Retailers and SOG Act...

Rex_Mundi

I cant see how anyone can be regarded as nitpicking for using SOGA to enforce/state their rights under this law.

Consumer laws such as SOGA, DSR, etc, were drafted to protect the consumer (us) in dealings with retailers/companies/etc. What is the point of having this useful legislation and not being able to use it for fear of being regarded as a nitpicker/troublemaker if we stand up and quote the very laws that are there to protect us?

uktim29

If the manufacturer is willing to be directly involved what do you need protection from?

zorber

chez000 wrote: »

What annoys me most about a store sending faulty goods away to the manufacturer is when you have bought something taken it home opened the box and it doesnt work.

In this circumstance I want and should (to my mind) be entitled to an immediate replacement. I shouldnt have to wait for the store to send it to the manufacturer to find out whats wrong, as this can take months in some cases.

I would agree with illuminate in that it is an attempt to pass the buck and/or save on costs

If its faulty on unboxing then you have the right to get an imediate refund or replacement. You just need to say you are rejecting the goods for being faulty.

Rex_Mundi

uktim29 wrote: »

If the manufacturer is willing to be directly involved what do you need protection from?

We see all the time that people have problems with retailers/manufacturers. This is where the law works for us. Certainly, SOGA states very clearly that our contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer.

I do feel that people get confused between SOGA and a manufacturers warranty. A warranty can only be offered over and above the protection we have under SOGA, it cannot and does not void our rights under this law. In the case of a faulty product, if a warranty is offered, it may be useful to deal straight with the manufacturer. If a warranty isn't offered, we still have protection by law.

zorber

mdbarber wrote: »

I think many people are mystified by uk laws and its no wonder, have you ever read any of them?, they are bloody appalling, mainly in english so convoluted and contradictory that i sometimes wonder how is it possible to live and not break one
Back to the main theme if you read the unfair contracts act it appears that it is actually illegal to try and bypass the soga by "referring" to a warranty term
So in summary any shop that tries to push you on to a manufacturer is breaking the law.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for prosecutions tho.

Not True

In order to identify the fault and to ensure that the item is indeed faulty they have a right to gain expert opinion and guidance. The best people to do this are usually the manufacturer.
More often than not the manufacturer will either send out an engineer to inspect/ effect a repair on large items, so no cost to the customer. All so if an item is left with a retailer it has the opportunity to become damaged or lost, and also the customer can then try and claim that the item hasnt been returned to them in the same condition (scratches etc).

superscaper

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

We see all the time that people have problems with retailers/manufacturers. This is where the law works for us. Certainly, SOGA states very clearly that our contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer.

I do feel that people get confused between SOGA and a manufacturers warranty. A warranty can only be offered over and above the protection we have under SOGA, it cannot and does not void our rights under this law. In the case of a faulty product, if a warranty is offered, it may be useful to deal straight with the manufacturer. If a warranty isn't offered, we still have protection by law.

I think the point though is when people completely dismiss their warranty (not even considering approaching the manufacturer) and go straight for their rights under SoGA to the retailer. I don't think uktim29 was implying that using the SoGA in every case is nitpicking, but I agree with him when it's a case of being blinkered about other options and using that as the first and only option when it's more convenient to use the warranty etc. We all know that many retailers do shirk their responsibilities of the SoGA and they shouldn't but there are some cases where trying to pursue it for the sake of it is cutting your nose to spite your face when a simple call to the manufacturer may get everything resolved completely and satisfactorily.

vicky_kidder

uktim29 wrote: »

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!

Oh cool, fair enough! I guess strict adherence to rules gets my back up to, especially when logic determines that another route would be better! Haha.

In this situation, which ever was the easiest situation for me (and which cost the most) would be the one I went for. :rolleyes:

Rex_Mundi

superscaper wrote: »

I think the point though is when people completely dismiss their warranty (not even considering approaching the manufacturer) and go straight for their rights under SoGA to the retailer. I don't think uktim29 was implying that using the SoGA in every case is nitpicking, but I agree with him when it's a case of being blinkered about other options and using that as the first and only option when it's more convenient to use the warranty etc. We all know that many retailers do shirk their responsibilities of the SoGA and they shouldn't but there are some cases where trying to pursue it for the sake of it is cutting your nose to spite your face when a simple call to the manufacturer may get everything resolved completely and satisfactorily.

