Faulty goods refund: waiting for "engineer's report"?
Michael Kilpatrick
I have to return a faulty 1Mcandle lantern to Maplin because it's a load
of cheap crap which stopped working two weeks after purchase.
The reply from the customer service email said that I could indeed take
it to the Cambridge shop rather than return it by post, but also said:
>
> A repair/replacement/refund can be issued when the fault is confirmed
> by our engineers.
Is this a load of tosh, or not? Under the Sale Of Goods Act am I not
entitled to get a refund immediately on return to the shop (given that I
can clearly show that it doesn't work)?
Am I really obliged to faff around waiting for replies from engineers?
I've heard that some places don't allow their mail/internet order items
to be returned to their retail outlets. At least Maplin are a bit more
sensible here...
...however, it's not the first time I've bought cheap shit from them.
Their product quality is pretty poor all round.
Michael
Jules
> Is this a load of tosh, or not? Under the Sale Of Goods Act am I not
> entitled to get a refund immediately on return to the shop (given that I
> can clearly show that it doesn't work)?
>
> Am I really obliged to faff around waiting for replies from engineers?
Maybe that's "engineer" in the same sense that everyone seems to be an
"assistant manager" these days, and the counter staff will confirm that it
doesn't work and then give you a refund :/
Andrew Cleland
fried one of our students' laptop (student "need a psu to replace this
one", maplin "here you go", later, laptop "too many volts - phut").
Maplin also insisted in this case in sending it off for one of their
engineers[1] to look at before they would admit liability. Lots of
arm-waiving later they did supply a replacment laptop, so fine, but
really it shouldn't have needed anyone beyond the manager to sort out.
AC.
[1] Being someone who has MEng behind his name I used to get all het-up
about the misuse of engineer and technician. The more I thought about it
though the people the I<whatever>E wants called technicians so as not to
dilute the brand of engineer are probably closer to what an 'engineer'
originally meant than those with letters behind there name.
Chris
> I have to return a faulty 1Mcandle lantern to Maplin because it's a load
> of cheap crap which stopped working two weeks after purchase.
>
> The reply from the customer service email said that I could indeed take
> it to the Cambridge shop rather than return it by post, but also said:
>
> > A repair/replacement/refund can be issued when the fault is confirmed
> > by our engineers.
>
> Is this a load of tosh, or not? Under the Sale Of Goods Act am I not
> entitled to get a refund immediately on return to the shop (given that I
> can clearly show that it doesn't work)?
>
> Am I really obliged to faff around waiting for replies from engineers?
IIRC, the assumption in law (probably also under the Sale of Goods Act) is
that anything that goes wrong within six months counts as a defective
product by default, and your consumer rights apply accordingly. The onus is
on them to prove that the product was of suitable quality when it was sold.
Even after the six months, you might still be entitled to something if a
product fails unreasonably quickly, but you don't get to win by default.
Also IIRC, you are not automatically entitled to a refund (as opposed to
say a repair or replacement) under all circumstances. However, if the
product has failed obviously and almost immediately, a full refund
certainly seems appropriate.
Personally, I'd give the guy in the shop one chance, if that doesn't work
I'd ask to speak to the manager (and be friendly to him/her) to see if that
achieved a better result, and failing that, I'd go straight to talking
about the Sale of Goods Act and filing a small claims action because it's
not worth the time to argue with them over a low-priced product.
Hope that helps, have a nice day, talk to a lawyer for legal advice, etc.
Cheers,
Chris
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Hello all,
>
>I have to return a faulty 1Mcandle lantern to Maplin because it's a load
>of cheap crap which stopped working two weeks after purchase.
>
>The reply from the customer service email said that I could indeed take
>it to the Cambridge shop rather than return it by post, but also said:
>
> >
> > A repair/replacement/refund can be issued when the fault is confirmed
> > by our engineers.
>
>Is this a load of tosh, or not? Under the Sale Of Goods Act am I not
>entitled to get a refund immediately on return to the shop (given that I
>can clearly show that it doesn't work)?
Probably not, no. You can only insist on an immediate refund if the
goods are clearly either not what you asked for or not working
correctly when you first try to use it (eg, you bought what you
thought was a red widget but when you opened the box it was green, or
the first time you plugged it into the mains it gave off smoke and
refused to run).
If it starts out by working OK, and then later fails, then it's
usually too late to insist on a refund - you have to give the vendor
the opportunity to repair or replace it first, and only if they can't
(or won't) do either of those are they obliged to offer a refund. And,
in such circumstances, they are entitled to test it themselves to
ascertain the nature of the fault.
>Am I really obliged to faff around waiting for replies from engineers?
Yes, provided that they are still able to replace, repair or refund it
within a reasonable amount of time. The law doesn't define
"reasonable", but in practice the consensus seems to be that a couple
of weeks is acceptable in most cases.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Michael Kilpatrick
> If it starts out by working OK, and then later fails, then it's
> usually too late to insist on a refund - you have to give the vendor
> the opportunity to repair or replace it first, and only if they can't
> (or won't) do either of those are they obliged to offer a refund. And,
> in such circumstances, they are entitled to test it themselves to
> ascertain the nature of the fault.
