RMA Problems *NOT OCUK*

[Surveyor]

As for warranties, what's the point of havin them if you can't get a fair replacement. I was under the inoression that a warranty is a period of time the manufacturer guarantees the product to work and should it fail within that period they should get a like for like replacement. I thought the partial refund only applied out of warranty.

Nope, that can apply within the warranty period.

If a repair or replacement isn’t practical

A trader doesn’t have to offer you a replacement or repair if:
• it’s too costly for the trader
• it will take too long
• it will cause you significant inconvenience, eg you’ll be without a phone for months

If this happens, the trader should either:
• offer you a partial refund if you return the item (to allow for the use you’ve had from it)
• let you keep the item and give you a reduction in price for the fault

 

[Cleeecooo]

But in this case it isn't too expensive for the trader to give the op a 580/70 courtesy of inno3d so surely they should have to send it back to them by law?

 

[Locky]

We are not talking about something that's out of warranty here, we are talking at the time of the RMA was 6 months within the warranty period, the retailer has also deducted the 2 months in which they have had the card off the refund formula - the cheeky swine's

Offering £53 for a product that still IN WARRANTY and cost 375 quid is a total **** take tbh.. a complete insult. I heard the phone call yesterday between the op and Bolton retailer, I have near heard such a stuck up rude - arrogant cow in all my life, I'm not the one being ripped off here but it made my blood boil.

 

[Surveyor]

But in this case it isn't too expensive for the trader to give the op a 580/70 courtesy of inno3d so surely they should have to send it back to them by law?

Like I said, I'm not taking sides on this and I'm not trying to put a case for either party.

I'm just trying to show that from my layman's understanding, which may be completely wrong if one of the people I've asked can point to the relevant legislation, it's not as clear cut as saying "it's within 6 years so repair it, give me a replacement product or 75% of my money back".

If this matter ever came before a court then the retailer would presumably have to put their case to show that it is too expensive for them to replace the goods and to justify their calculation of a partial refund.

Similarly the purchaser would have to put their case to justify whatever remedy they're seeking.

 

[Locky]

Like I said, I'm not taking sides on this and I'm not trying to put a case for either party.

I'm just trying to show that from my layman's understanding, which may be completely wrong if one of the people I've asked can point to the relevant legislation, it's not as clear cut as saying "it's within 6 years so repair it, give me a replacement product or 75% of my money back".

If this matter ever came before a court then the retailer would presumably have to put their case to show that it is too expensive for them to replace the goods and to justify their calculation of a partial refund.

Similarly the purchaser would have to put their case to justify whatever remedy they're seeking.

So what you are saying is, the op needs Bolton retailer to roll over on this, they might do this as the person on the phone yesterday was just a script monkey, so I have told him to ask for a manager, state the facts and say it's been reported to trading standards, as there has been breaches of SOGA.

If Bolton retailer fails to roll, then there is no other option but to take them to court?

 

[Cleeecooo]

So what you are saying is, the op needs Bolton retailer to roll over on this, they might do this as the person on the phone yesterday was just a script monkey, so I have told him to ask for a manager, state the facts and say it's been reported to trading standards, as there has been breaches of SOGA.

If Bolton retailer fails to roll, then there is no other option but to take them to court?

You can threaten legal action first, that's usually a step before going to court and if you tell them how strong your case is and talk to a manager, then I'm sure they'll send it to inno or give you a reasonable replacement

Is presume the competitor is used to being able to shaft customers who won't fight back.

 

[Surveyor]

So what you are saying is, the op needs Bolton retailer to roll over on this, they might do this as the person on the phone yesterday was just a script monkey, so I have told him to ask for a manager, state the facts and say it's been reported to trading standards, as there has been breaches of SOGA.

If Bolton retailer fails to roll, then there is no other option but to take them to court?

I haven't said that either party should do anything.

I would suggest that both parties should try and reach an agreement based on the strengths of their respective positions supported by the appropriate legislation.

If someone can point to the legislation which states that electrical goods are supposed to last for 6 years then Psyoletic is in a strong position.

No one has stated what this legislation is yet.

If it's down to what's contained in the SOGA then it's what "a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory" which is subjective and both sides might have a different opinion on that.

