Do you know your consumer rights?

Hi Charmaine – Please can you say why the plug was unsuitable.

To comply with current regulations, domestic electrical products have to be fitted with a normal 13 amp BS 1363 plug or be supplied with a fitted converter plug so that they will plug into a UK socket. If you have imported the tank the purchase may not be covered by these regulations.

That’s fair enough but I think Paul feels that he has been misled by a Which? review.

If Paul suspects that he has a faulty fan he could ask a Currys store for a demonstration, which would be helpful in deciding to pursue a claim for a faulty product.

Evgeni wrote: “There are a few caveats here, the main one being if you tried and tested the item beyond what you are permitted to test at the store i.e. use it for days then this right will be extinguished.” That is my understanding, but I cannot recall seeing this information on the Which? website.

The key seems to be whether the fan heater is “not as described”. If Currys or the promotional literature describe it as “very quiet” and it patently is not, then that CRA clause could be invoked – although there might be an argument about what constituters “very quiet”. I’d suggest any description in a Which? review that does not reproduce a manufacturer’s or retailer’s claim would not be a valid reason to reject a product.

Presumably Mr Allen did not buy the heater on-line, but if he had he would have been entitled to cancel his order and return it within 14 days. I feel the question should have been asked and the alternative resolution mentioned for the benefit of other readers.

Evgeni did say this in his reply, unless I misunderstood John’s comment.

My mistake – so he did. Apologies Evgeni and thanks, Malcolm. In this case the quickness of the eye deceived the hand. I should have realised that a heater has a cooling-off period.

Hi Bronte – Here is advice from Which? https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product

Your rights are against the company you paid for the system and if you first reported a problem within six months the fault is assumed to be present when the system was purchased. I understand that you should be offered a full refund if the first repair failed. (This would not apply if the system was older than six months when the fault occurred.

It does not matter that the guarantee has expired because you have statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act, which takes precedence.

For the CRA to apply the fire suppression system must be for domestic rather than commercial use.

If you need help with your case you could subscribe to Which? Legal.

Hi Elizabeth – You have 30 days during which you can reject faulty goods:

“Use your 30-day right to reject
Your right to a quick refund is limited to 30 days from the date you took ownership of the product (this could be the date of purchase or the date it was delivered to you – whichever is later).” See this Which? advice for more information: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product

It is an offence for Argos to mislead you about your legal rights.

Elizabeth, what Argos told you is nonsense. As wavechange says you can return a faulty product in the first 30 days for a full refund. In the first 6 months the fault is presumed to be present when new. Argos would have to prove you damaged it to deny your claim. If they persist I’d first insist on seeing the manager, say that you will report them to Trading Standards who can prosecute them for denying you your legal rights and you will take them to court to get your refund. Suggest they contact head office who are sure to point out the legal position.

Further to what Malcolm has said, if retailers mislead customers they are breaching one of the regulations of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Act. The maximum penalty is two years in jail.

Possibly, Terry. It depends on the terms and conditions of your contract with Hermes. What amount will they pay out and how does that differ from the value of the parcel’s contents?

@james-shelton Hi James – I cannot see anything in the advice on the Which? website about the consumer having to prove that a fault is present at the point of delivery. I had assumed that faults were assumed to be present at the time of supply unless the retailer could prove otherwise during the first six months.

TVs are cumbersome and there is plenty of opportunity to damage a large screen during unpacking and mounting on a stand or on a wall bracket, so it is right that our laws protect companies as well as consumers.

Thank you and your colleagues for providing an insight into the complexities of consumer law.

Guidance to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says:
“If the goods breach the rights under the Act in the first 6 months there is an assumption that the issue was present at the time of delivery – unless this is incompatible with the type of goods or how the rights are breached, or it is shown that the goods did comply with the rights at delivery. So if you do not believe that the assumption is correct, you must prove otherwise. After the first 6 months, it is the responsibility of the consumer to show that goods did not meet the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act at the time of delivery“. This is guidance for the seller – “you”.