>>Am I really obliged to faff around waiting for replies from engineers?
>
>
> Yes, provided that they are still able to replace, repair or refund it
> within a reasonable amount of time. The law doesn't define
> "reasonable", but in practice the consensus seems to be that a couple
> of weeks is acceptable in most cases.
>
Erm, this doesn't seem to be what is suggested here (although it's not
precise):
http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html
"If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can
request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not
defined and will depend on circumstances)"
The above quote doesn't suggest that there are options for the supplier
to verify or argue the toss over whether there is a fault or not before
giving me my money back?
If the item has an inherent fault and very soon after purchase that
fault becomes apparent then it suggests I should be entitled to ask for
a refund without question, no?
The inherent fault in this case, as I determined, is that a component
failed the very first time the charger was plugged into the device. The
insertion of the charger interrupts the contact between the battery and
the bulb. The contact is not then restored after unplugging the charger
unless you shake the lantern or open it and poke the socket contacts.
It's a duff component.
I wish "they" could distill the Sales of Goods Acts and the relevant
revisions to it into something more concise without any ambiguities.
Michael
Tim Ward
news:S_SdnfzQZdNLoKfW...@pipex.net...
>
> The above quote doesn't suggest that there are options for the supplier to
> verify or argue the toss over whether there is a fault or not before
> giving me my money back?
Well of course the supplier can do this. Lots of widgets are, we're told,
taken back to the shop as "faulty" by people who simply can't work out how
to use them ...
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> If it starts out by working OK, and then later fails, then it's
>> usually too late to insist on a refund - you have to give the vendor
>> the opportunity to repair or replace it first, and only if they can't
>> (or won't) do either of those are they obliged to offer a refund. And,
>> in such circumstances, they are entitled to test it themselves to
>> ascertain the nature of the fault.
>
>>>Am I really obliged to faff around waiting for replies from engineers?
>>
>>
>> Yes, provided that they are still able to replace, repair or refund it
>> within a reasonable amount of time. The law doesn't define
>> "reasonable", but in practice the consensus seems to be that a couple
>> of weeks is acceptable in most cases.
>>
>
>Erm, this doesn't seem to be what is suggested here (although it's not
>precise):
>
>http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html
>
>"If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can
>request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not
>defined and will depend on circumstances)"
There are two separate points in time there. The first is if the goods
do not conform to contract "at the time of sale". That means that the
goods were clearly non-conforming at the point of sale, and would have
been shown to be had they been checked at that time. But you don't
have to reject them immediately, you can do so within "a reasonable
time". That allows for the fact that you can't always inspect or test
goods immediately, and therefore you won't necessarily know that
they're non-conforming until some time after the purchase. The
canonical example here is a pair of skis bought in summer but not used
until winter; provided the fault becomes apparent as soon as you do
try to use them then the fact that several months have passed doesn't
mean you're too late to reject them.
However, you're in a different situation, since in your case the goods
did conform to contract at the time of sale. The fault developed
subsequent to the first use, and hence you have enjoyed the use of it
for some time prior to the fault becoming apparent. That doesn't
affect your other rights under SoGA (specifically, your right to a
non-faulty item), but it does mean that you're past the time when
automatic full rejection is possible. (But see further down for a
possible get-out on this point, in your case).
>The above quote doesn't suggest that there are options for the supplier
>to verify or argue the toss over whether there is a fault or not before
>giving me my money back?
>
>If the item has an inherent fault and very soon after purchase that
>fault becomes apparent then it suggests I should be entitled to ask for
>a refund without question, no?
No. "Soon after purchase" is not the same as "at the time of sale".
You're only entitled to a full refund if the fault is, or would have
been if you had checked it, apparent at the moment you bought it.
>The inherent fault in this case, as I determined, is that a component
>failed the very first time the charger was plugged into the device. The
>insertion of the charger interrupts the contact between the battery and
>the bulb. The contact is not then restored after unplugging the charger
>unless you shake the lantern or open it and poke the socket contacts.
>It's a duff component.
*If* this was the first time that this particular action (ie, charging
it) was carried out, then you would probably have a far better case
for arguing that the item was non-conforming at the time of sale,
since in this case you do have a fault that could not have previously
been discovered until you carried out that action. That might override
what I've written earlier, depending on how a court might see it (if
it ever went that far).
>I wish "they" could distill the Sales of Goods Acts and the relevant
>revisions to it into something more concise without any ambiguities.
The problem is that there are so many different types of retail
transactions that a "one size fits all" Act is inevitably going to be
complex and potentially ambiguous.
Duncan Wood
Anybody who's ever supported an a product can remember clients who've
failed to switch it on/ plug it in & then complainedit doesn't work.
--
Duncan Wood
bob
wrote:
My memory of the SoGA is that there is also a requirement of the goods
to be of an acceptable quality, and part of that is the reasonable
expectation of a product to last an appropriate length of time
provided it is not mistreated. For an electrical product, if it fails
on the third use, it is every bit as unacceptable in terms of quality
as if it failed on the first use.
