Ebay seller refusing refund as outside 30 day returns period

Alderbank

Okell said:

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?

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?          

Ha! No-one would be more surprised than me if I could 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I think it means repaired or replaced by the trader, wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.

In this case the seller is refusing to engage so right to reject exists anyway.

OP if you paid by card a chargeback would cover you for anything that was wrong with the goods that was apparent at the time it was delivered.

Beyond that the Consumer Rights Act covers you for various things, as they are a business is their address on the listing (should be if they are correctly registered as a business), if so you can send a letter before action.

Worth a note if you reject you have a duty to return the goods, trader should bear the cost so you add the cost of return to the claim. 

ormerods

Okell said:

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?

It always outputs a higher volume, yes I've been weighing it and taking photos each time to keep track

powerful_Rogue

Worth mentioning that you don't actually have the machine you purchased from the seller.

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think it means repaired or replaced by the trader, wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.

In this case the seller is refusing to engage so right to reject exists anyway.

OP if you paid by card a chargeback would cover you for anything that was wrong with the goods that was apparent at the time it was delivered.

Beyond that the Consumer Rights Act covers you for various things, as they are a business is their address on the listing (should be if they are correctly registered as a business), if so you can send a letter before action.

Worth a note if you reject you have a duty to return the goods, trader should bear the cost so you add the cost of return to the claim. 

Op mention around 3 months ago & 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. 

So sounds like fault was not there at purchase & it has been replaced by manufacture. 
So I would say no chargeback rights.
OP would need to confirm date of purchase really.

Ergates

born_again said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think it means repaired or replaced by the trader, wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.

In this case the seller is refusing to engage so right to reject exists anyway.

OP if you paid by card a chargeback would cover you for anything that was wrong with the goods that was apparent at the time it was delivered.

Beyond that the Consumer Rights Act covers you for various things, as they are a business is their address on the listing (should be if they are correctly registered as a business), if so you can send a letter before action.

Worth a note if you reject you have a duty to return the goods, trader should bear the cost so you add the cost of return to the claim. 

Op mention around 3 months ago & 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. 

So sounds like fault was not there at purchase & it has been replaced by manufacture. 
So I would say no chargeback rights.
OP would need to confirm date of purchase really.

I don't think that's what the OP is saying.   I *think* they're saying that it's not so much a "fault" (as in something is broken) as a flaw in the design of the machine (as in it has never worked properly, and none of them ever do) that *was* present at purchase, but they didn't notice to start with because they didn't know what they were looking for.

unforeseen

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think it means repaired or replaced by the trader, wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.

In this case the seller is refusing to engage so right to reject exists anyway.

OP if you paid by card a chargeback would cover you for anything that was wrong with the goods that was apparent at the time it was delivered.

Beyond that the Consumer Rights Act covers you for various things, as they are a business is their address on the listing (should be if they are correctly registered as a business), if so you can send a letter before action.

Worth a note if you reject you have a duty to return the goods, trader should bear the cost so you add the cost of return to the claim. 

Does the person still have the machine that was supplied by the trader? If not then they are in no position to return the goods as they are no longer in their possession. 

savergrant

unforeseen said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think it means repaired or replaced by the trader, wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.

In this case the seller is refusing to engage so right to reject exists anyway.

OP if you paid by card a chargeback would cover you for anything that was wrong with the goods that was apparent at the time it was delivered.

Beyond that the Consumer Rights Act covers you for various things, as they are a business is their address on the listing (should be if they are correctly registered as a business), if so you can send a letter before action.

Worth a note if you reject you have a duty to return the goods, trader should bear the cost so you add the cost of return to the claim. 

Does the person still have the machine that was supplied by the trader? If not then they are in no position to return the goods as they are no longer in their possession. 

unforeseen said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think it means repaired or replaced by the trader, wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.

In this case the seller is refusing to engage so right to reject exists anyway.

OP if you paid by card a chargeback would cover you for anything that was wrong with the goods that was apparent at the time it was delivered.

Beyond that the Consumer Rights Act covers you for various things, as they are a business is their address on the listing (should be if they are correctly registered as a business), if so you can send a letter before action.

Worth a note if you reject you have a duty to return the goods, trader should bear the cost so you add the cost of return to the claim. 

Does the person still have the machine that was supplied by the trader? If not then they are in no position to return the goods as they are no longer in their possession. 

The item was replaced by the manufacturer. Was the seller involved in this process? Was the replacement item identical to the original item?

Wonka_2

Having been looking at one of these machines since first announced to replace an aging Nespresso machine I’m intrigued why you bought from a 3rd party - especially given Ninja/Sharks history of promoting/price cutting. For me it promised so much but had too much risk/complexity behind it for the supposed benefit of a ‘do-it-all’ machine. 

Despite ‘shortages’ I’m pretty sure I’ve had emails offering it at £450 and I’d much rather be dealing with them direct for an issue than with a 3rd party via eBay. 

Not sure where you’ll end up with this and whether it’ll be a ‘fault’ or a ‘feature’ if it gets as far as a legal challenge but good luck 

ormerods

Wonka_2 said:

Having been looking at one of these machines since first announced to replace an aging Nespresso machine I’m intrigued why you bought from a 3rd party - especially given Ninja/Sharks history of promoting/price cutting. For me it promised so much but had too much risk/complexity behind it for the supposed benefit of a ‘do-it-all’ machine. 

Despite ‘shortages’ I’m pretty sure I’ve had emails offering it at £450 and I’d much rather be dealing with them direct for an issue than with a 3rd party via eBay. 

Not sure where you’ll end up with this and whether it’ll be a ‘fault’ or a ‘feature’ if it gets as far as a legal challenge but good luck 

Yes in hindsight I should have purchased directly but I got a good deal I think I paid around £420, it's really put me off buying from Ebay in future