Heatons denied refund!

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

why would the question of a repair even arise if the goods were of merchantable quality?

and that link mentions nothing about whether the product was doa or not.

I don't follow?

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

I don't follow?

that link says that you never have to accept a repair. its contrary to every other piece of information i've ever read on the subject and everything i've ever been told in my years in retail and everything i've ever experienced with any company, all of which repair things before they'll replace them

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

that link says that you never have to accept a repair. its contrary to every other piece of information i've ever read on the subject and everything i've ever been told in my years in retail and everything i've ever experienced with any company, all of which repair things before they'll replace them

Keep it in context of the laptop being DOA, you said you were not entitled to a refund or replacement, and that a repair was perfectly acceptable, well you are wrong, as I went on to say that if you informed the shop immediately, you are fully entitled to a refund or replacement.

Oryx

The relevant legislation is longwinded, but I think this part applies:

The consumer may require an appropriate reduction of the price or have the contract rescinded if —

(a) the consumer is entitled to neither repair nor replacement, or

(b) the seller has not completed the repair or replacement within a reasonable time, or

(c) the seller has not completed the repair or replacement without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

It does not say you can simply demand a refund.

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

Keep it in context of the laptop being DOA, you said you were not entitled to a refund or replacement, and that a repair was perfectly acceptable, well you are wrong, as I went on to say that if you informed the shop immediately, you are fully entitled to a refund or replacement.

that link says nothing about how long after you bought the product that the problem appeared. it simply says you don't have to accept a repair if the product is not of merchantable quality. so i have two questions:

1. at what point do you have to accept a repair?

2. why on earth would you want to repair something if its of merchantable quality? if the line read "you don't have to accept a repair" it would give the same amount of information

don't get me wrong here, i'd say every shop in the country would give a replacement on the spot because they all have 28 day policies etc but i don't think they're required to by law

Boggles

Deficiencies in the law led to the Government setting up National Consumer Agency, to help bridge the gap in modern consumer law.

They clearly state, that if a product you purchased did not work, i.e DOA, you are entitled to refund or replacement and do not have to accept a repair aslong as you notify the seller in a resonable time.

Consumer law is taken on case by case, it costs €9 euro for small claims, a judge will always rule in favour of the consumer if the above situation arose.

IT companies especially think they can get away with this. As they have a contract with the manufacturer to repair the product.

Situation:

You buy a toaster from Curry's, you go home, plug it in, it is dead, you bring it back they say they will have to send it away for repair. It will take a month, fair??? A judge will not see it as being fair either.

Oryx

I agree with you on your last point boggles, its all about being reasonable, and thats on both sides. I just thought it misleading to say that a customer can simply demand a refund. That causes no end of hassle when it happens that the customer is NOT entitled, but thinks they are.

Boggles

KtK wrote: »

I agree with you on your last point boggles, its all about being reasonable, and thats on both sides. I just thought it misleading to say that a customer can simply demand a refund. That causes no end of hassle when it happens that the customer is NOT entitled, but thinks they are.

Indeed, a repair on a brand new product that never worked is not reasonable.

The NCA seem to think that the shop must offer a refund, and who are we to agrue with them?

Sam Vimes

KtK wrote: »

I agree with you on your last point boggles, its all about being reasonable, and thats on both sides. I just thought it misleading to say that a customer can simply demand a refund. That causes no end of hassle when it happens that the customer is NOT entitled, but thinks they are.

exactly. you're right buggles, its not fair and a judge probably would rule in their favour. as i said, i don't think any shop in the country would actually send it off for repair but the legislation doesn't say they can't.

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

exactly. you're right buggles, its not fair and a judge probably would rule in their favour. as i said, i don't think any shop in the country would actually send it off for repair but the legislation doesn't say they can't.

They is plenty shops out there that would chance there arm and send if off, happened me twice in the past 6 months, one metion of small claims and they fired money at me.

Ideal situation would promote fair practice all round, in one situation I bought a television for 1800 euro, which was DOA, should I accept a repair, I will in my eye, generally something that is faulty from the start will always give trouble.

That Is the NCA view on it too, legistation needs to be up dated, our legisation at the moment is from last century and the century before that.

So I suppose in a round about way the shop has to give a refund.

