Consumer rights

ssmith6287

Thats a good way of putting it. Like I said I used to work in retail and got it the whole time, the computers would be in a state. Most common "fault" been broken ac connection, eh u broke it!!!

But yeah I see people now when I go into shops and theyre eating the heads off sales staff when 90% of the time the staff are prob following the standard procedure to dealing with problems.

I understand the contract is with the shop but surely there has to come a time e.g a year, when the shop is not bound to the product and if something goes wrong they should deal with the manufacturer direct.
Its near impossible for a staff member to check for wear and tear, and you cant expect manufacturers just to give you free products on a whim that its "faulty".

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

But yeah I see people now when I go into shops and theyre eating the heads off sales staff when 90% of the time the staff are prob following the standard procedure to dealing with problems.

Those are ignorant chancers who wouldnt change even if the law was different.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I understand the contract is with the shop but surely there has to come a time e.g a year, when the shop is not bound to the product and if something goes wrong they should deal with the manufacturer direct.
Its near impossible for a staff member to check for wear and tear, and you cant expect manufacturers just to give you free products on a whim that its "faulty".

The shop is bound to the product for as long as it is reasonable to assume that it should still work. If I was in retail I would change a 30 euro deposit to look at items and if it turns out to be a manufacturers fault the 30 euro is refunded otherwise it is kept. Really I dont know how it would work though as it might not be entirely fair on consumers who have been wrong but might not have much money so dont think I could implement such a policy.

The fact is that businesses have to take the fact that they could be stung by returns as part of the business and incorporate it into their profit margins.

vinniew09

axer wrote: »

I think I brought it up.

Price can be relevant as to how long goods should last. See here:
I would expect a €1000 tv to last longer than a €300 tv all things being equal e.g. same size etc. i.e. some models are cheaper than others and not as reliable as a result.

i think the mindframe is complety backwards here. with tvs unlike the old CRT you are not paying for screen size,lifespan and durability,its picture quality.
ie 50" plazmas can be got for what 600-700 quid.
yet a 32"led 100hz tv will cost the same price bracket if not more. the more you spend on a tv the better the picture quality is ie full hd,100hz,200hz....stronger colours, 3d ready.bla bla bla. i think if anyone was to look at the way tvs are put together nowadays and compare them to the CRT's anyone should realise there gonna get the same lifespan out of a lCD LED plazma etc as you would out of a CRT.very same point with laptops the amount of people who pressume just because they spend 1500 on a laptop does not garentee them that they will have it for x amount of years.u pay for preformance not lifespan and durability

axer

vinniew09 wrote: »

i think the mindframe is complety backwards here. with tvs unlike the old CRT you are not paying for screen size,lifespan and durability,its picture quality.
ie 50" plazmas can be got for what 600-700 quid.
yet a 32"led 100hz tv will cost the same price bracket if not more. the more you spend on a tv the better the picture quality is ie full hd,100hz,200hz....stronger colours, 3d ready.bla bla bla. i think if anyone was to look at the way tvs are put together nowadays and compare them to the CRT's anyone should realise there gonna get the same lifespan out of a lCD LED plazma etc as you would out of a CRT.very same point with laptops the amount of people who pressume just because they spend 1500 on a laptop does not garentee them that they will have it for x amount of years.u pay for preformance not lifespan and durability

You must have misread my post i.e. all things being equal then price may be relevant.

vinniew09

ya i did my bad...

Jumpy

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Thats a good way of putting it. Like I said I used to work in retail and got it the whole time, the computers would be in a state. Most common "fault" been broken ac connection, eh u broke it!!!

But yeah I see people now when I go into shops and theyre eating the heads off sales staff when 90% of the time the staff are prob following the standard procedure to dealing with problems.

So you previously working in HN is not irrelevant as you previously stated.

You are just pissed that you used to have to follow statutory rules.

HN came to Europe. They accepted these terms by trading here.

You as a representative (previously) were therefore required to follow those directives.

It was not your place as floor sales to approve or deny a request under those directives.

axer

Jumpy wrote: »

So you previously working in HN is not irrelevant as you previously stated.

You are just pissed that you used to have to follow statutory rules.

HN came to Europe. They accepted these terms by trading here.

You as a representative (previously) were therefore required to follow those directives.

It was not your place as floor sales to approve or deny a request under those directives.

