Does a consumer have a right to a refund for store-bought goods?

[Dolph]

If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

Thats the clause; my scart socket didnt work so it didnt conform to the contract.

But there is an onus on the customer to test these things within a "reasonable time".

Not bothering to check it for 6 months then demanding a refund is NOT going to get you anywhere under the above legislation in terms of demanding a full refund, especially as you have clearly had benefit from the goods for 6 months.

They would be perfectly within their rights to offer to repair your equipment.

 

[crashuk]

a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract

This takes care of the other part the word "chooses", i know because i went to court about it.

"when i went back i wanted a refund and never said repair and proved to them it didnt work by"

1) showing them it didnt
2) buying a scart cable a week before i want back( this was proof that i never used the scart before)
the court told them to take the tv and give me a full refund.

 

[Freefaller]

Most stores will give you a "gift receipt" if you ask for one so that you can return it either for refund/replacement/alternative product/credit if it's not quite right. Most stores are pretty understanding for that sort of thing.

I think you have a leg to stand on if it has been falsely advertised or is not what it says it is, but other than that (other than faulty or damaged goods) I think you're relying on the returns policy (if they have one) of the shop or the good nature of their staff.

 

[Slam62]

sorry, just to clarify, does that mean that (within 6 mths) the consumer can decide on a repair or replacement.

Dont understand 1 and 2, presumably, you mean that because you hadnt tried the scart, then it had never been working, seems a dodgy arguement to me.

Anyway, i think shops should have to stick a clearly presented poster of your rights on the wall next to the tills, they have in a well known pc retailer, it says return within 28 days for a refund if un opened, i think

 

[Sequoia]

a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract

This takes care of the other part the word "chooses", i know because i went to court about it.

"when i went back i wanted a refund and never said repair and proved to them it didnt work by"

1) showing them it didnt
2) buying a scart cable a week before i want back( this was proof that i never used the scart before)
the court told them to take the tv and give me a full refund.

You can't take the result from a single case as proof that any other case would be judged the same way.

Buying a scart lead certainly isn't "proof" you hadn't tried it before that .... though it may be suggestive of that. I bought a scart lead a couple of weeks back, despite already having about a dozen of them. But I needed the others elsewhere.

At the end of the day, the statute sets the framework, but there's lots of scope for interpretation in all this, and in any given case, the law is what the court you end up before says it is.

Generally, courts tend to err in favour of the consumer, but only to a point. There is a sense of balance in a civil case, a sense of what is or is not reasonable.

 

[crashuk]

what i did was i showed them the scart wasnt working and then the recipt of the scart that i brought a week before after that i said i would like a full refund.
They said no we can send it for repair, i said no i dont want a repair (because it wouldnt reset the warranty), told them that it was faulty from the start and would like a full refund, of course the guy refused, told them the cs law and said ok then i will take further action by legal means.
I went to court show them my proof they had non to say it didnt work because they never tested the tv.
full refund back.

 

[Jonny ///M]

Most places just do it for the sake of an easy life.

At work(halfrods) if the thing can be sold again and the person has the receipt they can get their money back or more likely given the choice to pick something of similar value. My mate has taken back an amp to my work cause he needed the £50 to add to graphics cards funds and they took it and gave him his money back even though the warranty seal was broken

The same mate has also taken back/swapped about 6 graphics cards at a local pc shop guys got a fetish for taking things back.

I'v never been refused a refund for whatever i bother to take back but my mother once worked in argos and got people expecting to bring back a hoover after 6 months use with the bag full and expect money back why cant i bring back underwear my mate was once asked when he worked in primark.

It all depends on the staff(i tend to be nice),the type of goods you are returning and its saleable condition.

 

[crashuk]

You can't take the result from a single case as proof that any other case would be judged the same way.

Buying a scart lead certainly isn't "proof" you hadn't tried it before that reasonable.

well its more proof than what they had. the court asked them did the shop open the tv and test it the guy said no. They asked me why didnt you check it before i told them i didnt have a scart lead.

 

[Sequoia]

sorry, just to clarify, does that mean that (within 6 mths) the consumer can decide on a repair or replacement.

Yes and no.

If the right to reject goods has passed, then you still have the right to redress (usually damages) for goods that aren't up to a "reasonable" standard, for up to 6 years from purchase. But the onus is on the consumer to prove the goods aren't up to standard. For the first 6 months, though, that burden of proof reverses and faulty goods will be assumed to be the case, unless the retailer can demonstate that they were up to standard.

During that time, you can opt for replacement or repair, or can go for compensation (damages) as usual. But the right to repair/replacement isn't absolute. For instance, the retailer may not be able to repair or replace. Further supplies of the same item may no longer be available, and the item you have may be beyond economic repair. The actual phrase is that if your desired option is "disproportionately costly", the retailer may switch to alternative, but they have to do it within a reasonable time, and "without significant inconvenience". Bith phrases are, of course, open to interpretation and argument .... which is where courts come into the situation again. They interpret exactly how statute applies to a given set of circumstances.

 

[Sequoia]

well its more proof than what they had. the court asked them did the shop open the tv and test it the guy said no. They asked me why didnt you check it before i told them i didnt have a scart lead.

Yup. As I said, it's about a balance. But it's evidence in your favour. It's a reasonable explanation, but it isn't proof.

Bear in mind that this is a civil case, not criminal, and that decisions are made on balance of probability, not "beyond reasonable doubt". Proof, as such, doesn't need to exist in a civil case. The balance just needs to tip your way.

 

[crashuk]

oh and ive done it before my graphics card tv never worked but at the time i didnt have a tv in the same room, after 7 months when i tested it on the tv it didnt work i went thru support did what they said update this that blah blah...and at the end they said it was faulty the guy put in the ticket must be faulty from the date of purchase sent it back to the shop, spoke to the cs guy got a full refund. Now i recommend that shop to my mates.