Refund Repair Replacement Refurbishment!

Sam Vimes

I'm all for the top brass being available for the public to berate. There's no point in the staff passing the info on because they already know. They're under no illusions that it's a popular policy so the thing to do is find the number for head office or preferably the direct number for some top guy and shout at him about it

Davy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm all for the top brass being available for the public to berate. There's no point in the staff passing the info on because they already know. They're under no illusions that it's a popular policy so the thing to do is find the number for head office or preferably the direct number for some top guy and shout at him about it

You say that like you've said that before :pac:

Sam Vimes

subway wrote: »

and i have experience on both sides of the "wear & tear / user damage" issue and its not something that black and white. a report can generally only say "probable user damage" or "potential mis-use". proving beyond a doubt is a tough call in these situations.

You only have to prove beyond doubt in criminal cases. In civil cases it's done on the balance of probability

Sam Vimes

Davy wrote: »

You say that like you've said that before :pac:

If you look back you'll see that every one of my 13,325 are on this topic :pac:

subway

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You only have to prove beyond doubt in criminal cases. In civil cases it's done on the balance of probability

thats interesting, i guess i had a feeling it was like that, but was assuming the strongest scenario as I wasnt sure.

would you have more info on what the judge might use as guidelines for "probability". are there statistics they would refer to etc, or is just down to who sounds more plausible on the day?

smithcity

Drunkmonkey, fair enough if you're happy for your purchases to begin to fall apart and degrade due to normal use.
Most people aren't. The fact is that some brands of phone are notorious for their short life spans. Nokia's and Sony Ericssons seem to be the worst of the lot. They are shoddily made and it's pretty typical that they begin to show faults of they are out of warranty or gaurauntee.

Most people aren't like yourself, if we find that our phones or other products don't last as long as the legally binding gaurantee covers it for, we're totally right to expect that they will be repaired or replaced.

If a company refuses to honour their legal obligations, what is wrong with taking them to small claims court? I would say that we have a moral obligation to do so.
The fact that far too many people allow themselves to be walked all over by companies that ignore their after sales responsibilities, is most likely the reason that they find it so easy to do (ignore customer rights I mean).
It's not just inconvenient for the person involved, it hurts the case of every other person that tries to have their rights satisfied.

seamus

subway wrote: »

every consumer has the right to have a judgment given by the SCC and you should thead very carefully, as a representative of a shop, when advising customers that they shouldnt pursue something through the SCC (if that's what you are saying you would do)

I think his point is that the SCC should only be used as a last resort and where the consumer has been genuinely treated badly. Using the SCC as a first resort (i.e. without giving the retailer reasonable chance for redress) is wrong, as is using the SCC to get your way when you're at fault.

subway

seamus wrote: »

I think his point is that the SCC should only be used as a last resort and where the consumer has been genuinely treated badly. Using the SCC as a first resort (i.e. without giving the retailer reasonable chance for redress) is wrong, as is using the SCC to get your way when you're at fault.

100% agree, and i don't think I've ever made a suggestion otherwise.

Sam Vimes

subway wrote: »

thats interesting, i guess i had a feeling it was like that, but was assuming the strongest scenario as I wasnt sure.

would you have more info on what the judge might use as guidelines for "probability". are there statistics they would refer to etc, or is just down to who sounds more plausible on the day?

I might have given the impression that I know a lot about it but I don't

I don't know how they come to their decision but my instinct would be to say that he can only consider evidence that's been presented so if you wanted him to refer to statistics you'd have to present them in evidence.


Think of Judge Judy and you'll get the idea :pac:

foggy_lad

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm a consumer as well, keys fell of my dell keyboard, didn't think they'd give me a new one but a few days later a new keyboard arrived in the post. If they didn't I wouldn't have taken them to court, I would have just fixed it myself. (will I buy dell again, yes. The same goes for Nokia, i've never personally had a problem gettting a phone repaired under warranty.

you would have been perfectly entitled to seek a replacement or repair from dell if the keypad had not been damaged by yourself or by some other accidental damage, and if they failed to provide replacement or repair or a refund of the cost of the keypad you would be foolish to just let them away with ignoring consumer rights.

The phone should withstand normal use and the repair company should fix it, my comment was a "what if" it all depends on the engineers discretion. In this case if could go 50/50 but i've seen someone else with the exacty same problem so i'd expect it to be fixed under warranty for the op.

without being a repair person that has examined the op's handset you can not say whether or not it is due to customer damage regardless of what you have seen.

Sorry if the "like you" comment caused offence, it's just when people start saying to sue (especially when foggys involved) my blood starts to boil. Sue if it's something that puts a dent in your pocket but if it's something like a keypad just bite the bullet and get a new keypad if your deemed to have damaged it.

the small claims court is there to help consumers deal with companies and shops that would seek to deny them their statutory rights, it has nothing to do with sueing and everything to do with getting what you are entitled to in law! and a faulty keypad in a handset that is 11months old will put a dent in your pocket as it takes from the value of the handset if you chose to sell it on adverts or anywhere else!

seamus wrote: »

I think his point is that the SCC should only be used as a last resort and where the consumer has been genuinely treated badly. Using the SCC as a first resort (i.e. without giving the retailer reasonable chance for redress) is wrong, as is using the SCC to get your way when you're at fault.

i agree but i have never heard of people going to the SCC without having given the shop/business every reasonable opportunity to fulfill their obligations. afaik the SCC insists on written complaints being sent to the offending company to ensure claims are only started as a last resort.