Psyoletic is free to employ the services of the CAB if they're prepared to take up the matter and negotiate on his behalf.

If no agreement can be reached then it would have to go to a small claims hearing at the County Court.

It's obviously better for all concerned if it doesn't get that far.

 

[Locky]

I haven't said that either party should do anything.

I would suggest that both parties should try and reach an agreement based on the strengths of their respective positions supported by the appropriate legislation.

If someone can point to the legislation which states that electrical goods are supposed to last for 6 years then Psyoletic is in a strong position.

No one has stated what this legislation is yet.

If it's down to what's contained in the SOGA then it's what "a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory" which is subjective and both sides might have a different opinion on that.

If no agreement can be reached then it would have to go to a small claims hearing at the County Court.

It's obviously better for all concerned if it doesn't get that far.

I see where you are coming from, I did phone trading standards my self and they told me over the phone that a reasonable amount of time for this product was 6 years, I'm going to phone them back and ask for an online link to this piece of legislation.

 

[Threepwood]

I think that's a bad idea. I think you should be rejecting the warranty if it doesn't suit you, and going for the Sale of Goods Act which no matter what they feel like doing they cannot ignore or replace with a warranty.

you can ask for pink elephants. If it has no legal grounding then so what?

Because they only said this on the phone, so the OP has no proof that this is what they are basing their offer on.

He has already been told by Trading Standards that this 'equation' is not acceptable so I'm sure that the retailer knows it themselves.

So, while refusing the offer and asking for their means of calculating their offer would mean putting the retailer on their back foot... and they will have to think very carefully about what they do next.

*If* they respond in writing stating what they have, then he has them bang to rights. Or they will start to think, hold on, this guy has a clue might as well sort him out.

 

[Locky]

Because they only said this on the phone, so the OP has no proof that this is what they are basing their offer on.

He has already been told by Trading Standards that this 'equation' is not acceptable so I'm sure that the retailer knows it themselves.

So, while refusing the offer and asking for their means of calculating their offer would mean putting the retailer on their back foot... and they will have to think very carefully about what they do next.

*If* they respond in writing stating what they have, then he has them bang to rights. Or they will start to think, hold on, this guy has a clue might as well sort him out.

He does have it all in writing, they emailed him the offer and why and how they worked out this offer.

 

[Threepwood]

^^ no.

Soon as I received this email I rang up the RMA department and this is what I was told.

Otherwise I would not be suggesting he got it in writing.

 

[mattyg]

They are on my patch and 4 of my drivers go past every day and I'll NEVER use them again after the trouble I had with a missing GFX card a few years ago.

The guy remembered putting the card in the box. He definitely put it in there he's our most experienced member of staff and wouldn't lie.

Ok then why is the exact weight calculated by city link and it happens to be exactly short by the weight of the card.

Oops they said here's a refund for your card an P&P.

Took 3 weeks to get to that stage.

Never again.





Back to the OP just tell them that as you can get the costs back you'll see them in court. Send them a 7 day LBA then moneyclaim it.

 

[Surveyor]

Back to the OP just tell them that as you can get the costs back you'll see them in court. Send them a 7 day LBA then moneyclaim it.

That may be getting a bit ahead of ouselves but for information:

Letter Before Action/Claim - Just Google it, there are plenty of templates available.

Money Claim application

Money Claim information

You can file the claim online but if the seller defends the claim it's still transferred to the local court for a hearing.

Small Claims Hearings

Obviously you can only claim costs if you win.

If you lose you could end up paying the defendant's costs.

If the result us somewhere between what the parties were asking for I suppose each party might have to bear their own costs.

 

[The Halk]

Like I said I'm not taking sides on this.

I'm just trying to point out that this sort of matter wouldn't seem to be as black and white as is being made out.

It's not for you or me to say how long a product should last other than as laymen.

Ultimately if this matter ended up in court it would be for the court to decide.

If it stated somewhere in the law that a certain product should last a cetain number of years then I've not seen this legislation stated.

Perhaps you can point out the specific legislation?

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 states:

14(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.

14(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

14(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods— .

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,

(b)appearance and finish,

(c)freedom from minor defects,

(d)safety, and

(e)durability.

