Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Shop refuses to replace

  • 07-01-2024 10:05am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    Hello

    I bought a TV 11 months ago which has suddenly stopped working. I had the receipt and brought it into the shop where I bought it to be repaired but they said it would take 3 weeks so I told them if they can’t fix it within 10 days, I would be requesting a replacement. As per new Consumer rights since Nov 2022, I am entitled to choose between a repair or replacement. If they refuse to replace, what are my options?


    thanks



«1

Answers

  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Has it been shown that the fault is with the tv and wasn't the result of it getting damaged?

    When did you bring the tv in to the shop? I'm assuming this was over the Christmas period and them asking for three weeks to repair is not being unreasonable...

    The seller must repair or replace the product for free, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to you. A reasonable time means the shortest possible time to fix the issue. For a replacement, you must get the same or a similar product.

    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer/shopping/problems-with-faulty-goods/



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    There was no accidental damage, the TV just wouldn’t turn on. Reasonable or unreasonable, doesn’t matter, my question is what can I do if the shop refuses to replace it (instead of repair), which I am entitled to choose (per my research and the link you sent on).

    Thanks



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,621 ✭✭✭blackbox


    I think it is the supplier who gets to chose whether to repair or replace.

    Repair should take a "reasonable" time - there is no 10 day limit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium




  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    Just to reiterate my question, what are my options if the shop refuses to replace? I am entitled to choose between a repair or replacement per link below.


    Thanks



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭Deub


    Small cour claims then



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,621 ✭✭✭blackbox


    That's your interpretation. Someone else might see it differently.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    It’s quite clearly written in law.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    Thanks for the response.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Can you show in the legislation where it says that?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,803 ✭✭✭Inviere


    If they're dragging their feet on the matter (ie, not being reasonable with the repair/replace options), I'd just be asking them the address where they'd like legal correspondence sent to, and who it should be addressed to. Then it's a matter of pursuing it through the small claims court, for the small fee (€15 or so). I wasn't aware the customer could decide the order, maybe its been changed, but I doubt it? A repair will be fine, but if they can't do it within a short enough time, and they're sitting on stock, I'd be a bit more assertive with them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    In most cases, you can decide which of the remedies above you would prefer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    Sure, section 23.2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2022.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    Yes it has changed since November 2022. Thanks for the suggestion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,803 ✭✭✭Inviere


    Interesting. The shop might argue the case under 23.2b though, so it's likely they'll still have control over the matter. Personally I wouldn't mind as long as it's repaired according to manufacturer specs.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    I also wouldn’t mind it being repaired, but 3 weeks to repair it is unreasonable in my opinion.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Which also says that the retailer can offer you the alternative remedy if therenis not a significant inconvenience to you (23.2.b.iii).

    You're not even giving them the opportunity to do this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    The TV is currently with the retailer being repaired for the past 10 days? Did you read the OP? I can confirm there is a significant inconvenience to me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 180 ✭✭Doe Tiden


    Definitely 23.2b comes into play here, ie you won’t get a refund for a telly if it’s just a fuse will fix it.

    I’ve worked in retail and sold various types of tools/machinery for years, and in a few cases we’ve got solicitors letters from customers and our solicitor has never being worried about them tbh,

    ive rarely replaced a machine/tool I could have fixed, odd time might have to, if I couldn’t get parts etc. But it’d be a rarity and the fella who starts shouting about consumer rights and solicitors letter is the last to get a machine replacement especially if I know I’m on the right side of the legislation



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    Firstly, not once did I mention a refund anywhere.

    Secondly, I’ve given them the opportunity to repair, but 3 weeks is unreasonable in my opinion.

    Thirdly, your examples relate to the past which likely pre-dates November 2022, at which point the consumer could choose.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 180 ✭✭Doe Tiden


    Sorry should have wrote replacement not refund,

    my experience is both pre and post November 2022!

    what would you consider a reasonable amount of time?



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    I brought the TV to them on a Friday morning, I would like to have it back by Wednesday the following week. So 10-13 calendar days.

    Solicitor letters are not required for the Small Claims Court.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,865 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    You do have the right to choose. The retailer also has the right to choose under certain scenarios, as outlined above. No one here is going to be able to confirm whether one of those scenarios apply to this case.

