iPad bought from Very using credit

Tummylove

Bought an iPad from Very 18 months ago. 

It has a fault which Apple have confirmed  in writing that there is no sign of misuse and due to age of the product we should contact the retailer. They also verbally confirmed that if we bought it from them they would have replaced it for free. They have quoted a price to repair (which is basically a replacement). 

OH had the account so has dealt with them so far and cant remember if he’s actually asked Very for a straight replacement but all they’ve offered is return or refund but after being given a copy of Apple’s report which says that the cost to repair at £449.17 exc VAT (so £539 to us) they won’t let us return as the repair cost is over 50% of the value of the item and our only option is a refund. 

The refund they are offering is less a 20% wear and tear charge as we’ve had the item for 14 months. However as it was purchased with a 20% discount they are offering effectively just more than 60% of the cost of the item back if we have to replace a RRP. We paid £758.40 (after the discount for using their credit) so we’d get back £606.72 which is actually more than the repair. 

He is saying that Very will need the iPad back (but has not asked this question) if we accept the refund. 

What I want is for them to replace it for us or for them to give us the money to go to apple (or pay apple directly) and get it repaired for the quoted price. If we do that clearly we need the old one but if they do it they could also recover the VAT making it cheaper for them too. If we don’t have the old one it will cost us considerably more for a new iPad. 

Can anyone share anything that shows that we have any right to ask for a replacement and not a refund. I thought that all three options are in the Act? Or us to be able to take the refund and get the iPad repaired as the apple shop have quoted for? I can’t find a definition of 50% of the item being the limit for uneconomical (but I am on a phone with a small screen trying to read the act!). It references disproportionate but I’d have thought £449 for a £758 (with our 20% discount) isn’t actually disproportionate as a repair cost. 

Also slight aside as I just want it fixed but given we got a discount for using a linked but different credit product should the start point be the cost of the product or the cost after the discount for taking out their credit? We didn’t need the credit and wouldn’t have taken it out if it had been made clear we were reducing our right to get a satisfactory solution to a faulty product. 

Thanks so much!

DullGreyGuy

Tummylove said:

Bought an iPad from Very 18 months ago. At the time Very offered a discount of 20% for taking out a credit account with them. 

It has a fault which Apple have confirmed  in writing that there is no sign of misuse and due to age of the product we should contact the retailer. They also verbally confirmed that if we bought it from them they would have replaced it for free. They have quoted a price to repair (which is basically a replacement). 

He cant remember if he’s actually asked Very for a straight replacement but all they’ve offered is repair or refund.

Very have had a copy of Apple’s report which says that the cost to repair at £449.17 exc VAT. They are saying that as it is over half the cost of the item they are only offering a refund. 

The refund they are offering is less a 20% wear and tear charge as we’ve had the item for 14 months. However as it was purchased with a 20% discount they are offering effectively less than 60% of the cost of the item back. 

OH says we have no choice (he’s been taking the calls) as the won’t repair as it’s over 50% of the value of the item and our only option is a refund. Also Very apparently no longer stock this item - though apple do and have quoted to repair it. 

Can anyone share anything that shows that we have any right to ask for a replacement and not a refund. I thought that all three options are in the Act? Or the repair the apple shop have quoted for? I can’t find a definition of 50% of the item being the limit for uneconomical (but I am on a phone with a small screen trying to read the act!)

Also given we got a discount for using a linked but different credit product should the start point be the cost of the product or the cost after the discount for taking out their credit? We didn’t need the credit and wouldn’t have taken it out if it had been made clear we were reducing our right to get a satisfactory solution to a faulty product. 

Thanks so much!

Whilst you can express a preference between repair, replace or refund the merchant has the ultimate choice if the others are materially cheaper for them than your preference.

Apple are well known for making big statements of what would have happened had you bought it from them and whilst they are a reasonable company to deal with the reality is they are not as generous as they claim they would have been if you did actually buy from them. 

Once an item is over 6 months old a retailer is entitled to discount any refund to reflect the use you received from the goods prior to them becoming defective. What the RRP was at the time of purchase is irrelevant, the starting position will be the price you actually paid for it, so to use nice round numbers if it was £1,000 at the time but you paid £800 then its the £800 that should be discounted for use. You state that they are saying a 20% reduction for use which would mean a £640 refund, based on round numbers which is 80% of what you paid and 64% or the RRP at the time. A little confused as to how you are seeing that as less than 60%?

