Live event: ask your questions about Consumer Rights – 3pm 19/8/21

My first move would normally be to invoke the guarantee while it is within the time if there is a fault with a product. For other issues or for faults I believe are unacceptable but out of warranty I would attempt to exercise my CRA rights with the retailer.

I have been asked to send products back to the manufacturer, involving time and expense. I want to be able to simply return a product to the shop and let them take care of negotiations with the manufacturer. After six months a retailer could ask me to provide a report about the nature and cause of the problem but so far this has not happened.

Using a guarantee – a very rare occurrence – has not involved me in any great inconvenience. Less than returning to a distant shop. Just use the most convenient option, but guarantees almost always are longer than the CRA 6 month “simple” period. And you don’t normally need a report. The two are complementary. Take your pick.

Thanks very much for your reply, James.

This document is obviously on the Richer Sounds website but I could not find any link to it. That is a pity because it outlines our statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act. Nevertheless, Richer Sounds does provide a link to information about consumer rights on the Which? website, which goes into more detail. Most companies do not do that.

Thanks Adam. I’m unhappy with retailers simply turning consumers away or referring them to the manufacturer, when I think they should acknowledge that we have statutory rights under the CRA and outline the claims procedure. I’m surprised that I have never been asked for an independent report. You make a very good point about getting the retailer to approve your choice.

If I had a washing machine that failed just after the two year guarantee period I would have no hesitation in making a claim against the retailer because (assuming that I had not misused the machine) it seems reasonable to assume that the appliance should last longer than that, and a free or reduced price repair might be a reasonable solution.

I recall that there were numerous complaints about screens cracking on Sony Xperia phones, both on Conversation and elsewhere, but have no idea of whether they were worse than other phones. Social media is probably an easy way to informally collect information but getting expert opinion could be harder.

The reply from Adam does not mention an important requirement of the Consumer Rights Act. As proving a fault existed from new is often very difficult – and the failure may not be due to a “fault”, but poor choice of components or product design for example – another requirement is a product should be reasonably durable (given its price, for example). Which? seem very reluctant to mention this.

It may be necessary to threaten a claims court action if the retailer is not helpful, but show them the written requirement in the CRA 2015 first to show them it is a legal requirement.

A case is helped, of course, by quoting typical lives of similar products, and Which? does show some of these on its website – tvs, laptops, some domestic appliances for example. But it seems to me that clearcut cases are when a products fails just after the manufacturer’s fairly short guarantee has expired.

Malcolm – It’s really up to the consumer to make a case supported by as much evidence as possible. It may be that a product has been subject to considerable wear & tear, for example a laptop computer that is opened and closed numerous times a day. It’s common for this to fracture one of the conductors in the ribbon cables linking the screen with the computer. Having seen examples of this problem and read about them, I generally leave my laptop open to reduce the risk and it goes to sleep after a minute or two. Cars can suffer the same problem when one of the wires connecting the tailgate to the car fractures due to repeated bending, resulting in failure of the heated rear window, rear windscreen wiper. or lights.

If the owner can gather information about their problem being commonplace, that could help achieve a good outcome if the case goes to court.

I would like to see more consumers making use of their statutory rights. You and I have the confidence to give it a go and neither of us has had to go to court.

The flexible wiring in laptops and car tailgates should be designed to withstand the flexing they will get in service from a reasonably heavy user. Same as the hinges on a laptop. As many laptops and cars withstand this treatment so should others. Just a question of d3cent design.

It’s worth checking for reports of problems with your laptop and your car, Malcolm. These problems are common. I had one car where a couple of wires broke and I had to repair them, but that was in the days when I opened the tailgate very frequently.

I agree.

I won’t do business with companies that are difficult to contact.

I found it almost impossible to discuss an issue with British Gas recently and, improperly, had to use a route designed for special purposes which I would have preferred not to do.

A few days ago I needed to speak to BT and needed to receive a code via e-mail before I could proceed. Security and protection are vital elements but having to be logged in to e-mail while making a phone call is bordering on the ridiculous. I was subsequently asked to recall the amount on my last phone bill – I hadn’t a clue because I never open it.

Before sorting something out on the landline now I also have to have my PC open and my mobile to hand.

Is institutional ignorance the antonym of artificial intelligence?

I’ve yet to experience the BT approach, John.

It concerns me that John Lewis, which is widely regarded as a good retailer, insists on the use of a web form rather than providing an email address. If I use their form it will be to ask for a customer services email address.

I agree too.

I think spam is the big problem that businesses struggle to manage – risk of baby in bathwater – so while they broadcast at our email address they define a labyrinth for return comms to separate the wood from the trees. The trouble is of course this makes it hard for the likes of you and me who were brought up with personal attention and detest the modern cutthroat commercial lowest common denominator that the “progress” to on-line has inevitably led.

I have said many times, I am prepared to pay for good service. One example, I didn’t buy many suits in my working life, but always went to a pucker tailors – on recommendation from a works colleague – and never looked back. Was welcomed on first visit and each time thereafter. They measured me right and attended not only my non-standard paunch but also my idiosyncrasies (proper belt tunnels instead of those flimsy thin things, extra strengthening on one pocket. Even if it was 18 months since previous visit “… Good afternoon Mr Pittock lovely to see you”… The hallmark of personal service – and yes I probably paid double per suit compared to one off the peg from Marks and Sparks. That outfitter is still in business.

However, most other independents have gone to the wall as unable to compete on price.