The term “fault” in the CRA means, I believe, anything that breaches the contract , whether that is • match their description • be of satisfactory quality • be fit for purpose. So what the customer needs to do is claim that one of the conditions is not met to be able to claim redress or remediation. If disputed, the retailer must prove otherwise. After 6 months the onus is on the customer to prove the “fault” (issue) was present from new. So, in Mr Parsons case I suggest the dead area of the screen, the fault, is assumed present from new and the retailer has to prove that not to be the case and that it was caused by Mr Parsons.

Mr Parson’s TV is clearly faulty since it has a 5cm square area with dead pixels, but it’s worth knowing that knowing that a screen with the odd dead pixel may still be deemed to be of satisfactory quality for screens on TVs, monitors, etc.

Dead pixels that are permanently on and near the centre of a screen are more conspicuous than those that are permanently off or near the edge of the screen. The type of dead pixels is covered by international standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_13406-2

Manufacturing quality has improved and it’s a long time since I have seen a flat screen with dead pixels, but they caused disputes when flat screens were launched. Sadly, companies did not inform customers of their dead pixel policy prior to sale.

Retrospectively speaking, the faulty TV I purchased a few years ago was supplied new at the store at the time of purchase and driven straight home to my address. However, it eventually necessitated contacting the manufacturer who confirmed a faulty consignment had inadvertently been sent out to retailers before JL would accept my request for a new replacement.

In Mr Parsons case, the fault developed 8 months later when the onus would be on him to prove the fault was there at the time of delivery, which evidently it was not, but nevertheless he was sold a TV that was ‘Not Fit For Purpose’ as James makes the point, as it was still covered under its 12 month warranty.

To exonerate any discrepancies caused by electronically operated larger type goods delivered by the retailer directly to the address of the consumer, would it not be in the interest of both parties, instead of just the consumers, (as Wavechange alludes to) to test the products capacity to comply with the Consumers Rights Act at the point of delivery?

Adam, denying a consumer their legal rights under the CRA is a criminal offence and can result in them being prosecuted by trading Standards. I do not believe, therefore, they are in any position to require you to waive those rights.

As John says, it appears to be a well-documented problem and, on that basis, the retailer is required to make redress in a timely way. That is by a repair or a replacement. Any contact with the manufacturer is their concern, not yours. The only possible problem could be that (understandably) you have tampered with the card but as that was done to try to remedy a problem admitted by the manufacturer I do not think that should be an obstacle.

I agree with Malcolm the manufacturer is the concern of the retailer, and if the manufacturer hails from Taiwan and has no subsidiary branches in the UK, this could add to the time and inconvenience of any settlement. I am not sure whether Adam bought the card online, but if he did, this represents another example of the need to establish the country of origin before purchasing anything online.

Adam has said that he has dismantled the product that he has dismantled the product despite the fact that there was a warning sticker.

The manufacturer can make their own conditions for their guarantee but it would be interesting to know the legal status of the stickers and seals that are used to show interference by someone other than the manufacturer or their agent, and how this affects our statutory rights.

I expect it invalidates the manufacturer’s guarantee as many stickers state. However the guarantee is secondary to the Consumer Rights Act provisions. I doubt that tampering with a sticker would invalidate those rights if you could simply demonstrate that no damage was caused.

That was my point. Bearing in mind that our legislation seeks to balance the rights of consumers and retailers I presume that it is incumbent on the consumer to prove that tampering is irrelevant to the claim.

Hi Adam – Perhaps it’s time to subscribe to Which? Legal for advice, use it and then post about your success here. 🙂

Rather than keeping you waiting for ages the retailer could arrange for a repair to be carried out in this country or fit a refurbished product with your permission. Many products are manufactured abroad, yet other retailers have systems in place to avoid unnecessarily inconveniencing their customers.

It would make sense to just replace a card, that is admitted defective by the manufacturer, with their later corrected design of the card. The retailer should be able to get their own redress ftom their supplier. But that is their problem.

Out of interest, who connected the cooker to the gas supply?

