Consumer rights advice - medical device

trashedteen

Contacted Abott in the end, it was a very straight-forward process, I had assumed it would be a pain and I would have to fight with them to get a replacement. 

The issue I had was that the retailer was telling me I'm wrong for asking them to deal with the replacement when it clearly states in the Consumer Rights Act that my contract is with the retailer and it is their responsibility to sort it. It seems clear to me that no internal returns policy can overrule a customer's statutory rights.

Was I being stubborn? Absolutely. Was I wrong? No.

If they had said "we are happy to organise the replacement but it would be much quicker to contact the manufacturer" I'd have been a lot more amicable, I just don't like being told I'm wrong when I'm not.

MyRealNameToo

trashedteen said:

Contacted Abott in the end, it was a very straight-forward process, I had assumed it would be a pain and I would have to fight with them to get a replacement. 

I suspect there is vast markup in the £70 plastic pucks you have to replace every fortnight, especially as they are region locked so very protectionist. They can afford to deal with the occasional faulty item in a very simple, straightforward/generous way. 

MattMattMattUK

trashedteen said:

Contacted Abott in the end, it was a very straight-forward process, I had assumed it would be a pain and I would have to fight with them to get a replacement. 

The issue I had was that the retailer was telling me I'm wrong for asking them to deal with the replacement when it clearly states in the Consumer Rights Act that my contract is with the retailer and it is their responsibility to sort it. It seems clear to me that no internal returns policy can overrule a customer's statutory rights.

Was I being stubborn? Absolutely. Was I wrong? No.

If they had said "we are happy to organise the replacement but it would be much quicker to contact the manufacturer" I'd have been a lot more amicable, I just don't like being told I'm wrong when I'm not.

Unfortunately you were wrong. The retailer is allowed to use an agent to facilitate the process, that is almost always the manufacturer as the retailer is generally not able to diagnose/fix/replace themselves. In this instance they asked you to contact their agent who was the manufacturer, you initially refused then tried to argue you had a right to only deal with the retailer, that right does not exist. 

Renfrewman

So doing what the retailer not unreasonably asked got you the result you wanted? Being stubborn is so often not being clever.

Renfrewman

Several of my posts on this thread have been deleted by admin...I wonder who instigated them to do so? This post will go to,

trashedteen

Quick update - the retailer has emailed me this morning and as a "gesture of goodwill" have decided to refund the full amount. 

In response to "using an agent" - I think this is correct. From what I can see however, it is their responsibility to process this and they cannot ask the customer to contact the "agent" (manufacturer or no) on their behalf. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

trashedteen said:

Quick update - the retailer has emailed me this morning and as a "gesture of goodwill" have decided to refund the full amount. 

In response to "using an agent" - I think this is correct. From what I can see however, it is their responsibility to process this and they cannot ask the customer to contact the "agent" (manufacturer or no) on their behalf. 

Glad you got a refund in the end OP If only their website noted that the goods supplied must conform to the contract and the short term right to reject exists.... 

MyRealNameToo

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

trashedteen said:

Quick update - the retailer has emailed me this morning and as a "gesture of goodwill" have decided to refund the full amount. 

In response to "using an agent" - I think this is correct. From what I can see however, it is their responsibility to process this and they cannot ask the customer to contact the "agent" (manufacturer or no) on their behalf. 

Glad you got a refund in the end OP If only their website noted that the goods supplied must conform to the contract and the short term right to reject exists.... 

Not sure "glad" is the right term given they have now had both a replacement item and a full refund which could be deemed undue enrichment if the merchant is unaware that the items been replaced by the manufacturer

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

MyRealNameToo said:

Not sure "glad" is the right term given they have now had both a replacement item and a full refund which could be deemed undue enrichment if the merchant is unaware that the items been replaced by the manufacturer

Missed that bit