Tommee Tippee Boots refusing replacement

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

S24

5. A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations—

(a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract;

(b)because of section 23(3) the consumer can require neither repair nor replacement of the goods

That just says what happens when 23(3) applies, it's a leap of the imagination to imply a link between the concept of disproportionate. Had there been an intention for disproportionate to link to the refund value it would be mentioned under 23(3). 

screech_78 said:

we have checked this with our legal team and had it confirmed that it is only a direct replacement that we have to offer ie. exact same model. If this isn’t possible

I can agree with this but the question is what is possible, the regs say the consumer is entitled to a replacement rather than entitled to a replacement if the trader happens to have one easily to hand, it would have to be impossible to obtain a replacement or that replacement would have to be disproportionate to provide leading to a repair instead

screech_78 said:

 If this isn’t possible and a repair is disproportionate to the original cost then a partial refund (over 6 months) is well within our legal obligations. 

This bit I politely don't agree with For the trader to refuse a both a refund and a repair both have to be impossible, after all something that is possible simply can't be classed as disproportionate to something that is impossible by the very definition of the words. 

screech_78

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

screech_78 said:

we have checked this with our legal team and had it confirmed that it is only a direct replacement that we have to offer ie. exact same model. If this isn’t possible

I can agree with this but the question is what is possible, the regs say the consumer is entitled to a replacement rather than entitled to a replacement if the trader happens to have one easily to hand, it would have to be impossible to obtain a replacement or that replacement would have to be disproportionate to provide leading to a repair instead

screech_78 said:

 If this isn’t possible and a repair is disproportionate to the original cost then a partial refund (over 6 months) is well within our legal obligations. 

This bit I politely don't agree with For the trader to refuse a both a refund and a repair both have to be impossible, after all something that is possible simply can't be classed as disproportionate to something that is impossible by the very definition of the words. 

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but we had a session with our legal team where this exact question came up. 

The case was a fridge freezer, 5 years old and a report confirmed a manufacturing fault so customer had a valid CRA claim. Original cost was £1200, repair cost was £800. 

Customer wanted a replacement, that wasn’t available although we had a similar model for the same price. It was deemed by our legal team that £800 to repair a 5 year old appliance was disproportionate and we wouldn’t offer that. The customer was offered around £300 plus the cost of the report, although was unhappy. 

All I’m saying is they were happy to defend any claim on this basis. As far as I know, it hasn’t went down that route yet so I wouldn’t know how a court would view it. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

screech_78 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

screech_78 said:

we have checked this with our legal team and had it confirmed that it is only a direct replacement that we have to offer ie. exact same model. If this isn’t possible

I can agree with this but the question is what is possible, the regs say the consumer is entitled to a replacement rather than entitled to a replacement if the trader happens to have one easily to hand, it would have to be impossible to obtain a replacement or that replacement would have to be disproportionate to provide leading to a repair instead

screech_78 said:

 If this isn’t possible and a repair is disproportionate to the original cost then a partial refund (over 6 months) is well within our legal obligations. 

This bit I politely don't agree with For the trader to refuse a both a refund and a repair both have to be impossible, after all something that is possible simply can't be classed as disproportionate to something that is impossible by the very definition of the words. 

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but we had a session with our legal team where this exact question came up. 

The case was a fridge freezer, 5 years old and a report confirmed a manufacturing fault so customer had a valid CRA claim. Original cost was £1200, repair cost was £800. 

Customer wanted a replacement, that wasn’t available although we had a similar model for the same price. It was deemed by our legal team that £800 to repair a 5 year old appliance was disproportionate and we wouldn’t offer that. The customer was offered around £300 plus the cost of the report, although was unhappy. 

All I’m saying is they were happy to defend any claim on this basis. As far as I know, it hasn’t went down that route yet so I wouldn’t know how a court would view it. 

I'm not saying you (or indeed the legal team) are incorrect either In fact they could very well be correct in that if you claimed damages a mitigated loss is the depreciated value or if you go down consumer rights the final remedy is again the depreciated value as there is no consequence for the trader failing to repair or replace regardless of their reasoning.

There is the option of a price reduction which should be the difference between what was paid for and what was given which on the one hand could be argued the £800 for repair is the difference but on the other it could be argued the depreciated value gives you what you got, i.e a fair price for a frige that lasted 5 years. 

Once someone is at the stage of a large organisation's legal team saying they will defend a claim they clearly have to be sensible and weight up what the risks are but when someone is on the shop floor talking to staff I don't think it hurts to say "the regs do entitle me to a replacement, I've got it up on my phone here" to see if the staff will use some discretion or change their mind which is ultimately probably what most posters take away from the forum, i.e reaching the best compromise through a good choice of words rather than looking to drag the matter to court.  

KellieR

screech_78 said:

Lunatic is right that the OP is entitled to a repair or a replacement in the first instance. However, we have checked this with our legal team and had it confirmed that it is only a direct replacement that we have to offer ie. exact same model. If this isn’t possible and a repair is disproportionate to the original cost then a partial refund (over 6 months) is well within our legal obligations. 

Thanks for all the responses, my brain is however now fried with what is being said! @screech_78  regarding your comment, they have the exact same model on the shelf in the store that I went to ... so from what your saying should they give me that replacement? 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

KellieR said:

screech_78 said:

Lunatic is right that the OP is entitled to a repair or a replacement in the first instance. However, we have checked this with our legal team and had it confirmed that it is only a direct replacement that we have to offer ie. exact same model. If this isn’t possible and a repair is disproportionate to the original cost then a partial refund (over 6 months) is well within our legal obligations. 

Thanks for all the responses, my brain is however now fried with what is being said! @screech_78  regarding your comment, they have the exact same model on the shelf in the store that I went to ... so from what your saying should they give me that replacement? 