Hi Kathleen – As you have discovered, the retailer is responsible for providing a remedy. Here is some useful advice from Which? https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product

Heaters can fail at any time and it is probably just chance that yours failed prematurely. The purpose of salt is to allow the in-built water softener to regenerate and it is common to use rinse aid in addition to 3 in 1 tablets, so I doubt that these factors have affected the life of the heater.

Coronavirus has made life difficult for many companies but hopefully the retailer will arrange a prompt repair, which you are entitled to. Heaters are usually common to different models of washing machine and could be available from online parts stockists even if Hotpoint have no stock. Perhaps that is something you could suggest to the retailer.

A heater should not fail so soon of course. The retailer is responsible for remedying your problem without causing you unreasonable inconvenience. I find it hard to believe that a heater element for a new machine is out of stock. If they cannot tell you when one will be available I believe they should replace the dishwasher. Alternatively if they do not provide either you could press for a full refund, a provision of the consumer rights act for a faulty article that is less than 6 months old. Thst might prompt them into more helpful action.

Please let us know how you get on, Kathleen.

It’s very common for retailers to say to customers that it is the manufacturer that should deal with claims under the guarantee or the Consumer Rights Act but deliberately misleading customers is an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. I have a printed copy of the relevant part because I have found that staff in our local Currys store have tried to mislead me more than once.

Update. Retailer is willing to repair the part (genuine Hotpoint part and they are – I believe – an approved retailer and installer of Hotpoint goods). Hotpoint say if we allow them to do this it might invalidate the warranty. Hotpoint say they have 28 days to try to repair the product before condemning it. That means they have until 24/12 they say (28 days after the engineer first visited) to fix it. If they don’t do it before then, another department will review whether it can be condemned. What to do other than never go near Hotpoint again?

Any manufacturer’s guarantee or a warranty can provide benefits for consumers but we have various statutory rights. In this case the Consumer Rights Act is relevant. Neither the retailer or manufacturer can remove these rights, though sometimes they try.

Whirlpool (which owns Hotpoint and various other brands of appliances and household products) behaved very poorly towards customers over a large number of fire risk dryers and washing machines sold in the UK. There have been several Conversations about these problems.

I hope you get this resolved soon, Kathleen.

I would go for the retailer’s repair Kathleen, if they are approved and use genuine parts. If the repair fails the Consumer Rights Act then gives you the choice of of a refund, (partial after 6 months to allow for any use) or to keep the product with a price reduction. I would have thought the chances of a new heater failing are low. I don’t know what your Hotpoint guarantee is but beware the free parts for ten years bit; you have to use their appointed engineer to do the fix and their charges are very high, in my experience.

Hotpoint are unlikely to be able to invalidate the guarantee if an appointed repairer has dealt with your dishwasher when they were unable to deal with it in a reasonable time. I’d suggest 4 weeks is not reasonable.

So long as a car has a current unqualified MOT certificate [if required], is roadworthy in all respects, and has no damage or non-critical faults there is no necessity for the seller to inform prospective purchasers that it had been stolen and returned to its owner. Even minor damage or condition defects do not need to be declared on sale, it is for the buyer to inspect it and satisfy themselves that the car is worth the price. I don’t know what to make of the comment by the police and the MOT inspector; it is not helpful information unless they explain it. What the garage knew or didn’t know remains a matter of speculation.

John – I think 5-7 days would count as immediate in today’s circumstances.

Refunds are usually paid by reversing the method of payment, so a credit card payment would require a reverse payment to the credit card account, a debit card payment back to the bank account, and a cheque would result in a cheque [unlikely for an on-line purchase]. Only a direct bank transfer would be likely to generate an immediate repayment, but that is not guaranteed. All such repayments involve an administrative process and would normally require the approval of the accounts department and possibly an audit check.

While it is arguable that not being able to supply something ordered could be the company’s fault, they are under no obligation to fulfil orders and reserve the right not to do so. There is heavy demand at present for home improvement products so a stock shortage might not be the supplier’s fault. They offered an alternative product which you declined, so your only recourse was to cancel the order; the seller must issue a refund without unreasonable delay or inconvenience and my view is that 5-7 days is reasonable.