    However, even if it is established that you do have the right to choose, what are you going to do? Establishing that right is going to take much longer than three weeks. You've already stated that a repair is acceptable, just it's taking 11 days too long. If the repair has already been provided (or is imminent) by the time the case comes up (very likely), the courts aren't going to do anything

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭carfinder


    Did you read the Act linked by the OP? If so I'm baffled that you think it's the suppliers choice in the circumstances laid out by the OP. Small Claims Court would be best avenue for OP and with a bit of luck the supplier will get proper legal advice and realise that they should replace the item



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 180 ✭✭Doe Tiden


    you are correct SCC doesn’t require solicitors but the value has to be less than 2k

    i would suggest between 10-15 working days. Is a reasonable amount of time, and possibly longer depending upon circumstances. Usually tho electronic retailers are good to replace rather than repair if possible.

    going the SCC route will probably take a least a week but likely longer if the retailer defends it, and if the court rules in the retailers favour which they probably will imo you’ll be back to square one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    I was told I am not entitled to a replacement when I asked for it originally, so I had no option but to settle for a repair. At that point, I was willing to negotiate and give the retailer the opportunity to fix it within what I deem a reasonable time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    The TV’s value is €500. 15 working days is an inconvenience to me. Why would the SCC rule in the retailers favour?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 180 ✭✭Doe Tiden


    The SCC could decide that it’s not an inconvenient length of time,

    The retailer could counter claim the fault was damage, are you willing to pay for an independent accessor to verify your claim of faulty goods?

    The retailer could choose to defend the case for a myriad of reasons,

    I’d just suggest you wait a little longer before deciding on the SCC



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    No need for the curt reply, especially when people are trying to help you. Your OP doesn't make it clear that it was left with them as you tell us that you were unhappy with the time they required to repair.

    On that basis, you have accepted their offer of a repair within a reasonable amount of time. Demanding a ten calendar day turnaround just after Christmas is not really being reasonable to be fair.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    At a normal time of year maybe, but the 2 weeks either side of Christmas are always a **** show.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    You were told correctly, the seller is entitled to have the TV inspected to find the reason for the fault.

    You can't just waltz in with your 1 year old TV under your arm and demand a new one on the strength of your word.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 847 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    Could you ask them nicely to give you any television in the meantime while it's being repaired.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,292 ✭✭✭Buddy Bubs


    You've created a drama for yourself here. Would be easier and less stressful to go with what they've offered you.

    Yeah it's an inconvenience but you're not top of the queue apparently there's other repairs scheduled ahead of you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Your post is not that clear on that at all.

    I second asking the shop.for a temporary replacement tv, which would deal with the inconvenience of being without one.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ Arely Some Tarantula


    If the fault appears within the first 12 months, it is automatically assumed the fault was there when you bought it. This means you do not have to prove anything.


    Ask for the product to be replaced



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,508 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    As usual people take the citizens information webpage as actual law, when it is nothing more than a dummies guide or a starting point for people.

    So you get phrasing like this:

    If there is an issue with the product, you can either:

    Ask for the product to be repaired or replaced

    End the contract and get a refund

    Ask for a price reduction

    Withhold a proportionate amount of any outstanding payment

    In most cases, you can decide which of the remedies above you would prefer.

    Which sounds great to the consumer but in fact is actually very vague as to the actual law. For example, saying that you can ask for repair or replacement is basically meaningless because anybody can ask for anything, asking is easy. "Getting" is another thing entirely.

    And, "In most cases, you can decide which of the remedies above you would prefer." Sounds great, except, "Most cases"? So which cases are not covered? Is this case one of them?

    The OP is very sure that they are correct, and likely will be right up until the point where the small claims court rules that the shop made every reasonable effort to get the TV fixed as soon as they could, as is their right under section 23 of the consumer rights act.


    (2) The consumer may choose between the remedies of repair and replacement of the goods unless the remedy chosen by the consumer— (a) would be impossible for the trader to carry out, or (b) compared to the alternative remedy, would impose disproportionate costs on the trader, taking all the circumstances into account, including— (i) the value that the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity, (ii) the significance of the lack of conformity, and (iii) whether the alternative remedy could be provided without significant inconvenience to the consumer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    Thank you all for your responses. All taken on board and appreciated. Can the mod close the discussion please or alternatively advise how to unsubscribe from the thread/discussion?

