Ebay seller refusing refund as outside 30 day returns period

ormerods

I bought a new coffee machine from a seller on eBay around 3 months ago, after using it for a while I noticed a fault with how the coffee was being brewed. I got in touch with the manufacturer and they sent me a replacement unit which also displays the same issue, when I have done some further research online it seems that all these coffee machines have the same flaw (not something everyone might notice but it's a deal breaker for me and many others)

When I looked on Citizens Advise it stated that:

You don't have to accept a second repair or replacement if something goes wrong again. You can ask for a discount on the original price or your money back if:

• the repair hasn't solved the problem

• another fault has developed

• the replacement is faulty

If you ask for your money back and it's less than 6 months since you bought the goods, you should get the full amount.

When I went back to the eBay seller they stated that I am not eligible for a refund as it's outside of the 30 day returns period, and the manufacturer just replied to my returns request to say "Please note that you are outside of return for refund period."

Am I correct in saying that I should be eligible to get a refund? Should I be chasing this up with the manufacturer or the eBay seller?

Alderbank

You have no consumer rights to chase with the manufacturer.

Was the seller private or a business?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Just to clarify OP, the eBay seller is acting as a business rather than a private person selling their unwanted stuff? 

Okell

ormerods said:

... When I looked on Citizens Advise it stated that:

You don't have to accept a second repair or replacement if something goes wrong again. You can ask for a discount on the original price or your money back if:

• the repair hasn't solved the problem

• another fault has developed

• the replacement is faulty

If you ask for your money back and it's less than 6 months since you bought the goods, you should get the full amount...

My understanding of the above is it only applies if you went back to the seller for the first repair/replacement.  But you didn't did you?  You initially went to the manufacturer and it was the manufacturer - not the seller - who did the first replacement.

ormerods

Alderbank said:

You have no consumer rights to chase with the manufacturer.

Was the seller private or a business?

business seller

ormerods

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Just to clarify OP, the eBay seller is acting as a business rather than a private person selling their unwanted stuff? 

acting as a business 

ormerods

Okell said:

ormerods said:

... When I looked on Citizens Advise it stated that:

You don't have to accept a second repair or replacement if something goes wrong again. You can ask for a discount on the original price or your money back if:

• the repair hasn't solved the problem

• another fault has developed

• the replacement is faulty

If you ask for your money back and it's less than 6 months since you bought the goods, you should get the full amount...

My understanding of the above is it only applies if you went back to the seller for the first repair/replacement.  But you didn't did you?  You initially went to the manufacturer and it was the manufacturer - not the seller - who did the first replacement.

yes that's correct I went straight to the manufacturer to report the issue and they offered to replace it

Alderbank

Okell said:

ormerods said:

... When I looked on Citizens Advise it stated that:

You don't have to accept a second repair or replacement if something goes wrong again. You can ask for a discount on the original price or your money back if:

• the repair hasn't solved the problem

• another fault has developed

• the replacement is faulty

If you ask for your money back and it's less than 6 months since you bought the goods, you should get the full amount...

My understanding of the above is it only applies if you went back to the seller for the first repair/replacement.  But you didn't did you?  You initially went to the manufacturer and it was the manufacturer - not the seller - who did the first replacement.

That's an interesting point.

It might help to look at the actual words of the Act. This is s24(5), the right to price reduction or final right to reject.

The wording is:

(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; or

(c)the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

This case refers to (5)(a). The wording just says 'after one repair or replacement...'

By contrast, (5)(c), a different circumstance, begins 'the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods...

I think that if the legislators had meant (5)(a) to also be specific to the trader they would have said, '(a) if the trader has repaired or replaced the goods once, the goods do not...

What's your view?

Arunmor

I suppose the question is, is it a fault or not?  Could you be expecting something that this model doesn't have or doesn't do?  What is the make, model and fault?

ormerods

Arunmor said:

I suppose the question is, is it a fault or not?  Could you be expecting something that this model doesn't have or doesn't do?  What is the make, model and fault?

It's a Ninja Luxe Cafe ES601UK

There is a fault with the shot output, when you brew a double shot of espresso at a 2:1 ratio you should expect to receive double the volume of coffee output to beans you put in. So if I put in 18g of beans I should get 36g of coffee out but this is not the case, it's totally erratic and will give anwhere from 40-80g which means it's not performing as it should do.

I'm on a few facebook groups for this product and seen a few customers getting refunds for this issue so it seems it's a known problem with the product. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/NinjaLuxeCafe/comments/1jdzjaj/espresso_output_volume_all_over_the_place/

Mark_d

Alderbank said:

Okell said:

ormerods said:

... When I looked on Citizens Advise it stated that:

You don't have to accept a second repair or replacement if something goes wrong again. You can ask for a discount on the original price or your money back if:

• the repair hasn't solved the problem

• another fault has developed

• the replacement is faulty

If you ask for your money back and it's less than 6 months since you bought the goods, you should get the full amount...

My understanding of the above is it only applies if you went back to the seller for the first repair/replacement.  But you didn't did you?  You initially went to the manufacturer and it was the manufacturer - not the seller - who did the first replacement.

That's an interesting point.

It might help to look at the actual words of the Act. This is s24(5), the right to price reduction or final right to reject.

The wording is:

(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; or

(c)the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

This case refers to (5)(a). The wording just says 'after one repair or replacement...'

By contrast, (5)(c), a different circumstance, begins 'the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods...

I think that if the legislators had meant (5)(a) to also be specific to the trader they would have said, '(a) if the trader has repaired or replaced the goods once, the goods do not...

What's your view?

Certainly worth the look at the actual legal text.

My view is that in 5(a) the replacement must be one carried out by the trader.  Why should a replacement, provided by someone else,  conform to your contract with the trader?