Technically yes (unless they want to take it away for repair as it's easier and/or cheaper but I'm guessing they don't so that's moot ) but you can't force them to. 

You could show this the info at the link:

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

and see if they change their mind. 

One thought on the receipt issue, do you have a boots reward card? If so and it's recorded what you purchased and when you could ask if they can provide some kind of proof of purchase to use for the warranty if they stand firm on only offering a £25 refund. 

Last post here says they do keep a record but that post is from 2005:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/105369/does-the-boots-advantage-card-record-details-of-all-your-purchases

KellieR

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

KellieR said:

screech_78 said:

Lunatic is right that the OP is entitled to a repair or a replacement in the first instance. However, we have checked this with our legal team and had it confirmed that it is only a direct replacement that we have to offer ie. exact same model. If this isn’t possible and a repair is disproportionate to the original cost then a partial refund (over 6 months) is well within our legal obligations. 

Thanks for all the responses, my brain is however now fried with what is being said! @screech_78  regarding your comment, they have the exact same model on the shelf in the store that I went to ... so from what your saying should they give me that replacement? 

Technically yes (unless they want to take it away for repair as it's easier and/or cheaper but I'm guessing they don't so that's moot ) but you can't force them to. 

You could show this the info at the link:

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

and see if they change their mind. 

One thought on the receipt issue, do you have a boots reward card? If so and it's recorded what you purchased and when you could ask if they can provide some kind of proof of purchase to use for the warranty if they stand firm on only offering a £25 refund. 

Last post here says they do keep a record but that post is from 2005:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/105369/does-the-boots-advantage-card-record-details-of-all-your-purchases

Thanks for this I will definitely show them, the link. I did use my advantage card and I said that to them in store she just said 'we have no way of looking at this' but I'm certain they must be able to look at previous purchases on a system somewhere at head office! I will keep pushing though, I know it may sound petty to some for something that's £100 but I am on maternity leave so every penny counts at the moment 

powerful_Rogue

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I hold my hands up and apologise. I have done some more research and it appears you was correct.

Also OP, apologies for the incorrect information. Everyday is a learning day!

From the BuisnessCompanion:

Am I obliged to repair/replace if I’d rather provide a refund? For example,
where the consumer buys a bed for £200 in a 50% sale, I would rather not
replace it with the £400-worth bed.
Yes, if the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement, you cannot refuse to
provide this and give a refund instead (assuming a repair or replacement is
possible).
However, nothing would prevent you from offering a refund if the consumer agrees to
accept it, provided you do not deny them the options of repair or replacement. A
refund would be of the price paid, £200 in this example.
If the faulty bed could be repaired to address the relevant issue with it, and this was
cheaper than giving the replacement and would not cause significant inconvenience
to the consumer, you could insist on repair.

Also

Am I allowed to offer non-identical goods as a replacement?
You cannot force the consumer to accept an alternative to a straight replacement;
but equally, the consumer cannot force you to offer an alternative.
However, you and the consumer could, of course, agree that non-identical goods are
acceptable as a replacement when the consumer comes to you for a replacement.

So as long as the prep machine they have available is identical (model number etc) then it should be a straight swap.

However as it's over six months, the reverse burden of proof still stands which they could ask for.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

KellieR said:

Thanks for this I will definitely show them, the link. I did use my advantage card and I said that to them in store she just said 'we have no way of looking at this' but I'm certain they must be able to look at previous purchases on a system somewhere at head office! I will keep pushing though, I know it may sound petty to some for something that's £100 but I am on maternity leave so every penny counts at the moment 

I'd imagine it's a head office thing, maybe you'd have to a Subject Access Request but then you are possibly going down the road of too much headache.

powerful_Rogue said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I hold my hands up and apologise. I have done some more research and it appears you was correct.

Also OP, apologies for the incorrect information. Everyday is a learning day!

From the BuisnessCompanion:

Am I obliged to repair/replace if I’d rather provide a refund? For example,
where the consumer buys a bed for £200 in a 50% sale, I would rather not
replace it with the £400-worth bed.
Yes, if the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement, you cannot refuse to
provide this and give a refund instead (assuming a repair or replacement is
possible).
However, nothing would prevent you from offering a refund if the consumer agrees to
accept it, provided you do not deny them the options of repair or replacement. A
refund would be of the price paid, £200 in this example.
If the faulty bed could be repaired to address the relevant issue with it, and this was
cheaper than giving the replacement and would not cause significant inconvenience
to the consumer, you could insist on repair.

Also

Am I allowed to offer non-identical goods as a replacement?
You cannot force the consumer to accept an alternative to a straight replacement;
but equally, the consumer cannot force you to offer an alternative.
However, you and the consumer could, of course, agree that non-identical goods are
acceptable as a replacement when the consumer comes to you for a replacement.

So as long as the prep machine they have available is identical (model number etc) then it should be a straight swap.

However as it's over six months, the reverse burden of proof still stands which they could ask for.

It's all cool, nothing against your posting in particular It's something often said on here which, a bit like the use of the word inherent, is sort of correct but can leave the wrong impression. 

The biggest issue with all this is the matter of there being nothing to force the trader to either, I assume the idea is it's easier for the consumer to be given a refund than seek a court to impose specific performance, so whilst it is worth being highlighted it's not a point to stick firmly on, particularly when the goods have gone past the 6 months point and the trader is offering at least something. 

OP just as another random thought, when our child was born my wife got a bunch of stuff from a lady on Facebook, these Tommee Tippee Prep machines also seem fairly price on eBay, I appreciate there may be a bit of a stigma with second hand when it comes to baby items but as you presumably have the bottles and what not from new the machine itself being second hand might be less of an issue in that regard