Ebay seller refusing refund as outside 30 day returns period

lincroft1710

Is this actually a "fault" or a quirk of the way the machine works?


I also agree that the replacement by the manufacturer is outside of your contract with the seller

ormerods

lincroft1710 said:

Is this actually a "fault" or a quirk of the way the machine works?


I also agree that the replacement by the manufacturer is outside of your contract with the seller

I would say it's a fault, as in the instructions it explicity states what the expected output should be.

Okell

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:...

... What's your view?

I'd argue that s24 has to be read in conjunction with s23, and s23 only refers to the trader being required by the consumer to repair or replace - not the manufacturer and not any other third party.

I don't think s24(5)(a) needs to explicitly refer to the trader as I'd argue it is clearly referring to a failed repair or replacement under s23, and s23 appears to apply only to repairs/replacement undertaken by the trader. 

I understand your querying why - if it's clear that 24(5)(a) implicitly refers to the trader - the trader needs to be explicitly referred to in 24(5)(c), and does that mean that 24(5)(a) does not exclusively apply to the trader.

It's a good question - and I don't know the answer!

I'd suggest it's either a drafting error or that at some time during the passing of the legislation (or EU Directive) that some bright spark (ie thick MP or EU bureaucrat) jumped up and said "it's not clear who 24(5)(c) is referring to" and it was amended, but they didn't follow through clarifying the other paras where it was equally unclear.

I suspect it was the intention of Parliament that 24(5)(a) applied only to repairs or replacements by the trader and not by anybody else.  Certainly that view seems to be endorsed by explanatory notes 136 and 137 which both refer to "the trader" and nobody else.

And if s24(5)(a) isn't referring to repairs or replacements made by the trader, why limit it to the manufacturer?  Could you ask your next door neighbour to carry out repairs?

And waht about all those threads (particularly used car ones) where OPs are told they can't reject the car because they went to a third party for a repair and not the trader?

As I say I don't know the answer, but if a case got to court I'd be surprised if the court held that s24(5)(a) didn't apply only to the trader.

You're going to provide a case now, aren't you?          

Mark_d

Sounds like it was a design flaw rather than a one-off fault.  What was the reason you didn't raise the issue with the retailer within the first 30 days?

What made you decide on this specific model of coffee machine when a little it of research uncovers a significant design flaw?

ormerods

Mark_d said:

Sounds like it was a design flaw rather than a one-off fault.  What was the reason you didn't raise the issue with the retailer within the first 30 days?

What made you decide on this specific model of coffee machine when a little it of research uncovers a significant design flaw?

Because it's the first time I've brewed espresso and I didn't really understand the brewing process enough to know it was faulty. I did actually see people mention the output issue when I was researching but I didn't fully understand the implication of what that meant, my assumption at the time was that the machine would just give you a larger dose of coffee, I didn't realise that it would negatively impact the flavour. It's something I think most people might not even notice if they're drinking milky coffee or adding lots of syrup, but if you're drinking the espresso undiluted you can really notice flavour is not right.

Okell

ormerods said:

Mark_d said:

Sounds like it was a design flaw rather than a one-off fault.  What was the reason you didn't raise the issue with the retailer within the first 30 days?

What made you decide on this specific model of coffee machine when a little it of research uncovers a significant design flaw?

... I didn't realise that it would negatively impact the flavour. It's something I think most people might not even notice if they're drinking milky coffee or adding lots of syrup, but if you're drinking the espresso undiluted you can really notice flavour is not right.

Isn't that quite subjective though?

Can you be a bit more specific about what the fault is or how the "output" is different from what the instructions say?

ormerods

Okell said:

ormerods said:

Mark_d said:

Sounds like it was a design flaw rather than a one-off fault.  What was the reason you didn't raise the issue with the retailer within the first 30 days?

What made you decide on this specific model of coffee machine when a little it of research uncovers a significant design flaw?

... I didn't realise that it would negatively impact the flavour. It's something I think most people might not even notice if they're drinking milky coffee or adding lots of syrup, but if you're drinking the espresso undiluted you can really notice flavour is not right.

Isn't that quite subjective though?

Can you be a bit more specific about what the fault is or how the "output" is different from what the instructions say?

It's not really subjective, it's a defined ratio. If I brew at a 2:1 ratio that's what the machine should output, these are clearly stated in the instruction manual as below

Okell

So are you saying it's outputting a lower volume than it should?  Or a higher volume?

Presumably you've measured it so can you give an example?

saajan_12

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?

By that logic if (5a) is interpreted as any repair by anyone, that would include by the consumer themselves.. ie turn machine off, turn it on, or open it up, remove and replace a component, that's an attempted repair, and so can then jump straight to final right to reject. 

Ergates

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?

I also think it is referring to a repair or replacement arranged by the trader (even if this involves them asking you to speak to the manufacturer).

This seems even more clear if we consider a repair (rather than a replacement).  If I bought some electrical thing which developed a fault within a few months, and I then (without speaking to the retailer) took it to my local repair shop who tried but but failed to repair it - I really don't think that could then insist on a refund as an attempt at repair had failed.   You could even just attempt to repair it yourself, would that count?