Halfords Again

[Frostbite]

icn 520 purchased from Halfords, works fine then bam, no sound, all sorts off other probs and halfords say sorry, i need to speak to manufacturer for a returns number. Of course it's sunday so they're all closed, so I say I'm coming to do a sit in of the store and to warn potential customers not to buy and after taking pictures of their obscured sign warning customers of the same, the guy agrees to give me a refund. It's a jokeandI am going to take further ie watchdog. Great that people mention sale of goods act etc on here but we are all unsure about our specific rights and for example whether the retailers do have a get out so I think it needs bringing out in the open. apparently I now have to lie if a peep from navman rings me and have to say that the unit halfords now have belongs to me, unbeleivable.

Frosty

[peterc10]

Legally your contract is with the retailer not the manufacturer and they are responsible to you. The Sale of Goods Act requires that goods be fit for their intended purpose, of reasonable quality and as described. If they are not the retailer not the maker is liable to you. Most retailers know this but try to fob you off will rubbish about the maker being liable - he may be too but your primary recourse is with the person with you have a contract, i.e. the retailer.

Also new regulations (forgot their name) recently came in that says if an item breaks down in the first 6 months it will be assumed that it was faulty when delivered unless the supplier can prove otherwise - very useful. After 6 months then you have to show (on balance of probabilities) that they were - not really too difficult because most courts accept that if a new product lasts less than a year or two then it probably wasn't of reasonable quality in the first place.

[marksfish]

I agree with all of the above. The Sale of Goods Act is the consumer's friend and a very handy ally to know about. Stuff the extended warranty, your consumer rights are free. I have Act on countless occasions after the warrantyperiod has expired. As stated above, the goods must be of merchantable quality, fit for the purpose sold and last a resonable amount of time. A reasonable amount of time is open to interpretation, but is never less than the guarantee period. Fridges, washing machines, TV's, etc are good for about 6 years whereas pc's are about 2 years maximum due to the continual improvements. I imagine Sat Nav would also come under the 2- 3 year area.

If the item becomes faulty within the first six months then you are able to refuse a repair and request a replacement item. If it becomes faulty after this time or the end of the guarantee period, the retailer has to offer you a free repair so long as the fault has not occurred due to wear and tear.

My television broke three times in 3.5 years and each time I forced Comet to pay for the repairs, twice by issuing a small claims court summons which they settled out of court.
_________________
Garmin Drivesmart 51 LMT-D Europe

[neil01]

You really have to be firm with retailers. Some will just try to get away with anything, and quote all sorts of conditions.

For example, I bought one of the kids a bed, and at the same time asked the assistant for a suitable valence, which they selected for me. When I got home, it was about 6" short of the floor so I took it back. I was told that was the only length they did, so I asked for my money back - I was refused - it was not possible to give refunds on sale goods, or non-faulty goods. It was in their terms and conditions, and (something guarenteed to rub me up the wrong way) 'not company policy'. I had to 'remind' them that I had legal rights, which under English law cannot be reduced, no matter what their terms and conditions or 'policy' were; and that if they didn't give me an immediate refund I would be calling Trading Standards (goods not fit for purpose - after all they selected it as suitable for the bed - not me), and since I had paid more than £100 on the ticket, I would be in touch with the credit card company (who are jointly liable). I recieved my refund.

Don't be afraid to play the Trading Standards card, no need to be nasty, or threatening. You don't need to say anything more than you will be checking with Trading Standards, which when you do, and if you are in the right, Trading Standards may even prosecute - so it could cost the company a great deal of money, and the salesperson their job.

[peterc10]

Just to be absolutely right (often important in court). Important parts of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 were amended in 1994 by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994.

The term used is now "satisfactory quality" (I got "reasonable quality" wrong in my previous reply), which replaced the previous term "merchantable quality" when the Act was amended. This is now helpfully defined in the amended Act as meeting "the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances".

The requirement to "last a reasonable amount of time" is not specifically mentioned in the Act. However in the amended Act one of the factors that are listed as being taken into account when deciding if the goods were of satisfactory quality is their durability, so it is part of that requirement.

The effect of all of this is that Act recognises that a reasonable person may decide that cheap versions of goods will not last as long (i.e. be as durable) as expensive ones. It may be reasonable to assume that a £150 washing machine will not last as long as a £1000 one. So specific periods that goods should last are not necessarily strictly applicable - at the end of the day it will depend on what you can persuade a judge is a reasonable person's standard.

