Returning goods

[mightysaints]

I am up with a fight with a big retail white goods company. We purchased a digi camera back in May last year, hardly been used but it has delevoped a fault so i thought i might be able to get a replacement or an equivelent as some shops want to keep your custom. Any here is the latest response from the supplier which i think is legaly wrong anyway. Please let me know what my possition is as the goods are just out of the years garantee but i thought the European law said you could get more and also the latest statement about 30 days must be wrong as i always thought that the buyer has a contract with the seller and not the manufacturer

 

I'm sorry you are unhappy with our reply, but we are unable to offer you a replacement of your product bought in May 2010. We only replace faulty products with the first 30 days of purchase on this type of product, after this time it would be up to the manufacture to decide if you qualify for repair or replacement under their warranty. I therefore refer you directly to Samsung on 08457267864 please call them quoting the serial number of the back of your product.

 

Its the principle that is getting to me and the way this company has had 4 different people in their responses to me so no customer case care and just the usual response. This company is new to the UK and have always said they will look after customers.

[bridge too far]

Your contract is with the retailer. Sale of Gods Act and all that. EU rules mean that the goods should work for a 'reasonable period' - usually more than 12 months.

 

Contact Consumer Direct

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/index.htm

[trousers]

Your contract is with the retailer. Sale of Gods Act and all that. EU rules mean that the goods should work for a 'reasonable period' - usually more than 12 months.

 

Contact Consumer Direct

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/index.htm

 

^This

 

A lot of retailers try and hide behind 'manufacturers warranty' periods but you'll note they are duty bound to state "this does not affect your statutory rights" whenever they talk about arbitrary warranty dates. As BTF mentions, in law there is no fixed expiry date for a retailer to hide behind - any goods supplied simply have to last for a 'reasonable' amount of time. Just over a year for a camera is not 'reasonable'.

 

What's the nature of the fault by the way?

[mightysaints]

We brought a Samsung ST550, it has a small LCD front screen, this has stopped working and looks like it has developed an internal crack. The camera is in AI condition and never been dropped etc as i showd them in the shop you could see that it was in very good nick. They tried to say that if you put to much pressure on the front you could crack the front screen. This is rubbish as the screen is actualy burried within the camera. I belive the fault is as a result of internal pressure within the camera itself or is just a duff unit. The seller was Bestbuy, anyone know the email address of the CEO as i realy want to take this further.

[bridge too far]

Do contact Consumer Direct as linked above. It will give more weight to your dispute with the retailer if you have them on board.

[Weston Super Saint]

Your wish, and indeed everyone else's, is contained within this website :

 

http://www.ceoemail.com/

[bridge too far]

Your wish, and indeed everyone else's, is contained within this website :

 

http://www.ceoemail.com/

 

 

Link doesn't work

[Al de Man]

The link spazs out, but the URL is correct.

 

http://www.ceoemail.com/

 

andrew.harrison@bestbuy.co.uk

 

With that particular probelm though, I think you're going to be hard pushed to get them to do anything unless you can find a lot of other people with a similar fault developing on their cameras and prove it's a design fault.

[mightysaints]

I have sent an email the Andrew Harrison and will let you know how i get on. The last response ref the 30 days really p**sed me off as this is clearly not true in relation to British law. I will not let this go.

[JackFrost]

I am up with a fight with a big retail white goods company. We purchased a digi camera back in May last year, hardly been used but it has delevoped a fault so i thought i might be able to get a replacement or an equivelent as some shops want to keep your custom. Any here is the latest response from the supplier which i think is legaly wrong anyway. Please let me know what my possition is as the goods are just out of the years garantee but i thought the European law said you could get more and also the latest statement about 30 days must be wrong as i always thought that the buyer has a contract with the seller and not the manufacturer

 

I'm sorry you are unhappy with our reply, but we are unable to offer you a replacement of your product bought in May 2010. We only replace faulty products with the first 30 days of purchase on this type of product, after this time it would be up to the manufacture to decide if you qualify for repair or replacement under their warranty. I therefore refer you directly to Samsung on 08457267864 please call them quoting the serial number of the back of your product.

 

Its the principle that is getting to me and the way this company has had 4 different people in their responses to me so no customer case care and just the usual response. This company is new to the UK and have always said they will look after customers.

 

Have you contacted Samsung?

 

Retailers often refer customers to the manufacturer for all returns queries

[Pancake]

15 months is a long time for a manufacturing issue to arise. Can I ask how much the camera was used? How many photos taken, how long it was carried around in a bag for? A quick Google does show anything for a front LCD problem on this model being common. Can you be sure the camera wasnt damaged when being carried or stored by you?

