Faulty Tumble dryer - ongoing saga

Exodi

tedted said:

And that's one reason think this act is abused a lot

Do you have an agenda tedted?

Legislation is deliberately wrote in that way to give judges discretion as no two cases are the same.

tedted said:

So the consumer can complain at any time that suits them

Of course, but that doesn't mean their complaint is valid, or that a reasonable time period has passed or it's reasonable to say significant inconvenience has been caused.

I'm sure a reasonable person would agree that one of the handles breaking off one side of their toaster is less urgent than if the doors fell off their car and they can't get to work. In these two scenarios, different interpretations might be given to what a constitutes a reasonable time to repair or what inconvenience has been caused.

A tumble dryer that doesn't work is of moderate inconvenience, maybe heading towards significant depending on the size of the family and especially as it's still freezing outside. In any case, I'm sure even you can agree that a month on and still no repair doesn't fit the remit of a 'reasonable time' period.

tedted

no i don't have an agenda its people saying it wasnt delivered and claiming we or i didnt break it when assembly it etc,listen in your local and hear them talking about hiding when a delivery is mde and then claiming it wasnt and its all ages.a lot of people are genuine but a lot are not

sheramber

tedted said:

no i don't have an agenda its people saying it wasnt delivered and claiming we or i didnt break it when assembly it etc,listen in your local and hear them talking about hiding when a delivery is mde and then claiming it wasnt and its all ages.a lot of people are genuine but a lot are not

What has that got to do with defining what is a reasonable time for a repair?

tedted

they can say that time is not acceptable i want it done quicker and get told sorry we cant because we dont have the parts and then the customer says not my problem get one

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tedted said:

they can say that time is not acceptable i want it done quicker and get told sorry we cant because we dont have the parts and then the customer says not my problem get one

You are missing the fact that Currys have breached a contract, if they had supplied goods that conform then they wouldn't have this problem of not being able to get parts. 

The CRA is there to balance fairness between the trader, who is the expert in their trade, and the consumer, who generally has no idea. 

Reasonable time is undefined, one person could say 3 days is unreasonable, a retailer could say 6 months is reasonable. Ultimately the consumer can reject if not carried out within a reasonable time and if the trader wishes to disagree with what a reasonable time is they can not refund and let the consumer take it to small claims where a court will pass the final judgement.

End of the day a 4 month old appliance shouldn't need any new parts at all. 

Exodi

tedted said:

they can say that time is not acceptable i want it done quicker and get told sorry we cant because we dont have the parts and then the customer says not my problem get one

I have a feeling we're wasting our time as you're clearly not listening and just turning this into an unhinged rant.

People can complain about whatever they want, but complaining doesn't mean the customer is in the right. If it got as far as the legislation being considered (i.e. court), it would be based on whether the repair time frame is reasonable or the inconvenience caused being considered as significant, to a layperson.

In the OP's case I would hope most reasonable people would agree it's not reasonable to be expected to wait over a month for a repair on a relatively new tumble dryer. I'd hope most would also agree that it's at the very least moderately insignificant, especially in the winter.

The OP is not 'trying it on', which is what you seem to be referring to. Even in your example, which is trying to portray the customer as unreasonable, I disagree with the implication the merchant is the victim. If the merchant doesn't have the part and doesn't expect to have it for a long time, then they shouldn't just expect the customer to wait, this is where they should consider replacement or refund. Obviously the customer would rather they weren't sold a faulty item to begin with!

I feel like if the shoe was on the other foot, and your brand new tumble dryer/washing machine/dishwasher/fridge/whatever broke within a few months of purchase, you would be a lot less casual about the idea of waiting over a month for a possible repair.

tedted

last year i had to wait three and a half months for a part for car you try and convince the the customer of that fact

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tedted said:

last year i had to wait three and a half months for a part for car you try and convince the the customer of that fact

Unless it was your fault they needed a new car part it's not comparative