One final point. The requirements as to satisfactory quality do not apply to any fault that the seller pointed out to you before the sale or, where you examined the goods before sale, any fault that you ought to have found. So if the item is on the shop floor (and you know it is that one you are buying) and it is obviously scratched (or the shop tell you there is a problem before the sale) then you probably have no come-back for that particular fault - but you would still have for other faults that were not obvious or that you were not told about.

[tedkay]

I had a similar experience with Comet recently when the mount for a Go 500 I had bought from them a few days earlier snapped.

The first staff member I spoke to said "You will have to ring Tom Tom - thier number is...." I stopped him there and told him that I had no intention of ringing Tom Tom because I did not buy it from them and therefore have no contract with them. He replied "Well that is our Company policy - you have to get a replacement mount from them". I told him that his Company policy had absolutely no bearing on the matter and certainly does not override the law of the land. I demanded either a new mount or a refund and told him that I wouldn't be leaving until I got one or the other.

At this point the manager intervened. He was at least a little more polite than the bombastic moron I had been speaking to. The manager at first started to bleat-out the rubbish about the manufacturer, but after I made it clear that I would not be contacting Tom Tom (the last time I tried that it took me days to get through) he agreed to try himself on their 'special' number. Well needless to say the 'special' number was just about as much use as the one we lesser mortals have, and he couldn't get through.
So he then rang his head office and got clearace to (fulfill their legal obligation!) and provide me with a new mount, which I finally walked-out with after nearly an hour in the store. These people know damn well that they are breaking the law in these cases, but I suspect that they rely on the strange English reluctance to stand up for their rights and make a fuss.

Interestingly the manager told me that they had received many broken Tom Tom mounts - but when I suggested that in might be a good idea if they asked Tom Tom to send them a box of replacments he just shrugged. Obviously the idea of making things simple for the customers didn't hold much appeal!

The fact is that if anyone needs to be contacting manufacturers regarding faulty goods it is the retailer, not the customer.

It is also worth remembering that there is a provision in the law for compensation to be paid by the retailer for any costs incurred by the customer in returning the faulty goods, and whilst I wouldn't advocate legal action as anything other than a last resort mention of this can sometimes help to break down the resistance of a recalcitrant retailer!

Try and stay cool while you insist on getting your rights - and without shouting make sure you speak loudly enough for other customers to hear. Losing your temper is exactly what a difficult shop assistant (you'd think they had to pay for the replacement themselves! ) wants you to do, because then they can threaten you with security and demand that you leave!

Ted Kay

[michaelh85]

[tedkay]

[marksfish]

[peterc10]

The Act is silent as to whether or not it applies to auctions. I think they may be covered, despite what trading standards says. However all of the points about satisfactory quality only apply if the seller is selling the item in the course of his business. So it does not apply to private sellers, whether in auction or in any other type of sale.

Much of the law on auctions is common law that has developed over the years on a case by case basis. It may be debatable as to whether Ebay is actually an "auction" for the purposes of some of it, and certainly when you use buy it now.

By the way if you are interested there is a copy of the Act at http://www.john.antell.name/SOGA1979.htm.

[jpkeates]

Auctions are covered by the same law, but they are usually acting as agents for private individuals, they aren't exactly "selling" as a business.

This means that the satisfactory quality and accurate description elements of the Sale of Goods Act don't apply.

Buying from e-bay is a risk, and there is realistically only feedback to protect you. The seller may not actually be in the UK or even the EC, so while the English law may be relevant, it's not much practical use.

Buying on line is much safer. The Distance Selling Regulations, plus the existing Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Acts gives on line buyers more rights then regular high street shoppers.

Trading Standards are normally delighted to help. If you get no joy, it is now very easy to make a small claim online. Just go to
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp. You can do the whole thing online (England and Wales only) and nothing gets someone's attention like a formal court document notifying them of a claim.

[michaelh85]

[peterc10]

[tedkay]

[jpkeates]

I'm not really qualified to defend the entire UK Trading Standards service.

I think that Trading Standard's directive is to support the consumer, to redress the imbalance of power and resource between a single consumer and a (presumably larger) retailer.

They are not directed to proactively make retailers better, that would be something the government should do, or perhaps the DTi.

They do have specific campaigns, but these are usually reactive, against rogue traders in certain fields.

They wait to be spurred into action because that's how the process works. They are a support service for consumers.

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!