There's a 6 year limit for bringing a claim in the County Court.

If it ever got that far then it would be for the court to decide what "a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory".

You, me, the buyer and the seller may all have different opinions on that and I can't see any legislation to say a certain product should last a certain number of years.

I could have been clearer I think. When I said you should be saying it'd last six years that's to the OP. I'm advising against getting giving any kind of agreement or consent, essentially brushing aside their paltry offer and instead presenting them with what the OP understands to be the law.

You have quoted the act correctly, there isn't anything specific and it's up to a judge what is appropriate.

However he can make a very good case indeed that it should last 6 years, and then calculate 2/3 of the original price which is higher than the retail cost of a new one. If he comes in with that as his starting point for negotiation, rather than *SORRY MODS*'s starting point, then I think he'll get further.

The goal here is to make *SORRY MODS* understand they're not going to get away with it, that what they're offering doesn't comply with the Act and that they'll lose the case. Not only that, but the path of least resistance is just to replace the card.

The best way to do things is to very pleasantly lay out the position as it is now, what you believe the best remedy for both parties to be, additionally with a reference number from Trading Standards and what they have said, to ask them for a response and to lay out what you intend to do should their response be unsatisfactory.

 

[Surveyor]

I could have been clearer I think. When I said you should be saying it'd last six years that's to the OP. I'm advising against getting giving any kind of agreement or consent, essentially brushing aside their paltry offer and instead presenting them with what the OP understands to be the law.

You have quoted the act correctly, there isn't anything specific and it's up to a judge what is appropriate.

However he can make a very good case indeed that it should last 6 years, and then calculate 2/3 of the original price which is higher than the retail cost of a new one. If he comes in with that as his starting point for negotiation, rather than ****'s starting point, then I think he'll get further.

The goal here is to make **** understand they're not going to get away with it, that what they're offering doesn't comply with the Act and that they'll lose the case. Not only that, but the path of least resistance is just to replace the card.

The best way to do things is to very pleasantly lay out the position as it is now, what you believe the best remedy for both parties to be, additionally with a reference number from Trading Standards and what they have said, to ask them for a response and to lay out what you intend to do should their response be unsatisfactory.

Well put.

Unless the matter ends up in court it's basically a negotiation between the parties.

Psyoletic needs to put his best case forward based on the legislation, advice he gets from CAB/Trading Standards, common sense/evidence on the reasonable life of a graphics card etc. and persuade/hope the retailer comes back with an acceptable offer.

 

[Olly]

TLDR, but I'm the original owner of the card (although I think it's passed hands a few times now) and I'm helping the OP resolve this any way I can.

I've dealt with another company before when my 295 GTX went faulty, they couldn't replace it as it was end of line, so they offered me a FULL refund for what I paid for it.

They should do this or at least offer a like for like replacement.

Rule number one, buy from OCuK, no issues here

 

[The Halk]

TLDR, but I'm the original owner of the card and I'm helping the OP resolve this any way I can.

I've dealt with another company before when my 295 GTX went faulty, they couldn't replace it as it was end of line, so they offered me a FULL refund for what I paid for it.

They should do this or at least offer a like for like replacement.

Rule number one, buy from OCuK, no issues here

They should if they're trying for great customer service, however they're not required to do so by law. You need to argue your case so that they deem it economically wise to do it.

 

[Surveyor]

So Psyoletic isn't the original purchaser of the card from new then?

That changes the complexion of the matter somewhat as he has no contract with the retailer.

This matter needs to be approached with great care as the retailer would be within their rights to tell him to "go away".

 

[Psyoletic]

So Psyoletic isn't the original purchaser of the card from new then?

That changes the complexion of the matter somewhat as he has no contract with the retailer.

This matter needs to be approached with great care as the retailer would be within their rights to tell him to "go away".

I didn't put the information in as I was already discussing matters with the original buyer. You know I'm not trying to scam the scammers all I want is a GTX480. Even if they're willing to compromise and hand over the partial refund I'd quiet happily settle for the price of a GTX480 which they in stock at £184.98 .

All I want, is a GTX480...

 

[godinman]

The OP has RMA problems, but OCUK ain't one?