    Thanks again everyone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    If that's how things worked in the real world then every 11 months you could just powerhose your TV and then bring it back to the shop to be replaced with a brand new one free of charge, no questions asked.

    A free updated TV for life, because you know your rights, because you read it somewhere on the internet.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,576 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    where on the link does it say this?

    if you mean the text "If something you bought turns out to be faulty, you can decide to get a repair or a replacement"; that could be interpreted two ways, one being what i think is your interpretation, that you get to choose which option.

    i suspect 'repair or replacement' is a single option though; i.e. instead of a refund, the other option is 'repair or replacement'.

    e.g. if a tiny, easily replaced component of a €1000 electronic item failed (let's say the clip to hold speaker cable on an amplifier), it would be unreasonable to demand the entire unit be replaced.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Alerium


    Can someone please advise how to unsubscribe from this thread? I’ve tried turning off notifications yet they still come through. My questions has been answered. Thanks



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,576 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    have you tried this:




  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭carfinder


    Wow, what an authoritative sounding post! A link to the actual law is provided in that Citizens Advice webpage.

    Im going with a €500 telly, with no obvious signs of damage, which stops working after 11 months, is going to be a replacement as the standard remedy - the "very vague" fact you are referring to is not for this one. You seem to interpret section 23 as giving the trader the right to choose under the Act - a much more balanced interpretation is that the consumer has the choice except if the seller can prove the remedy chosen by the consumer— (a) would be impossible for the trader to carry out, or (b) compared to the alternative remedy, would impose disproportionate costs on the trader, taking all the circumstances into account, including— (i) the value that the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity, (ii) the significance of the lack of conformity, and (iii) whether the alternative remedy could be provided without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

    Lets test this against the circumstances outlined by the OP

    Would replacing the telly be:

    (a) impossible for the trader to carry out - No

    (b)(i) the telly is approx €500 - its relatively low value is important context given the unknown cost of repair

    (b) (ii) already two weeks without the telly - its reasonable to classify this as significant inconvenience



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    It only seems authorative to you because it's correct.



  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,529 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    3 weeks (15 working days) is a reasonable time period for the shop to advise, given this time is allowed for TV to be sent to repair location, diagnostics, allowing time for parts to be ordered (if needed) and sending the item back to the shop. Not only that but shop may only have a specific day in the week that they send stuff for repair with a carrier.

    10 calendar days simply isn't long enough for them to even send the tv for repair diagnostic consider that timeframe is actually 8 days when you factor in thw weekend and that 8 days is only actually allowing 4 days or less for repair diagnostic, part ordering etc after you factor in transit time with the carrier to/from the repair location.

    OP is being unreasonable here and just making life harder for themselves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 180 ✭✭Doe Tiden


    The fact it worked for 11 months the retailer would be well entitled to test and repair this item, the majority of warranty issues arise within the first month,

    The fact it has no visible damage is of no consequence,

    the retailer may not get support from his/her suppliers for replacement, the suppliers may actually have a service centre that handle the repair.

    OP is looking for it repaired in 6/7 working days over Christmas, I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ Arely Some Tarantula


    It does not matter. Fault with 11 months means that it was faulty from new.

    Consumer should be given a replacement TV.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    Do you have a little toy gavel you can use when you're finished typing?

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,529 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Without diagnostics you can't say that for certain, it's merely a belief.

    For all we know the OP could be trying to pull a fast one and the tv could be water damaged or they could have dropped it causing a defect, shop is perfectly entitled to diagnose the fault first.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭The Continental Op


    I repaired our TV last year and it took more than 10 days for the spare parts to arrive. The OP is being unreasonable.

    Wake me up when it's all over.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,508 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Who are you to declare that €500 of the traders money is low value?

    And why do you gloss over the "unknown cost of repair" when it is the most important factor in the entire scenario?

    If the repair is a simple low cost part, a switch for example costing <€20, then the seller can quite rightly claim that full replacement at >€500 is a disproportionate cost on the trader compared to the alternative remedy. They most certainly will not get laughed at in court for making the suggestion.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement