Retailers and SOG Act...

deanos

Squiffy wrote: »

Because of course shops don't have phones.....

Even if they have phones you have to get the item back to the store, all im saying is that sometumes its alot easier and quicker bypassing the shop

Squiffy

deanos wrote: »

Even if they have phones you have to get the item back to the store, all im saying is that sometumes its alot easier and quicker bypassing the shop

Chances are the shop will be a lot closer than the factory......

There may be some cases where you might agree to liaise with the manufacturer. But I object to the likes of Tim saying that it is just nit picking if you insist that you expect the retailer to fulful their legal obligations.

poet123

I agree with Squiffy,whilst there may be some instances where it may be better to deal direct,your contract,and thus the liability, is with the retailer. It is not nit picking to want to ensure they meet their legal obligations, and don't fob you off with the "contact the manufacturer line".

mdbarber

poet123 wrote: »

I agree with Squiffy,whilst there may be some instances where it may be better to deal direct,your contract,and thus the liability, is with the retailer. It is not nit picking to want to ensure they meet their legal obligations, and don't fob you off with the "contact the manufacturer line".

or worse !!

andyrules

deanos wrote: »

Even if they have phones you have to get the item back to the store, all im saying is that sometumes its alot easier and quicker bypassing the shop

True, if that's what is easier and is an option. However - that would be down to the customer's preferred choice - uktim is implying that customers who prefer to deal with the retailer are deliberately nitpicking as it gives them pleasure.

uktim29

Squiffy wrote: »

But I object to the likes of Tim saying that it is just nit picking if you insist that you expect the retailer to fulful their legal obligations.

andyrules wrote: »

uktim is implying that customers who prefer to deal with the retailer are deliberately nitpicking as it gives them pleasure.

No, I'm implying the ones that want to deal with the retailer because "thats what the law says" are nitpicking, not people who prefer to deal with the retailer.

However as has already been suggested sometimes the manufacturer will want you to deal directly with them, this also cuts out a middle man. I can't see why some people would then object simply as I've said "because the law says"!

superscaper

uktim29 wrote: »

No, I'm implying the ones that want to deal with the retailer because "thats what the law says" are nitpicking, not people who prefer to deal with the retailer.

However as has already been suggested sometimes the manufacturer will want you to deal directly with them, this also cuts out a middle man. I can't see why some people would then object simply as I've said "because the law says"!

Exactly, I'm all for sticking up for consumer rights but not when you're inconveniencing yourself. In my experience in many cases the manufacturer tends to be easier to deal with and if something is within warranty I'll usually go to the manufacturer first. At least they're more likely to simply give you a replacement than long waited repairs etc. But I guess it depends what the item is and how good the customer service is of the retailer. I mean if it's a faulty CD or unstitched clothes then obviously my first port of call would be the retailer. Also if I've found the retailer to be excellent for customer service in the past I'll probably go through them then no matter what it is. Other times the manufacturer and retailer have a firm relationships and set procedures for warranties so they require you to go to the retailer who'll handle the warranty for the manufacturer.

It all comes down to doing the easiest and most convenient thing for each individual case (although that can be guesswork when it's unknown what their responses will be). SoGA shouldn't be used for the sake of it and should only really be used when the first sensible options haven't led anywhere (depending on the circumstances).

vicky_kidder

No offence or anything, but this is the consumer vent board, so if the OP didn't like the idea of having to contact a manufacturer instead of the people they had the contract with, surely that's not nit-picking, that's just using the board in the way it was designed. AKA to moan to our fellow others about what annoys us!

superscaper

Just to emphasise in case anyone thinks my post was a direct response to the OP, it wasn't, it was just an opinion in general on the subject of using the SoGA.

uktim29

vicky_kidder wrote: »

No offence or anything, but this is the consumer vent board, so if the OP didn't like the idea of having to contact a manufacturer instead of the people they had the contract with, surely that's not nit-picking, that's just using the board in the way it was designed.

But using this board the way it was designed can also be nitpicking at the same time!

My post was written as a general comment to previous posts and not towards the op which whilst writing this particular post I can't recall as it was some time ago. Just a quick edit, I've re read the original post. It seems to be nitpicking as it seems to be relating to rules rather than relating to any practicalities. So it seems to be very much a "because the law says" argument.

My personal dislike to this is simply because people only do this to try and feel authoritative. This is true, if there are no other logical reasons relating to the practicality of the situation.

Many of us have had to deal with the public "venting" on a professional level, no surprise you might find us have our own "vents" back!