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

They is plenty shops out there that would chance there arm and send if off, happened me twice in the past 6 months, one metion of small claims and they fired money at me.

i don't think the staff knew their jobs as any shop i've seen has had a 28 day policy or equivalent

Boggles wrote: »

Ideal situation would promote fair practice all round, in one situation I bought a television for 1800 euro, which was DOA, should I accept a repair, I will in my eye, generally something that is faulty from the start will always give trouble.

i'm afraid that there's no mention of anyone's eye in the legislation and shops are allowed to send things for repair

chrislad

I believe your statutory rights give you 14 days from the sale when yon get the choice of repair, replacement or repair. After that, its the choice if the seller to either give a refund or repair/replace within a reasonable timeframe. A DOA product would have to be refunded if brought back within 14 days. I raised thus issue with Citizens Advice a couple of weeks ago.

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

i don't think the staff knew their jobs as any shop i've seen has had a 28 day policy or equivalent



i'm afraid that there's no mention of anyone's eye in the legislation and shops are allowed to send things for repair

No they are allowed offer to send it for repair. That is the big difference, you can contest this offer.

From the NCA

"If the shop offers to repair the item, the repair
should be permanent. Where the goods have
been in use for some time and then prove faulty
the right of the consumer to return them may
be lost. In these circumstances, a repair or part
refund may be the most reasonable solution.


If you are not happy with the shop’s offer you
have the right to ask them to make good the
faulty goods in some other way.
You also have the right to take legal action if
you are not happy with their final offer. You
can bring the matter to the Small Claims Court,
which can handle a claim of up to €2,000 by a
consumer against a shop. The application fee
for the Small Claims Court is €9.

If you have a complaint it is important that:
• You act quickly
You should return faulty goods to the shop
as soon as possible. If you wait for a long
time it may appear that you have accepted
the products, faults and all."

Boggles

chrislad wrote: »

I believe your statutory rights give you 14 days from the sale when yon get the choice of repair, replacement or repair. After that, its the choice if the seller to either give a refund or repair/replace within a reasonable timeframe. A DOA product would have to be refunded if brought back within 14 days. I raised thus issue with Citizens Advice a couple of weeks ago.

Have you any links to this?

Boggles

Realword questions and answers here, appears the shop or company must give a refund, if you request it.

http://www.consumerassociation.ie/rights_retailers.html#repair

Consumer Rights Quiz

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Learning_Zone/Quizzes/Great_Complainer/Quiz_2_text/quiz_2_text.html

GrumPy

I work in retail and we take name, phone number, address when issuing a refund. Why? Cause we post refunds. Unless the product is ****ed on same day of purchase, we will give cashback then.

Boggles

Irish GrumPy wrote: »

I work in retail and we take name, phone number, address when issuing a refund. Why? Cause we post refunds. Unless the product is ****ed on same day of purchase, we will give cashback then.

That would be different to the op's situation.

Consumer can demand an on the spot refund, law of the land superseeds any of your companies polices. If you are in fact a bricks and mortar retailer.

MrPudding

Boggles wrote: »

Consumer can demand an on the spot refund, law of the land superseeds any of your companies polices. If you are in fact a bricks and mortar retailer.

Surely that is only if the product is shown to be faulty? If I return a product that I say is intermittently faulty, but when they test it in the shop it appears to be OK, why would they give me a refund on the spot?

Personally I think a shop has every right to confirm that an item is actually faulty. If this requires testing that prevent a refund being given on the day then I think post a refund is a fairly customer friendly way of handling it.

MrP

Boggles

MrPudding wrote: »

Surely that is only if the product is shown to be faulty? If I return a product that I say is intermittently faulty, but when they test it in the shop it appears to be OK, why would they give me a refund on the spot?

Personally I think a shop has every right to confirm that an item is actually faulty. If this requires testing that prevent a refund being given on the day then I think post a refund is a fairly customer friendly way of handling it.

MrP

Up to the shop to prove it, not the consumer.

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

Up to the shop to prove it, not the consumer.

yeah so they send it off, like he said

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

Realword questions and answers here, appears the shop or company must give a refund, if you request it.

I'm just going to go ahead and say that site is wrong or at least simplifying it. I can guarantee you that you're not always entitled to a refund

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

I'm just going to go ahead and say that site is wrong or at least simplifying it. I can guarantee you that you're not always entitled to a refund

Well your entitled to your opinion, even if wrong, but the NCA state that you are entitled to a full refund, I suggest they might be more versed in consumer law than you.

A poster already stated that he was on to citizens advice recently and told him the same as I have been telling you and the NCA have been telling me.

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

Well your entitled to your opinion, even if wrong, but the NCA state that you are entitled to a full refund, I suggest they might be more versed in consumer law than you.