Have you ever tried to phone a John Lewis store? In my experience you only get through to a call centre with no means of direct contact. So if I have seen, for example, a product in a particular store sale, ex display, damaged slightly for example and want to know more when I return home, how can I? If I want to see if something is in stock at my local store, the central centre appears not to be helpful if stock showing is less than 3, whereas phoning the shop could have checked and reserved it. Apparently when one is shown it might not actually exist for sale as it is probably the display one. Gone are those days when you could check, it seems. I’m not sure where this stands in the customer service league.

Another example where I support locally – a wine merchant. Big enough to be able to select – and personally provide tasting notes with conviction (with which I have agreed throughout). It’s been some months since I stocked up – and noticed one of my favourites was down to two bottles. I sent a very short email saying I’d be ordering later today and hoped these would still be available for me. Got a lovely reply back – in its entirety below save address details:

Hi Roger,

It’s great to hear from you again!

I was only driving through Xxxxxxx the other day when I thought I must get in touch with you to ask if you enjoyed the wines.

Yes, we are down to our last two bottles of the Pouilly-Fumé and similarly the last two cases of the Sancerre from Domaine de la Villaudiere. If you’d like to take your time when ordering I will happily remove those two bottles from the website for you and include them with your order?

I believe that we are out of stock now with the 2018 Cuvée Margaux, but we have recently imported their 2019 vintage. It is more fruit driven with a greater flavour intensity of red fruit but like all of Domaine de Cardon’s wines, it still has plenty of body with integrated tannins. We feel it’s a better vintage and would highly recommend it.

Should you wish to try any of our new wines before you order please let me know and I would be happy to arrange that for you.

Order placed – received a lovely personalised acknowledgement on top of the automated stuff – to identify precisely when I’d like the order delivered – and a doorbell will ring at 11:00 tomorrow morning :-).

Would that W?Local were still around I’d give them a shout on there.

Roger wrote: “I think spam is the big problem that businesses struggle to manage – risk of baby in bathwater – so while they broadcast at our email address they define a labyrinth for return comms to separate the wood from the trees.”

Spam has been given as a reason for not providing an email address but that’s a problem we all face, and the worst of spam can be dealt with by service providers these days. Another reason given is that some customers fail to provide essential information when using email to make contact. It would not be difficult to list the information that customers should include in correspondence.

Some companies do manage to provide email addresses for customer services and complaints.

Malcolm points out that it is difficult to check whether goods are in stock at John Lewis branches. Many companies do manage to provide this information online – even the infamous Currys, I believe.

I have discovered today that you cannot contact TV Licensing by phone or e-mail [except for payments for which there is a phone number] . The website forces you to use a ‘virtual assistant’ which eventually ends up telling you to send an e-mail but the ‘contact us’ link sends you back to where you started and the web form [that pretends to be an e-mail link] replies to say that within five days you will receive a code that will enable you to contact them by some other means as yet undisclosed!

I have decided to write to their HQ in Darlington and see whether that is any use.

After some fruitless searching I managed to find a phone number under ‘About us’:

How can I contact TV Licensing?
TV Licensing can be contacted via:
Our website at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk
By our Contact us form
The post at: Customer Relations, TV Licensing, Darlington, DL98 1TL
Our call centre by phone on 0300 790 6096*

No joy with finding an email address, John.

Thanks Wavechange. That’s a more appropriate number than the one I found after wasting a considerable amount of time going round and round in circles in their spider’s website. I shall try it in the moaning and have a packed lunch with me.

My letter is on its way as a backstop.

“I shall try it in the moaning…” 🙂 Sometimes moaning is justified.

The spelling was no accident.

@gmartin, Morning George, thanks. As I concluded in my comment I had then dug out more information from Which? News. Given the continual criticism of Curry’s by very dissatisfied customers I was surprised, as I say, to see it not at the bottom. The others must either be atrocious or we have gained the wrong impression of Currys PCW.

I do note this:
“” Which? affiliate activity
How and why Which? uses affiliate links

We link to a number of external websites where you can buy products or services that we feature on our site. We do this to make it easier for you to complete your purchase and to earn commission revenue that supports our not-for-profit mission….

And those who pay commission include Appliances Direct, Carphone Warehouse, Homebase, Sports Direct, The Range – all condemned as the worst for customer service – as well as Currys.
This does seem to be a conflict. Surely Which? should not provide links to retailers that are known to give atrocious customer service? Or, if they do, add a warning of what to expect?

I think it bears repeating, as a number of responses to the comment you refer to explained.

Maybe Which? pointing to various suppliers of a product is helpful to some consumers, whereas others will be capable of doing their own search. However what I find difficult to understand is if Which? point consumers to suppliers that offer atrocious customer service and accept commission from them, without at least putting an explanatory warning against them. I saw a link to Appliances Direct for a washing machine; that could lead to an extremely bad customer experience.

I just think Which? should think a little harder about such matters. Certainly price should not be the only issue.

Many companies offer poor customer service compared with others but I hope that Which? will continue to push Trading Standards to take action is where the company is not complying with legal requirements. I hope that Which? will follow up the worst cases for evidence of non-compliance. It would be good to see some cases where Which? has helped members take companies to court where there is little doubt that they will be successful.

We frequently hear of cases where Which? Legal has helped members achieve a good result when faced with difficult companies. I cannot recall if any cases relate to Currys.

From the comments made in Convos about Currys, a fair proportion seem to show a contravention of the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act. That is illegal and open to prosecution. I am not aware of any action by Which? or Trading Standards to instigate this. So bad practice can continue unabated.

They do indeed but it is obviously necessary to select cases that can be supported with good evidence. I wonder how many of those who have complained on Conversation have taken their case to Which? Legal.