The law doesnt state how "use" should be calculated but 20% for 18 months doesnt sound bad; John Lewis by comparison would have been deducting 25% for use based on their mechanism.

Tummylove

DullGreyGuy said:

Tummylove said:

Bought an iPad from Very 18 months ago. At the time Very offered a discount of 20% for taking out a credit account with them. 

It has a fault which Apple have confirmed  in writing that there is no sign of misuse and due to age of the product we should contact the retailer. They also verbally confirmed that if we bought it from them they would have replaced it for free. They have quoted a price to repair (which is basically a replacement). 

He cant remember if he’s actually asked Very for a straight replacement but all they’ve offered is repair or refund.

Very have had a copy of Apple’s report which says that the cost to repair at £449.17 exc VAT. They are saying that as it is over half the cost of the item they are only offering a refund. 

The refund they are offering is less a 20% wear and tear charge as we’ve had the item for 14 months. However as it was purchased with a 20% discount they are offering effectively less than 60% of the cost of the item back. 

OH says we have no choice (he’s been taking the calls) as the won’t repair as it’s over 50% of the value of the item and our only option is a refund. Also Very apparently no longer stock this item - though apple do and have quoted to repair it. 

Can anyone share anything that shows that we have any right to ask for a replacement and not a refund. I thought that all three options are in the Act? Or the repair the apple shop have quoted for? I can’t find a definition of 50% of the item being the limit for uneconomical (but I am on a phone with a small screen trying to read the act!)

Also given we got a discount for using a linked but different credit product should the start point be the cost of the product or the cost after the discount for taking out their credit? We didn’t need the credit and wouldn’t have taken it out if it had been made clear we were reducing our right to get a satisfactory solution to a faulty product. 

Thanks so much!

Whilst you can express a preference between repair, replace or refund the merchant has the ultimate choice if the others are materially cheaper for them than your preference.

Apple are well known for making big statements of what would have happened had you bought it from them and whilst they are a reasonable company to deal with the reality is they are not as generous as they claim they would have been if you did actually buy from them. 

Once an item is over 6 months old a retailer is entitled to discount any refund to reflect the use you received from the goods prior to them becoming defective. What the RRP was at the time of purchase is irrelevant, the starting position will be the price you actually paid for it, so to use nice round numbers if it was £1,000 at the time but you paid £800 then its the £800 that should be discounted for use. You state that they are saying a 20% reduction for use which would mean a £640 refund, based on round numbers which is 80% of what you paid and 64% or the RRP at the time. A little confused as to how you are seeing that as less than 60%?

The law doesnt state how "use" should be calculated but 20% for 18 months doesnt sound bad; John Lewis by comparison would have been deducting 25% for use based on their mechanism.

Sorry I’ve edited my post as realised I didn’t explain well and should have said a little more. 

What I meant is that the repair cost is actually cheaper than the refund but if we have to take the cash, return the iPad and buy new then we will be much much more out of pocket. It’s also cheaper for them to repair than to refund so it doesn’t make sense. I know it talks about disproportionate repair costs and that it’s more than money but the repair costs don’t feel they are at less than their refund offer?

Grumpy_chap

Tummylove said:

It’s also cheaper for them to repair than to refund so it doesn’t make sense.

How do you know that?
You are looking at the refund you would receive (£606.72) or the cost for you to get a repair at retail costs (£539).
You also need to consider that the retailer will have some remedy for either outcome via their supply-chain.
When that amount that the retailer can recover from their suppliers, the apparently larger payment to you may actually be cheaper overall for the retailer.
Even without that, the faulty iPad would have some residual value, possibly scrap or possibly sell via a refurbished channel.

The retailer also benefits through the refund that there is no further liability that may be owed to you in the future.  If the retailer repairs and the same fault (or a different fault) occurs in the future, the retailer may still be liable for a further outlay.  If the retailer refunds you, that is the end of the matter.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

Whilst you can express a preference between repair, replace or refund the merchant has the ultimate choice if the others are materially cheaper for them than your preference.

Would be nice if after all these years the regular posters could provide the correct advice.  

The CRA doesn't make any reference to the trader having a choice nor does it state a refund can be given if cheaper.

OP what the CRA (Consumer Rights Act) says is you have the right to a repair or a replacement, however you can't insist upon one if disproportionate to other. (Also can't insist on one, the other or both if impossible but that doesn't apply here). 

An obvious example of this would be if you purchased a brand new car that arrived with a dent, insisting upon another new car would be disproportionate compared to the trader fixing the dent. 