Robin
Michael Kilpatrick
>>
>>If the item has an inherent fault and very soon after purchase that
>>fault becomes apparent then it suggests I should be entitled to ask for
>>a refund without question, no?
>
>
> No. "Soon after purchase" is not the same as "at the time of sale".
> You're only entitled to a full refund if the fault is, or would have
> been if you had checked it, apparent at the moment you bought it.
>
>
>>The inherent fault in this case, as I determined, is that a component
>>failed the very first time the charger was plugged into the device. The
>>insertion of the charger interrupts the contact between the battery and
>>the bulb. The contact is not then restored after unplugging the charger
>>unless you shake the lantern or open it and poke the socket contacts.
>>It's a duff component.
>
>
> *If* this was the first time that this particular action (ie, charging
> it) was carried out, then you would probably have a far better case
> for arguing that the item was non-conforming at the time of sale,
Exactly. Perhaps I wasn't specific in the OP, but it was the very first
time I had plugged the charger in. It therefore seems reasonable to
assume that the component was faulty at the time of sale. However long I
had had the torch and used it with its initially-charged battery, the
very first time I would try to charge it, it would always have failed.
>>I wish "they" could distill the Sales of Goods Acts and the relevant
>>revisions to it into something more concise without any ambiguities.
>
>
> The problem is that there are so many different types of retail
> transactions that a "one size fits all" Act is inevitably going to be
> complex and potentially ambiguous.
Yes, possibly, but then it ought to be possible to reorder all the
clauses of the various releavnt Acts in such a manner that one can
create a document having a paragraph describing each possible scenario
even if it means duplicating many the various clauses in many of the
paragraphs, which of course is not how the Acts would be presented to
Parliament. It's not much cop having supposedly thorough and
comprehensive consumer laws if the consumer can't easily distill the
appropriate info from the Acts!
Michael
Roland Perry
Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Michael Kilpatrick <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.
uk> remarked:
>It's not much cop having supposedly thorough and comprehensive consumer
>laws if the consumer can't easily distill the appropriate info from the
>Acts!
That's true, which is why pages like this (designed mainly for online
shopping issues) might be useful:
<http://www.e-victims.org/e-shopping-auction/e-shopping-online-
auction/legislation-applicable-to-e-shopping.html>
Quite a maze, isn't it!
--
Roland Perry
Alan
> Hello all,
>
> I have to return a faulty 1Mcandle lantern to Maplin because it's a
> load of cheap crap which stopped working two weeks after purchase.
>
> The reply from the customer service email said that I could indeed
> take it to the Cambridge shop rather than return it by post, but also
> said:
>
> >
> > A repair/replacement/refund can be issued when the fault is
> > confirmed by our engineers.
>
> Is this a load of tosh, or not? Under the Sale Of Goods Act am I not
> entitled to get a refund immediately on return to the shop (given
> that I can clearly show that it doesn't work)?
>
> Am I really obliged to faff around waiting for replies from engineers?
>
Sort of - they should repair or replace it if faulty, but they are
allowed to check it out first. They usually just need to check that it
is a fault, and not abuse.
The wording is off putting, but most firms act properly. Maplin are
usually very good at taking stuff back in my experience.
--
Duncan Wood
Given they sell things made by Rolson they probably get a lot of practice.
Howard Fisher
> Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have to return a faulty 1Mcandle lantern to Maplin because it's a
>> load of cheap crap which stopped working two weeks after purchase.
>>
>> The reply from the customer service email said that I could indeed
>> take it to the Cambridge shop rather than return it by post, but also
>> said:
>>
>>> A repair/replacement/refund can be issued when the fault is
>>> confirmed by our engineers.
>>
>> Am I really obliged to faff around waiting for replies from engineers?
>>
>
> Sort of - they should repair or replace it if faulty, but they are
> allowed to check it out first. They usually just need to check that it
> is a fault, and not abuse.
>
> The wording is off putting, but most firms act properly. Maplin are
> usually very good at taking stuff back in my experience.
But even normally "good" companies get it wrong. I had a Pure DAB radio
that went wrong outside its guarantee period, but well within the period
that the man on the Trumpington omnibus would expect a radio to work.
All I'd done was turn it on before breakfast and off after breakfast
most days since I'd bought it. John Lewis insisted first that no
liability existed as it was outside the guarantee period. Upgrading who
I spoke to by a level of manager or two found someone who agreed to send
it back to Pure for checking if it was a manufacturing fault. However,
they swapped it for a new one and tried to sting me for 50% of the
price. I refused and demanded my faulty one + the engineer's report.
They could produce neither so had to give me the new one for free - and
it works to this day. So with luck, they'll just swap your cheap crap
with new cheap crap and you repeat the process until they give up.
And don't forget to ask for your travel costs too :-) I find Ikea quite
obliging when I take back their non-long-life long-life light bulbs.
--
Howard
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
We got a new DVD & VCR recorder for Christmas. From the start the DVD tray
couldn't be persuaded to open. Hughes Direct were able to arrange a direct
swap and we now have a happy granddaughter watching "The Snowman" on DVD.
--
Colin Rosenstiel