Thanks superscraper for helping to clarify.

uktim..........I hope you don't feel that I'm jumping on you for no reason (I may have misunderstood your meaning).

I also feel that anyone would be a fool to discount any options apart from SOGA to deal with a faulty product (this just makes sense). If a manufacturers warranty is offered and this solves the problem with the product, why not use it? (I would).

In the case of a problem not being sorted out (even by the manufacturer), we still have SOGA to fall back onto.

superscaper

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

Thanks superscraper for helping to clarify.

uktim..........I hope you don't feel that I'm jumping on you for no reason (I may have misunderstood your meaning).

I also feel that anyone would be a fool to discount any options apart from SOGA to deal with a faulty product (this just makes sense). If a manufacturers warranty is offered and this solves the problem with the product, why not use it? (I would).

In the case of a problem not being sorted out (even by the manufacturer), we still have SOGA to fall back onto.

Obviously uktim29 can speak for himself but that was they way I interpreted his posts and why I agreed and was how I made my own posts in response to his.

zorber

illuminate wrote: »

Is this done out of ignorance by poorly informed/trained staff ? Or..... as I believe most likely, is it a deliberate ploy by said retailers to pass the buck and save on costs ?

Going back to the original question.

firstly the cost of the Weee legilation is having a serious cost impact on retail business, the cost of disposing of return items is vast. Not that this should effect anything but retailers are actually trying slow the number of returns by questioning all returns and refering to the maufacturer where they can.

Its not supprising either as the number of items returned that are not actually faulty is huge and this is a vast cost to the retailer.

I was on store visits last week when a customer tried to return a vacuum cleaner, i over heard her say she had had it 3 weeks and didnt like it, when asked if she had used it she said yes but there was nothing wrong with it, the refund was refused.
5 minutes later her sister was in the store with it saying it was faulty and didnt suck. I got involved at this point and said we would test it. Took it out the box and could see the unit had been well used, removed the filter and the dust and filth was just dropping off it (filter clogged) and the unit worked perfectly with out it.
Showed the customer and she wasnt happy claimed it must be faulty as she had only had it for 3 weeks. I pointed out that the cleaner was one of the most powerful on the market and had obviously done a fantastic job on her house as her previous cleaner had not been up to the job and just left the dirt in the carpet. Told her to contact the manufacture as the cleaner worked perfectly and she just needed to clean the filter.

Then phoned back later to say that she had spoken to the manufacturer and they said give a refund, when asked for a name of who she had spoken to and a referance number she couldnt, told her to get one, she phoned back and said they wouldnt give one to her, Phoned the manufacturer my self whilst she was on the phone, the phone was answered and they gave their name in the first sentance was told that the customer in question hadnt phoned and they would have taken her address and they had no recorded of it. The manufacture said that if the customer wanted to sent the unit into them they would inspect it and if the fault was found replace it free of charge and refund p+p, if it was found not to be faulty they would be charged for the inspection.

Needless the customer put the phone down when told and we havent heard back from them.

This scam is usually pulled by tenents moving from one rented accomidation to another, students or armed forces. (please note i am not saying these grouples of people do this but on past history a minority of members of these groups have been caught doing just this)

If the store in question here had taken this of the customer even to send to the manufacturer it would have left us in a tricky situation. All the customer wanted was a refund, the store would have been badgered day and night till tehy got one saying the manufacture was taking too long, inconvianance to them etc as they cant clean their house.

On a different occasion a customer came back to another store trying to collect a sterio that had been left there 2 years ago for repair. Unit had been disposed of when customer failled to show after a year hence we had to refund. if the manufacturer was involved that the customer would have had the unit back repaired by post from the manufacturer.