[JackFrost]

I have sent an email the Andrew Harrison and will let you know how i get on. The last response ref the 30 days really p**sed me off as this is clearly not true in relation to British law. I will not let this go.

 

If their acting as resellers they might be able to get away with that, as they'll have absolutely 0 facilities to deal with repairs/faults and will direct any faults/maintenance issues to the manufacturer, thus cutting the middle man (them) out

 

If the camera had failed within 12 months it's likely that you'd have just had to send it back to Samsung and they'd have replaced it FOC. As for reasonable time periods I'm not sure on this but I'm guessing this is why it comes with a warranty. . .

Edited 1 August, 2011 by JackFrost

[mightysaints]

The camera sat in its box for the last 6 months, used approx 5 times, never been banged or dropped. The outside case looks as good as the day it was purchased.

[lutz]

^This

 

Just over a year for a camera is not 'reasonable'.

You could end up opening a can of worms with that statement!

[mightysaints]

I will wait and see if i get a response from Bestbuy and then go from there.

[trousers]

If their acting as resellers they might be able to get away with that, as they'll have absolutely 0 facilities to deal with repairs/faults and will direct any faults/maintenance issues to the manufacturer, thus cutting the middle man (them) out

 

If the camera had failed within 12 months it's likely that you'd have just had to send it back to Samsung and they'd have replaced it FOC. As for reasonable time periods I'm not sure on this but I'm guessing this is why it comes with a warranty. . .

 

His contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer. If an item doesn't last for a "reasonable" length of time then the purchaser's recourse is with the retailer, not the manufacturer.

 

Retailers are always trying to palm people off to the manufacturer in an attempt to abdicate their responsbilities. The length of time between purchase and the defect coming to light doesn't alter the responsibility that the ratailer has (in law).

[JackFrost]

His contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer. If an item doesn't last for a "reasonable" length of time then the purchaser's recourse is with the retailer, not the manufacturer.

 

Retailers are always trying to palm people off to the manufacturer in an attempt to abdicate their responsbilities. The length of time between purchase and the defect coming to light doesn't alter the responsibility that the ratailer has (in law).

 

That's assuming it is a retailer and not a reseller. Big difference.

 

Ebuyer for example, openly state you should return any faulty goods within a year old directly to the manufacturer

 

http://www.ebuyer.com/help/returns

Edited 1 August, 2011 by JackFrost

[trousers]

That's assuming it is a retailer and not a reseller. Big difference.

 

It's a fair while since I studied consumer law but to my mind anyone selling something to someone falls under the general 'retailer' banner. Just because they are selling something they bought off someone else doesn't alter the relationship between the 'buyer' and 'seller'.

 

The only dynamic I can see changing with someone labelling themselves as a "reseller" is that they should clearly declare that the goods they are selling are less likely to last for a "reasonable" length of time, at which point we enter 'caveat emptor' territory in that the buyer knowingly takes on an element of the risk.

 

But, as I say, it's a while since I studied consumer law, so I may well be out-of-date and wide of the mark on all this, but I definately recall that "second hand goods" fall under the same 'merchantable quality' requirements UNLESS any flaws are clearly highlighted.

Edited 1 August, 2011 by trousers

[trousers]

Ebuyer for example, openly state you should return any faulty goods within a year old directly to the manufacturer

 

http://www.ebuyer.com/help/returns

 

Their ''Terms and Condition" have the following section:

 

http://static.ebuyer.com/customer/help/index.html?action=c2hvd190ZXJtcw==&type=personal

 

"5. Consumer rights

• 5.4
  
• Details of this statutory right, and an explanation of how to exercise it, are provided in the Acceptance Confirmation. This provision does not affect your statutory rights.
  
• 5.5
   
  If you would like further information about your legal rights, please contact your local Trading Standards Department or Citizen Advice Bureau."
  

They can say all they like in their 'Returns' section but, as above, they are duty bound to state "This does not affect your statutory rights"

[JackFrost]

It's a fair while since I studied consumer law but to my mind anyone selling something to someone falls under the general 'retailer' banner. Just because they are selling something they bought off someone else doesn't alter the relationship between the 'buyer' and 'seller'.

 

The only dynamic I can see changing with someone labelling themselves as a "reseller" is that they should clearly declare that the goods they are selling are less likely to last for a "reasonable" length of time, at which point we enter 'caveat emptor' territory in that the buyer knowingly takes on an element of the risk.

 

But, as I say, it's a while since I studied consumer law, so I may well be out-of-date and wide of the mark on all this, but I definately recall that "second hand goods" fall under the same 'merchantable quality' requirements UNLESS any flaws are clearly highlighted.