I think the issue the op is more highlighting is unreasonable consumers that break something and still want to be looked after e.g. like the example of a power connection breaking when it is clear the that this is not a manufacturing fault but just someone broke it. I would assume then store staff should say the issue is clear that it was caused by abuse/misuse and refuse to remedy it.

The further from that we stray (i.e. from obvious issues) the lines become more blurred though which is where the real problem lies. Then the area of responsibility may become more blurred too but many consumers think it is clear in law all the same when it may not be. I think this is where the OP has the issue in that it seems like businesses are still 100% responsible even though it may not be clear that a problem was caused because the item was not of merchantible quality but may have been because of abuse or misuse e.g. someone has a bad power supply in their house that keeps cutting or otherwise, next the tv stops working, its not obvious that this was caused by the bad power (which would be the consumer's responsibility) so the business still has to resolve the issue.

Jumpy

If the AC connection was broken who is to say the plastic used was of bad quality and is a known issue?

The salesperson isnt google. It isnt up to a floor salesperson to state "you broke it".

The item should have been accepted, investigated and then refused if its clear that it is a user issue.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I think the whole point of the OP has been twisted out off all recognition. The point was that many customers unreasonably expect items guaranteed when they broke them or they have had a reasonable life. It, of couse, depends on the item and how old it is but he is right to say that many people here seem unreasonable and expect unrealistic life expectancy from items.

ShooterSF

Eason Future Blood wrote: »

I think the whole point of the OP has been twisted out off all recognition. The point was that many customers unreasonably expect items guaranteed when they broke them or they have had a reasonable life. It, of couse, depends on the item and how old it is but he is right to say that many people here seem unreasonable and expect unrealistic life expectancy from items.

That's a fair point but it's not the OP's only point. He also made claims that people should accept a warranty as if it's an agreed replacement for statutory rights and that people should buy extended warranties which are sometimes no better than your legal entitlements anyway, you're simply paying a retailer to acknowledge them.

vinniew09

as long as the laptop is in warrenty a charger should be posted...for what ever reason all chargers for laptops are covered under any manufacturers or extended warrenty(provided its not damaged where it connects to the laptop)
Fact of the matter is people do and will always chance their arms and say its your fault.theirs a thread relating to a canon camera where the guy openly said he had dropped the camera and who was advised by those on boards to bring it back and say it was like that when he opened it.the guy being an honest person happlily said 'do you know what i dropped it, its my fault,il buy a knew one.sadly not everyone is like that
iv had so many people come in and say that its the cameras fault that their screen as a crack or the lens is damaged(.not that its damaged because it was more than likely at the bottom of your bag with no camera case)i cant prove it,i can only send it away to those that can.
worse thing to do is start to pointing the finger back at the customer stating you broke it yourself,you can simply just send it away and see if the manufacturers agree that it was and if wasn't a manufacturers fault the customer will have a statment saying they can have it back in the same condition or they can pay for the repair.small claims wont want to hear what the consumer has to say

pleasant Co.

vinniew09 wrote: »

theirs a thread relating to a canon camera where the guy openly said he had dropped the camera and who was advised by those on boards to bring it back

Could you link? sounds familiar all right but i'd like to see those comments.

borderlinemeath

axer wrote: »

I think the issue the op is more highlighting is unreasonable consumers that break something and still want to be looked after e.g. like the example of a power connection breaking when it is clear the that this is not a manufacturing fault but just someone broke it. I would assume then store staff should say the issue is clear that it was caused by abuse/misuse and refuse to remedy it.

axer wrote: »

The further from that we stray (i.e. from obvious issues) the lines become more blurred though which is where the real problem lies. Then the area of responsibility may become more blurred too but many consumers think it is clear in law all the same when it may not be. I think this is where the OP has the issue in that it seems like businesses are still 100% responsible even though it may not be clear that a problem was caused because the item was not of merchantible quality but may have been because of abuse or misuse e.g. someone has a bad power supply in their house that keeps cutting or otherwise, next the tv stops working, its not obvious that this was caused by the bad power (which would be the consumer's responsibility) so the business still has to resolve the issue.

Having stood on the front line of retail for many years - dealing with these type of consumers is a nightmare.

For the past few years I sold nursery and baby items and people expect that it's ok to abuse a buggy to the hilt and bring it back on the last week of it's guarantee and be handed a new one.

examples - punctures on tyres - not covered - yet people expect to be given free tubes and tyres.

frame broken - yet they come in with the airline sticker still stuck to it. Not the retailers problem if its had 20 suitcases stacked on top of it and been "handled" by Servisair or the like.

Wheels worn down on the back of the buggy - and think it's a manufacturing fault when theres 10 bags of shopping hanging out of the handles.

Trying to argue with people who threaten you with all sorts of litigation as its the retailer that's "putting my baby in danger in a faulty buggy" is not fun. And telling them that they've been misusing it? Parents never misuse their buggy, sure they've paid you hundreds for it, no they fold it and unfold it properly, clean it regularly, don't wallop the wheels off footpaths, don't let their child climb in and out on their own. You may as well insult their child rather than tell them they've misused it.

Boggles

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Having stood on the front line of retail for many years - dealing with these type of consumers is a nightmare.

For the past few years I sold nursery and baby items and people expect that it's ok to abuse a buggy to the hilt and bring it back on the last week of it's guarantee and be handed a new one.

examples - punctures on tyres - not covered - yet people expect to be given free tubes and tyres.

frame broken - yet they come in with the airline sticker still stuck to it. Not the retailers problem if its had 20 suitcases stacked on top of it and been "handled" by Servisair or the like.

Wheels worn down on the back of the buggy - and think it's a manufacturing fault when theres 10 bags of shopping hanging out of the handles.

Trying to argue with people who threaten you with all sorts of litigation as its the retailer that's "putting my baby in danger in a faulty buggy" is not fun. And telling them that they've been misusing it? Parents never misuse their buggy, sure they've paid you hundreds for it, no they fold it and unfold it properly, clean it regularly, don't wallop the wheels off footpaths, don't let their child climb in and out on their own. You may as well insult their child rather than tell them they've misused it.

But like has been said they are morons and chancers.

No retail staff should ever put up with abuse or threatening behaviour, and if that was to happen should ask them to leave, your well within rights.

One suggestion though, why not in conjunction with the NCA draw up a pamphlet on what rights a consumer has when they buy products from your store, you can distribute the pamphlet with each purchase or use it as a proactive tool if someone comes in demanding redress their not entitled to. Obviously the pamphlet should be clear, concise, honest and accurate, not like the terms and conditions that have become the norm, which are set in font type 1 and requires the hubble telescope pointed backwards and a law degree to read them.

Your still going to get a fair share of loons, but that's a society problem more than a consumer issue.

borderlinemeath

Boggles wrote: »

But like has been said they are morons and chancers.

No retail staff should ever put up with abuse or threatening behaviour, and if that was to happen should ask them to leave, your well within rights.

One suggestion though, why not in conjunction with the NCA draw up a pamphlet on what rights a consumer has when they buy products from your store, you can distribute the pamphlet with each purchase or use it as a proactive tool if someone comes in demanding redress their not entitled to. Obviously the pamphlet should be clear, concise, honest and accurate, not like the terms and conditions that have become the norm, which are set in font type 1 and requires the hubble telescope pointed backwards and a law degree to read them.

Your still going to get a fair share of loons, but that's a society problem more than a consumer issue.

That has been in place for some time, a booklet issued with their receipt with what's covered and whats not. And even with this getting them to bring in the receipt/booklet when they have a problem for proof of purchase is another matter.

But..consumer perception is the problem - if they think that their product has developed a fault, then it must be manufacturing rather than the fact that they abused it.

Thankfully I don't work in this industry any more, I have never had to deal with as many rude, obnoxious customers who use their child as a tool to try and get their own way. Thankfully there were just as many nice customers who made up for them.

vinniew09

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056128321&highlight=currys+world

pleasant Co.

vinniew09 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056128321&highlight=currys+world

Thanks, not the one I was thinking of at all, what the fuck is wrong with some people, absolute scum.

Jumpy

Mactard wrote: »

Thanks, not the one I was thinking of at all, what the fuck is wrong with some people, absolute scum.

Thats not a nice thing to say about Declan.

pleasant Co.

Jumpy wrote: »

Thats not a nice thing to say about Declan.

To be absolutely clear, as chances are someone will take your post seriously, I was not talking about Declan.

Jumpy

Mactard wrote: »

To be absolutely clear, as chances are someone will take your post seriously, I was not talking about Declan.

Someone would have to be pretty thick to do that to be fair

vinniew09

reality is people will go to the fars to put business's out of businenss and yet blame the government for all the closers....it may aswell be theft..