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

Chaosminion5254 said:

eskbanker said:

The issue is the age-old one of the distinction between having rights and being able to enforce them.

When a purchased item doesn't conform to the contract (i.e. doesn't work), then the Consumer Rights Act does grant you the right to reject it within 30 days for a refund (and other rights beyond that).

However, if the retailer asserts that the returned item isn't the one that was sold, or that the purchaser damaged it, then that muddies the water, and so it becomes harder to make the claim stick.  If the retailer is insistent on either point then ultimately you would need to let a court decide based on the evidence, and it may even be that the issue of a formal Letter Before Action prompts settlement....

I hope it does not come to this, but I am sure it will. Am I correct in saying that it is the responsibility of the retailer to provide evidence that they did not send the item in the way that I received it?

As the claimant you effectively have the burden of proof to make your case, and then the defendant provides whatever evidence they feel contradicts that.

Unfortunately I believe if it did end up in court and it were my burden of proof I would not get very far as there is no way to identify the card as it does not work and the serial number has been removed. I was hoping some form of CCTV would identify that when packaging this item they placed it in the box with blu tack as they have claimed the blu tack did not originate from their end

If the basis of your case (supported by video) is that the only way you could remove the item from its packaging was to accidentally remove the serial number sticker then that does compromise your case but conversely it doesn't help theirs either.  A civil case operates on the balance of probability rather than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' applicable in criminal cases, so it all comes down to relative credibility, so if your argument sounds more persuasive than theirs (which is presumably that you're a chancer switching a known dud for a good item?) then that ought to convince a court.

Thank you for the help, thanks to everyone elses input aswell. This has at least put my mind at ease that there is at least some action to take if they continue to deny me a refund 

Yes, but that will cost time and money you may not get back even if you win, IE time of work MCOL fee etc.

Jenni_D

If they win they get back costs of bringing the claim - filing fee, hearing fee, loss of earnings (up to £95 or whatever is now the day rate) for attending the hearing. But not the cost-equivalent of all the time they'd need to put in to bring the case.