I don’t see any justification in charging a customer until goods are despatched. An exception would be goods made to order.

Many companies [including Amazon, John Lewis, Sainsbury’s] don’t apply the charge until the goods are dispatched but others do. Some need to take payment immediately, and sellers of window blinds [which are made to order and specification] and horticultural nurseries [where despatch might not be for some weeks and orders are held pending availability] are in that category.

It’s like postage and packaging – sometimes its free but the goods cost more, with other firms there is a separate charge and the product is slightly cheaper; sometimes it’s a charge related to the actual p&p cost and sometimes it’s a uniform amount regardless of the size of the order.

Buyers just have to shop around and find the price/delivery/service combination that they prefer; there is generally plenty of choice. It is important, however, that whatever the particular arrangement is, the terms and conditions clearly spell it out.

If you order something in a shop for subsequent delivery or installation you usually have to pay for it upfront or they take a deposit if the delivery date is not known, and that is normally the case even when it is a stock item [not made to order].

I don’t object to paying when I commit an order. The payment seals the contract.

I would like postage and packing to be charged what it costs. It is not difficult to calculate by a retailer. I bought something online from John Lewis (&P) that came in a plastic bag via RoyalMail that would have cost me 86p to post at retail rate. The p&p charged was £3.50. Some argue there is labour in packing it; I’d suggest that as it came from a warehouse that charged the same retail price as a store where there are higher overheads and labour the argument doesn’t hold. I’m not keen on cross subsidy.

If a retailer does not get paid – fully or partially – until the goods are supplied or work has been done there is a strong incentive to ensure that the customer is satisfied. Taking the simplest example of ordering goods that are in stock rather than bespoke or have to be ordered, I can see no reason for taking payment before they have been dispatched. Some companies manage to do this, as you have said.

I recently had four replacement double glazed panels made for the conservatory. I was not charged until the job had been completed, though I would have been happy to pay a deposit.

I keep wish lists of things we might like from John Lewis and Amazon to top up orders to get them over the free p&p threshold. I resent having to pay postage etc for things sent from a warehouse instead of bought from a store [where products are properly displayed and good advice and service are available]. We are ten minutes walk from the John Lewis store but it has had to remain closed longer than open this year unfortunately.

“Free” p&p over a threshold is simply an encouragement for many to buy things they don’t really need. It saves them money in most cases to only buy what they need, even if that means paying for delivery. I am a little perplexed at the justification for paying to click and collect when that can be at the retailer’s own shop. I remember the days when you could order something from a JL&P store – maybe for example when it was out of stock at your local – and they would post it to you free of charge. Maybe that was a bit too generous but retailers do need to do all they can to satisfy customers or we’ll be even more dominated by Amazon.

Has anyone worked out that Amazon might have too much of a market share?

”Amazon now has a market share of more than 30% of the UK’s ecommerce market, up from 28.8% in 2018, according to research from Edge by Ascential, which also rates the UK as the world’s third largest ecommerce market, behind China and the US.

With sales in excess of $30billion this year, Amazon is way out in front of the next closest rivals eBay, which has 9.8% market share. Supermarket giants Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Asda – owner Walmart – followed with 4.6, 4.5 and 3.9% respectively. Completing the top five was John Lewis, with a 3.6% share of the UK’s e-commerce market.”
https://internetretailing.net/marketplaces/marketplaces/amazon-tightens-its-grip-on-uk-ecommerce-with-30-share-20702

Does that include sales by marketplace traders for which Amazon is just a fulfilment organisation?

Presumably the figures given for the grocers are just their shares of the e-commerce market; their sales through physical stores are in addition and possibly take each of the big three into double figures.

There is a strong case for Amazon to be broken up. No company could effectively compete against them now at an affordable cost and in a useful timescale.

Surely there is a top six: Amazon, e-Bay, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, ASDA, and John Lewis [not a top five as stated].

