DON'T GET RIPPED OFF!

[johnelliott]

Having read what Tony says about the PC World 28 day thing, I think I can rephrase it to fit it to the current legislation. What PC World are doing is to offer MORE than the laws demands. They are drawing the line at 28 days, during which time they will exchange or refund on the product, it being assumed that the product is, effectively, new. After that time it is assumed (perhaps wrongly, but more likely correctly) that the customer has had some use out of the product and that it has gone wrong rather than started out faulty. Where this is the case the seller is not obliged to replace it or refund it, only to return it to correct operation within a reasonable time.
Whether the repair (or replecement if that is more economic) is carried out by the manufacturer or the seller doesn't matter. The seller remains responsible but may well delegate the actual repair work to someone else (in this case the manufacturer). This has been the case with domestic appliances for decades.

John

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks John, that makes sense to me. I was a bit annoyed by PCWorld's stance but all was sorted within a week.

 

[Anonymous]

jelliott,

They are certainly NOT doing more then the law demands. What they ARE doing is to try and make you think that they are, and in your case this seems to have worked. They do this so you will be a good little boy and shop there again.

They did nothing more then they had to, and thats that. I hope that this clarifies the law for you.

Cheers

Woodsman

 

[johnelliott]

I hope that this clarifies the law for you.

If you want to make things clear for me (and the rest of us) then you are going to have to work a lot harder than that.
In any case you are wrong- If a person buys a product and uses it successfully for 27 days (thus demonstrating that it was NOT faulty when purchased), and it goes wrong on the 28th then the law does not require the seller to replace it with a new item, or to refund the money. The law requires that the product should be put right. If the seller chooses to replace it then he is doing more than the law requires
John

 

[Anonymous]

I do not dispute what you say. However, here is PCworld's terms and conditions which clearly cannot contravene any laws or they would be sued mercilessly

Not necessarily.

IMO many firms have T&C's which contravene your rights, why else would there be specific legislation to cover it if this were not so. Here is my post on the subject

Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:31 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good post Trev.

Further legislation to that already mentioned is set out in "The unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999"

When I was in dispute with a rather large company well known to all of us I had cause to quote section 5 of the act and I quote

" UNFAIR TERMS
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. "

Many firms have clauses in their T&C's which would contravene the act in this respect.

If you think that a firms T&C's may be unfair in any dispute you find yourself in, this is a very handy section

It has certainly helped me in the past.

cheers

billzee

 

[Anonymous]

from tony...

I recently had a digital camera refuse to switch on after 6 months. PC world's policy is not to fix/replace items after 28 days
:evil:

Tony, the above is your original post on the subject of your camera. It is what I and others initially responded too and clearly the word fix, if correct, would have put PC world within breach of current legislation, particularly in reference to the act quoted in my last post.

However your more recent post concerning Pc worlds T&C's containg this..

'If there is a fault with your product within 12 months of delivery (or other defect with your order), we will normally offer a prompt repair, exchange or refund. We will always offer you the choice of an exchange or refund if the fault occurs within 28 days of delivery.

is clearly different and therefore changes the argument.

I am sure this was just an oversight on your part.

 

[johnelliott]

Anyone else getting a bit bored with all this?

As long as the non-working stuff is replaced, refunded or repaired I don't think it really matters too much what the actual legal position is, and in any case, if legal stuff was set in stone it wouldn't be necessary for lawyers to argue over them in court.

What is evident is that if a customer has a legitimate complaint, and they present that complaint to the right person, then nearly always it will get sorted out whether they bought it 27 days ago, or 29 days or 13 months

John

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone else getting a bit bored with all this?
..As long as the non-working stuff is replaced, refunded or repaired I don't think it really matters too much what the actual legal position is..

TBF John, it seemed to matter to you a fair bit , not long ago either.

I wonder if perhaps the boredom may be setting in due to clarification?

 

[johnelliott]

Anyone else getting a bit bored with all this?
..As long as the non-working stuff is replaced, refunded or repaired I don't think it really matters too much what the actual legal position is..

TBF John, it seemed to matter to you a fair bit , not long ago either.

I wonder if perhaps the boredom may be setting in due to clarification?

Have it your own way, pity there isn't an emoticon with the gesture I have in mind
John

 

[Anonymous]

from john

Have it your own way, pity there isn't an emoticon with the gesture I have in mind

very neighbourly John

Its surprising how truth refreshes the parts others can't reach

cheers

billzee :wink:

 

[johnelliott]

Its surprising how truth refreshes the parts others can't reach

Which, the truth as Billzee sees it, or the real truth? The real truth, BTW, is that you are insisting on having the last word in an argument that has no real basis. When I suggested that we were all getting bored with this, that would have been a good point at which to end it. Oh no, not good enough for Billzee, got to have another dig. You haven't proved anything. Stop trying to draw this discussion out, and stop trying to be a smart-****

John

 

[Alf]

Enough, the pair of you. And that's an official "drop it", not a gentle suggestion. I would hope you'd both have the good sense to delete your offending posts too.

Alf, moderator

 

[Anonymous]

I would hope you'd both have the good sense to delete your offending posts too.

If the 'truth' offends alf as it apparently does, even when it is offered in the most gentle of ways, then I plead guilty.

,.... but when that truth is offered with a mild humour it seems to cut far deeper as recent events seem to prove

On balance I would say I should be the most offended. I'm not because one needs to be surprised to be offended

cheers

billzee

 

[Mike.C]

regards

mike.c

 

[Midnight]

If someone mentiones a group hug...... I'm gonna be sick.

;P~~

:wink:

 

[Alf]

I would hope you'd both have the good sense to delete your offending posts too.

If the 'truth' offends alf as it apparently does, even when it is offered in the most gentle of ways, then I plead guilty.

,.... but when that truth is offered with a mild humour it seems to cut far deeper as recent events seem to prove

On balance I would say I should be the most offended. I'm not because one needs to be surprised to be offended

I take it that'll be a No then. I, too, am not surprised. Now leave the thread alone, billzee, as you were asked, please.

Alf