Where the trader fails in their obligation to repair/replace you have the choice between rejecting for a refund or a price reduction. 

A refund upon rejection can be reduced for usage and there is the duty to return, 20% may well be reasonable and what you paid originally (i.e discounted price) isn't considered. A price reduction would be the difference between what was supplied and what was given whilst retaining the goods. 

You can also ignore the CRA and simply claim damages for breach of contract. 

The issue is enforcing rights, however as you paid on credit the credit provider is jointly liable and the easiest answer is to speak with them to make a Section 75 claim. They will likely pay the repair cost as the cost of a complaint or defending small claims will exceed the amount being requested. 

Whilst in most cases opting for a refund and buying another is probably the easiest option when it comes to something like phones, tablets or computers, given the volume of data potentially stored on them I can understand why people would prefer a repair. 

As a side note the cost of repair via Apple is going to be higher than an independent, if the credit provider asked you to get a quote from somewhere else that wouldn't necessarily be an unreasonable request but again they might just pay out regardless. 
 
If the credit was from Very themselves follow the official complaints process on this PDF:

https://www.very.co.uk/assets/static/very-help-pages/FS2135-SDFC-Complaints-Leaflet-v1.pdf

Tummylove said:

Can anyone share anything that shows that we have any right to ask for a replacement and not a refund.

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

OP if you struggle to get where you want post back for more advice.  

Grumpy_chap said:

You also need to consider that the retailer will have some remedy for either outcome via their supply-chain.
When that amount that the retailer can recover from their suppliers, the apparently larger payment to you may actually be cheaper overall for the retailer.
Even without that, the faulty iPad would have some residual value, possibly scrap or possibly sell via a refurbished channel.

The retailer also benefits through the refund that there is no further liability that may be owed to you in the future.  If the retailer repairs and the same fault (or a different fault) occurs in the future, the retailer may still be liable for a further outlay.  If the retailer refunds you, that is the end of the matter.

As above the measure is disproportionate rather than a straight £x vs £y cost but the main point is that measure is against repair/replace rather than repair/replace/refund  

MattMattMattUK

Very's offer appears entirely reasonable to me, personally I would accept it.

prettyandfluffy

I would take the offer from Very and then buy a refurbished iPad direct from Apple.  You will save money and still get their customer service, my experience of that is that it exceeds expectations - I've had 2 new iPods and an iPad from them all well beyond the time limit for statutory consumer rights.

DullGreyGuy

Tummylove said:
What I meant is that the repair cost is actually cheaper than the refund 

Only superficially... 

1) Repairs dont always come in on budget, even if they do they have a tail liability that the device may fail again

2) You dont know what their arrangement is with their supplier, they may get monies back from them on a return which they dont get on a repair

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

2) You dont know what their arrangement is with their supplier, they may get monies back from them on a return which they dont get on a repair

Again this has no bearing on what OP wants, if Very said we'll replace rather than repair as we get a credit on the old unit and the repair is disproportionate that may be acceptable. 

However refusing both a repair and replacement because refunding is cheaper isn't acceptable.

Normally you are left to argue it out with the retailer but as OP paid on credit they have the option of requesting what their rights actually are and if the credit provider doesn't carry out their obligations OP has the opportunity to refer a complaint to the ombudsman for being treated unfairly, which will cost the credit provider, on top of ultimately having to pay for the repair, which is why it's important to layout the flow of rights under CRA correctly.

Some may think if you get a refund that's a good deal and there's nothing wrong with that line of thinking, however OP asked about their rights under the legislation rather than opinions on people think they should accept  

dumpster_fire2025

DullGreyGuy said:

Tummylove said:
What I meant is that the repair cost is actually cheaper than the refund 

Only superficially... 

1) Repairs dont always come in on budget, even if they do they have a tail liability that the device may fail again

2) You dont know what their arrangement is with their supplier, they may get monies back from them on a return which they dont get on a repair

Even if they cannot get money back from their supplier, there are plenty of places that will buy up job lots of damaged electronics to either attempt to repair themselves or to use to salvage parts from. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get at least £100 for an 18 month old iPad unless it had really been through the wringer

Tummylove

For everyone whose saying take the refund - if we take the refund and have to return the iPad to Very we then have to pay £999 for a new iPad (as our model now costs more) so basically we will be £300 ish out of pocket by taking the refund and replacing ourselves. 

I take the usage point but if we can get it repaired or replaced for less than the refund I don’t quite know why I’d want that option!