A poster already stated that he was on to citizens advice recently and told him the same as I have been telling you and the NCA have been telling me.

i must call every company i've ever worked for and in fact every company in the country because they don't seem to know about this law that says they always have to give a refund if the customer asks for it. if only they knew that they always have to give a refund, all these consumer issues would just disappear.


unfortunately, after i've told them that they can't insist on replacement or reapir, companies such as the mobile phone repair company will probably have to shut down because they get about 95% of their business from shops sending phones to them. oh well

and he didn't say the same as you. he said that someone on the phone told him he should get a refund within 14 days, which is not what i just said was wrong

dsane1

good old heatons i say stay away too

tvnutz

Boggles wrote: »

Indeed, a repair on a brand new product that never worked is not reasonable.

That is what the 28 days are for,the legislation and the NCA say Repair,refund or replacement,they do not say a refund in any circumstance. They do stress that the shop must deal with your problem,not the manufacturer. So a shop can't tell you to deal with the manufacturer,they must deal with the problem themselves,by either refund or repair,depending on when the item was bought. You by an mp3 player and 9 months later it breaks,you will not get a cash refund and the shop is entitled only to send it off for repair. A huge majority of shops have this system and if it were illegal then they would not be able to have it in place.

Sam Vimes

i just had a read of the stuff you posted. it says that if you're not happy with the offer of a repair, you can take them to court.

let's think about this for a second. first of all, if you have a statutory right to a refund, then taking them to court should be completely unnecessary. they'd be quite clearly breaking the law and it wouldn't be necessary for a judge to tell them that.

what i think it means is that if there's a dispute that you can't settle between yourselves, you bring it to court and a judge will decide whose case has more merit.

my point being that you're not automatically entitled to a refund in any way, shape or form but if you think an exception should be made because of the particular circumstances of your case, you have the right to have a judge decide. no?

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

i must call every company i've ever worked for and in fact every company in the country because they don't seem to know about this law that says they always have to give a refund if the customer asks for it. if only they knew that they always have to give a refund, all these consumer issues would just disappear.


unfortunately, after i've told them that they can't insist on replacement or reapir, companies such as the mobile phone repair company will probably have to shut down because they get about 95% of their business from shops sending phones to them. oh well

and he didn't say the same as you. he said that someone on the phone told him he should get a refund within 14 days, which is not what i just said was wrong

Ring O2 first, speaking of phone companies

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/News_+_Research/Consumer_News/O2_changes_phone_repair_policy.html

tvnutz

Commander Vimes wrote: »

i just had a read of the stuff you posted. it says that if you're not happy with the offer of a repair, you can take them to court.

let's think about this for a second. first of all, if you have a statutory right to a refund, then taking them to court should be completely unnecessary. they'd be quite clearly breaking the law and it wouldn't be necessary for a judge to tell them that.

what i think it means is that if there's a dispute that you can't settle between yourselves, you bring it to court and a judge will decide whose case has more merit.

my point being that you're not automatically entitled to a refund in any way, shape or form but if you think an exception should be made because of the particular circumstances of your case, you have the right to have a judge decide. no?

I would agree with that. Perhaps you buy a phone it it is faulty a few months later,it is sent off for repair. You are without a phone for a few weeks which is a pain in the a$$,but that's how it is. You get it back and it lasts a week before it goes again. At that stage I would say you have a good case to demand a brand new one or a refund,despite it being bought several months before.

Sam Vimes

dsane1 wrote: »

good old heatons i say stay away too

we've moved on from that. we decided that heatons are doing the same thing that hundreds of other retailers do

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

i just had a read of the stuff you posted. it says that if you're not happy with the offer of a repair, you can take them to court.

let's think about this for a second. first of all, if you have a statutory right to a refund, then taking them to court should be completely unnecessary. they'd be quite clearly breaking the law and it wouldn't be necessary for a judge to tell them that.

what i think it means is that if there's a dispute that you can't settle between yourselves, you bring it to court and a judge will decide whose case has more merit.

my point being that you're not automatically entitled to a refund in any way, shape or form but if you think an exception should be made because of the particular circumstances of your case, you have the right to have a judge decide. no?

Bringing to court takes 15 days and 9 euro - If it is the route I have to go to get a refund, other then what is essentially a refurbished product. Then here is a tenner keep the change. So in a round about way, you will get the refund, and in some instances from my experience going the court way would be faster.