Currys issue

Bikefan88

Hi everyone. Hoping to get some feedback on this issue im having with currys. I bought a monitor online and picked up instore in April. I was waiting for a pc that i ordered to be built and delivered so I never opened the box until.around 2 weeks ago. I found the monitor to have 2 small scuffs on the screen (not caused by myself as the box had been kept very well and out of the way) wereas I understand im probably not entitled to a refund as the 30 days has passed, I did look at the consumer rights act 2015 and it said I could make a claim under that law within 6 months of purchase. They did send it for a repair under msi authorisation but said they wouldn't repair it because scuffs and scratches etc are not covered under warranty or policy. Am I out of options as they said instore to me yesterday if I wanted to make a claim id have to go through currys legal team. Seems a bit extreme for a £159 computer monitor. I have contacted creation finance as i bought it through them and they are looking at section 75 currently. Any information or extra advice would be greatly appreciated. Thankyou

born_again

Wait & see what Creation say for now.

TELLIT01

If nothing else comes of it, hopefully it will help emphasise to others just how important it is to check deliveries as soon as possible, even if not intending to use them.

My wife often used to buy Christmas presents early online, but rarely actually opened the box.  One fragile item was in pieces when she opened it months after purchase.  Nothing she could do either so I'm speaking from personal experience.

Bikefan88

Why are currys soo against consumer rights tho? They said if I wanted to claim against consumer rights I had to speak to their legal team. (I chose creation to try and sort it) but it seems like they are shurking their responsibility to the law, or is that not the case? Thanks

Alderbank

Bikefan88 said:

Why are currys soo against consumer rights tho? They said if I wanted to claim against consumer rights I had to speak to their legal team. (I chose creation to try and sort it) but it seems like they are shurking their responsibility to the law, or is that not the case? Thanks

Making a claim under the Consumer Rights Act is entirely a legal matter. Why would you not expect the legal team to deal with it, and why would involving the legal team be 'shurking their responsibility to the law'?

A common complaint here about large companies is that purchasers with a problem can't easily get beyond the shop floor sales staff or first line call handlers, who have no knowledge of legal matters. When they finally get to the legal team, perhaps by being forced to send a letter before action, the issue finally gets sorted by people who know consumer law.

MyRealNameToo

Bikefan88 said:

Why are currys soo against consumer rights tho? They said if I wanted to claim against consumer rights I had to speak to their legal team. (I chose creation to try and sort it) but it seems like they are shurking their responsibility to the law, or is that not the case? Thanks

Because consumer rights are very expensive to administer and one of the reasons, but not the only one, why products here are more expensive to buy than if you go to another country with much less protections and more onus on the customer to do their own due diligence. Personally would support lower rights in exchange for lower prices. 

Add to that there are a hell of a lot of chancers, people who misuse their "rights". Know a chap who buys very expensive camera kit from Amazon every couple of years to go on holiday with and then returns it when they return. On one occasion he dropped the camera breaking the lens hood so he returned it as faulty without the hood claiming it was delivered missing. 

Due to people like the above people who deal with customers all the time become very cynical and start thinking that someone noting damage to a monitor over a month after buying it has probably caused the damage and is lying about it. 

Fortunately the law is arguably on your side as in the first 6 months the default assumption is that its faulty unless the merchant can prove otherwise but they may simply stick to their guns that you caused the damage in which case you may need to go via the courts.