 

I've used the example of Ebuyer as they are openly stating you should return any faulty goods (outside a 30 day period) under a year old to the manufacturer and not them. As a reseller they are perfectly entitled to do that because they are essentially selling someone else's goods for them, and it is logistically the quickest and most efficient way of dealing with faulty products. Why return something to a shop that will have to return it to the manufacturer anyway when you yourself can just return it to the manufacturer?

 

Besides ebuyer would be getting tens of thousands of complaints every week if there was anything wrong with it.

[JackFrost]

Their ''Terms and Condition" have the following section:

 

http://static.ebuyer.com/customer/help/index.html?action=c2hvd190ZXJtcw==&type=personal

 

"5. Consumer rights

• 5.4
  
• Details of this statutory right, and an explanation of how to exercise it, are provided in the Acceptance Confirmation. This provision does not affect your statutory rights.
  
• 5.5
   
  If you would like further information about your legal rights, please contact your local Trading Standards Department or Citizen Advice Bureau."
  

They can say all they like in their 'Returns' section but, as above, they are duty bound to state "This does not affect your statutory rights"

 

Because anyone or any company who exchange goods or a service for money has to state this.

 

The crux of the issue here is the camera is outside of the warranty period, and is 15 months reasonable? Personally I don't think it is THAT unreasonable.

 

Besides if we're detailing with a retailer the OP has a right not to be fobbed off to the manufacturer, and should only be merely advised to do this if it is logistically more efficient that is to the customer's benefit. At the end of the day though it's a product that has been returned outside of the warranty period and I wonder if by offering an "extended warranty" in the instructions for a fee they cover their backs from the EU, when the camera was purchased.

 

If it's a reseller, I don't believe their even under any obligation to provide any sort of warranty full stop, and they'll be covered by the manufacturer. Your essentially buying from the manufacturer through a company that can sell the product a lot more effectively than the manufacturer themselves

Edited 1 August, 2011 by JackFrost

[mightysaints]

I had a call from Bestbuy head office. All they will do as its outside the one year is pick up the camera, send it to Samsung who will charge me for a repair. Same old story. Can anyone give the the wording that i can send back to them saying that they are responsible. I will contact the gov dept listed in the above responses. Thanks for all your help.

[bridge too far]

.....

 

 

If it's a reseller, I don't believe their even under any obligation to provide any sort of warranty full stop, and they'll be covered by the manufacturer. Your essentially buying from the manufacturer through a company that can sell the product a lot more effectively than the manufacturer themselves

 

Surely, even if the seller is an on-line operation, it is still a retailer?

 

Anyway, I've found another site that might help:

 

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/how-long-should-it-last/

[trousers]

Because anyone or any company who exchange goods or a service for money has to state this.

 

The crux of the issue here is the camera is outside of the warranty period, and is 15 months reasonable? Personally I don't think it is THAT unreasonable.

 

Besides if we're detailing with a retailer the OP has a right not to be fobbed off to the manufacturer, and should only be merely advised to do this if it is logistically more efficient that is to the customer's benefit. At the end of the day though it's a product that has been returned outside of the warranty period and I wonder if by offering an "extended warranty" in the instructions for a fee they cover their backs from the EU, when the camera was purchased.

 

If it's a reseller, I don't believe their even under any obligation to provide any sort of warranty full stop, and they'll be covered by the manufacturer. Your essentially buying from the manufacturer through a company that can sell the product a lot more effectively than the manufacturer themselves

 

We could go around in circles here, but consumer law is (or at least was) very simple.

 

When 'person X' buys something from 'company Y' the one and only legally binding contract that exists as a result of the transaction is between 'person X' and 'company Y'

 

It doesn't matter what type of company 'company Y' labels themselves as (retailer, reseller, whatever) THEY sold the item therefore they have the one and only contract with the buyer. The buyer (legally) has no recourse with the manufacturer.

 

Is 15 months a 'reasonable' timeframe for a camera to last before breaking? Debatable I guess. The way I would gauge that is if the 'seller' told you before purchase that "I should warm you sir, it's likely this camera will breakdown within 15 months" how keen would you be to buy it?

 

If, however, the salesman says: "this camera is superbly made and should last you at least 5 years sir" then is it 'reasonable' for it to only last 15 months?

 

Anyway, as I say, going round in circles so I'll duck out now :-)

[lettuce]

I recall (from a similar dispute I was involved in a few years back) that Trading Standards assume a period of 5 years as "reasonable" time for electronic consumer goods to be expected to function. One point which might affect this particular scenario is whether or not the electronic goods can still "function" even with the damage they have developed - i.e. can the camera still take photographs/video and can all functions be used despite the faulty screen.

[Delmary]

Try this:

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/understanding-the-sale-of-goods-act/

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/consumer_law_sale_of_goods_emp.shtml