Consumer rights issue

burel

Hi there,
I have a consumer question regarding a faulty television.
I bought a television in an electrical shop in January and 5 months later it stopped working. I brought it into the shop with my receipt and because it had a one year warranty it was sent off for repair.
I then received a text message a few days later saying that they were going to replace the television. However, when I went to the shop I was told that they no longer stocked my television. If I wanted a television of a similar spec, I would have to pay at least an extra €100. I was also told that even though I paid €329 for the television, I was only entitled to a voucher worth €279 as that was the price it was retailing at.
A few days later, I got a letter from their UK office offering me a voucher for £279 sterling (worth about €390). When I went back to the shop for a third time, thru told me that I am only entitled to a voucher, and not my money back.

I am wondering if I'm entitled to my money back based on my statutory rights?

vicwatson

Any repair should be permanent, if they can't repair it they should replace it with one of equal or greater value, tell em stick their voucher.

vicwatson

Have a look here for more info

http://www.consumerhelp.ie/faulty-goods

vicwatson

Here specifically, "Replacement

.......If you opt for a replacement, it should be the same as the item you bought, or of similar quality and price. You should not have to pay extra for a replacement and should be given the difference in price if the replacement costs less than the item you originally bought."

http://www.consumerhelp.ie/faulty-goods#2

burel

Thanks for the reply.
I would rather have my money back if possible, just wondering if I can insist on it based on my rights.
I don't want to have to pay extra for a replacement when I didn't damage the television in the first place.

seamus

In the scenario where you've had an item for a significant period of time and it's to be replaced or refunded, the value of the item is not the value when new, but the original value of it minus a reasonable deduction for wear, tear and time. Depreciation, basically.

Although it's not stated that you use depreciation calculations, it seems reasonable that you would use Revenue's calculation to determine the value of a consumer item. In this case, Revenue determine that large electronics like TVs or computers lose their value over a period of 8 years. So you depreciate them by 12.5% per year.

In that case of your TV, that means that it would lose €41 in value, every year. Or over 5 months, that's €17.

So a fair refund value for your 5 month old TV seems to me to be €312.

In this case a replacement is probably the better option as you don't have to put your hand in your pocket, but it's understandable that you're just sick of it and want rid.

P. Breathnach

I don't think they can fairly apply any depreciation calculation during a one-year warranty period (I am disagreeing with seamus's suggestion that you have had the television for "a significant period of time". Neither can they insist on making a current lower price relevant.

They are obliged to give you a replacement - an item of similar (or better) specification - at no cost to you.

You are not entitled to a refund.

A voucher might be a useful mechanism if the voucher enables you to pick out a suitable replacement at no cost to yourself.

burel

So if I am only entitled to a replacement, and the only television of similar specifications to the one I had costs €400, can insist that they give me that television as a replacement? Without me having to pay extra?
Surely I shouldn't have to pay more money towards the cost of a new t.v. when the fault occured within 6 months and it has a one year warranty?

delahuntv

burel wrote: »

So if I am only entitled to a replacement, and the only television of similar specifications to the one I had costs €400, can insist that they give me that television as a replacement? Without me having to pay extra?
Surely I shouldn't have to pay more money towards the cost of a new t.v. when the fault occured within 6 months and it has a one year warranty?

as a retailer I understand that bif the replacement is a higher value, then that's my tough luck, not the consumer's.

If the retailer doesn't want to give you the replacement at no extra cost, then the only option after that is a refund.

dudara

To be clear, you are entitled to a replacement OR repair OR refund. The retailer can suggest one which you can accept or decline. But if their offer is reasonable, and you decline, you will find it hard to get satisfaction.

If you go the repair route, then the repair must be permanent (i.e. last the lifetime of the product). If you get offered a replacement, it must be of equal quality/functionality to the one being replaced. You should not have to pay any additional cost for this. You can of course pay some more money to get an improved model, if you so wish. The final option is a refund, which should usually be via the original method of payment. Either way you should end up with cash in your pocket, not a credit note. You can choose to accept a credit note if it suits you, but the law states that you are entitled to a refund.

If the store cannot offer you a similar product as replacement at no additional cost, then you should seek a refund. if they will not give that, then inform them that you will proceed to the Small Claims Court. Write a formal, registered letter to the Store Manager and to HQ (if they are a chain), outlining the issue and giving them 10 working days to resolve. If nothing happens, lodge your claim.

Kenny Bania

Screw that, OP. Either they give you a new TV you're happy with or a FULL refund. They couldn't repair it (Strike 1), they can't replace it (Strike 2) - so refund (NOT VOUCHER) is their last and only option.

And how can the say it's retailing at €279 now, if they don't stock it anymore? Either way, that's irrelevant.

MarkAnthony

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Screw that, OP. Either they give you a new TV you're happy with or a FULL refund. They couldn't repair it (Strike 1), they can't replace it (Strike 2) - so refund (NOT VOUCHER) is their last and only option.

And how can the say it's retailing at €279 now, if they don't stock it anymore? Either way, that's irrelevant.

I'm not sure if it's the way you've written the post but to clarify it's not a strike or progressing system.

It's one of the three and that needs to be a permanent fix. Obviously by definition as refund is a permanent state of affairs. If it's repaired or replaced in the first instance then the second instance leave the retailer open to a claim of damages.

Returning to the OP there is no onus for a replacement if that is uneconomical for the retailer but in my mind a cash refund should be offered, subject to the original payment method.

Kenny Bania

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's the way you've written the post but to clarify it's not a strike or progressing system.

It's one of the three and that needs to be a permanent fix. Obviously by definition as refund is a permanent state of affairs. If it's repaired or replaced in the first instance then the second instance leave the retailer open to a claim of damages.

Returning to the OP there is no onus for a replacement if that is uneconomical for the retailer but in my mind a cash refund should be offered, subject to the original payment method.

I know it's not a strike or progressing system - I'm saying he already tried 2 of the 3 options (a return - not possible, as they don't stock it / a repair failed) -there's only 1 option left - full refund. Not a voucher - not an excuse. A refund.

rock22

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm not sure.....

Returning to the OP there is no onus for a replacement if that is uneconomical for the retailer but in my mind a cash refund should be offered, subject to the original payment method.

Where do you get that idea?

MarkAnthony

rock22 wrote: »

Where do you get that idea?

It's specifically codified in a recent SI - Slimm frequently links it. I'm just heading out the door so I'll let you search for it. 11/2003 IIRC.

It was implied prior to that, doing otherwise would require courts to exercise their powers in equity not common law - again worth a google and read as it's very interesting IMHO.

MarkAnthony

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I know it's not a strike or progressing system - I'm saying he already tried 2 of the 3 options (a return - not possible, as they don't stock it / a repair failed) -there's only 1 option left - full refund. Not a voucher - not an excuse. A refund.

As I said, perhaps just poor phrasing, thanks for the clarification.

L1011

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's specifically codified in a recent SI - Slimm frequently links it. I'm just heading out the door so I'll let you search for it. 11/2003 IIRC.

It was implied prior to that, doing otherwise would require courts to exercise their powers in equity not common law - again worth a google and read as it's very interesting IMHO.

I wouldn't call early 2003 "recent".

As goes a retailer not being required to offer replacement if its uneconomic - surely that's not an issue that occurs, as they can just offer a refund before that?

slimjimmc

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's specifically codified in a recent SI - Slimm frequently links it. I'm just heading out the door so I'll let you search for it. 11/2003 IIRC.

It was implied prior to that, doing otherwise would require courts to exercise their powers in equity not common law - again worth a google and read as it's very interesting IMHO.

Yep SI 11/2003 Articles 7.3 & 7.4
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html
You can't force a retailer to repair or replace something if the cost to the retailer is unreasonable. e.g if it costs disproportionately more to repair a TV than to replace it with a different but equivalent make/model then you have no right to insist on a repair, your remaining options are take the replacement or get a refund.

MarkAnthony

L1011 wrote: »

I wouldn't call early 2003 "recent".

As goes a retailer not being required to offer replacement if its uneconomic - surely that's not an issue that occurs, as they can just offer a refund before that?

Statute of Frauds is 1695 so in legal terms... also I was 23, and I'd like to hang on to that time as being recent.

Yes they can, the point being that if for some reason something was cheaper 6 months ago, which happens with electronics sometimes, the retailer doesn't have to go out of pocket to offer a replacement. Similarly with a repair on a rare item. A refund will suffice. It doesn't detract from the refund being in cash unless some sort of beneficial agreement is reached.

Sounds like some sort of cover plan malarkey.

mickoneill31

Document the steps so far, who you were dealing with and who said what and send off to the small claims court. It costs €25
Can't post the link as I'm a new user. So just google small claims court.

Maybe say it to the retailer first. If they have any brains and you've been describing your side accurately they may accommodate you saving you the €25.

If they don't then don't argue. The point of using the SCC is that you can't come to an agreement and need somebody to step in the middle and make a decision.

vicwatson

Here ya go

https://www.csol.ie/ccms/welcome.html