It bothers me they can’t count. Nor do I like seeing UK trade valued in $ – assumed to be US

It would be a good start to separate Amazon from its marketplace traders. As far as I know, it’s not Amazon itself that is selling dangerous and counterfeit goods.

”….it’s not Amazon itself that is selling dangerous and counterfeit goods.”. Not directly, but when they advertise these products, and make money from them, facilitate payment and distribution, what they are doing is to let fake, unsafe and harmful goods onto the UK market in far greater quantities than would be the case if these rogue traders had to do it without assistance. Not vetting the products is at least irresponsible and, if they were subject to normal retailer rules, would be illegal. Were they to be a reputable organisation they would understand this and take the necessary action without having to be prompted.

Yes, we have agreed about this many times. Why do you support a company that you regard as not reputable, Malcolm?

I do not support it, no more than I support the subsidy of energy fixed price tariffs or being able to quickly negotiate 40% off my AA renewal. But while it is in my own interests I will continue while, at the same time, doing my little bit to get things changed.

So…you don’t buy anything from then, then?

I feel more comfortable by avoiding Amazon if there is an alternative, and almost always there is.

I have just completed a Connect survey about car insurance and pointed out that I can include good value breakdown cover without any need to switch provider or haggle.

That is not what I said. I said (see above) “I will continue…”. As it happens I do not often use them.

I have used the AA for many years and have had very good service from them. Which? regard it well. Like any insurance, their value only becomes apparent when you need to use them. The insurance on one car does include RAC cover but as they get poor reviews and as I cannot change it to cover me in any car I stay with the AA. A friend gets a cheap deal with Green Flag and has good response on the one time he used them. Maybe I’ll look again in the future if the AA stop discounting.

I wonder if Which? members are happy with companies that hike prices the way that AA and RAC do. The only time I have had to use NFU’s cheap breakdown cover an RAC van turned up promptly and helped me change a wheel after I had a problem with the jack.

AA have just hiked my car insurance up by 15% and our breakdown cover by 41%. Time to haggle.

I feel no guilt as no claims have been made and overall they have got a lot more out of us than we have of them. I have only had 1 unrecoverable claim when my car was stolen in all my years of driving, and I think 2 others which were recoverable from the other parties.

It was some years ago now, but my only experience of Green Flag was when they attended a friend’s car, didn’t look to see what might be wrong with it, but just dumped it at the nearest garage that was shut for 2 days then the repairs had to be paid for.

When I am preparing to haggle I look at what a new member would pay the AA and the RAC for the cover I am renewing and expect to get very close. It has worked every year.

Wavechange asks if Which? members are happy with the hiked prices. I doubt many people are, let alone Which? members. I would prefer to see prices for new and existing members to be the same, and compete on what they offer rather than introductory pricing. Maybe increase a renewal if someone has excessive claims. Until then I’ll continue to either negotiate or choose another provider.

I have received a renewal car insurance notification from NFU with an 11.5% premium reduction. As it was almost doubled following the accident which occurred just over a year ago it is still way up on the pre accident premium.

Negotiations are still ongoing but I am expecting a final decision from The Ombudsman before December 11th when my car insurance is due for renewal.

Until the case is settled It will be almost impossible to switch to another insurer. I certainly would not welcome being pressured into accepting another year with NFU.

What I have done (in the past) when my breakdown insurance price has been hiked has been to arrange alternative cover for the coming year. I then ring the hiking company and explain why I no longer want their service. (They generally say that I should have contacted them before leaving.) I also tell them to remove my contact details from their records because if I’m contacted I will never use them in future. Before I did this I was contacted by companies I had used before.

Apart from needing help with changing a wheel a few years ago the last time I called a breakdown company was in 1979 when my engine developed a major problem, subsequently diagnosed as a manufacturing fault. I just wish that all breakdown companies offered no claims discounts.

malcolm r said: 29 November 2020

“I do not support it”

Ian said:

“So…you don’t buy anything from then, then?”

malcolm r said: 29 November 2020

“That is not what I said.”

The OED says:

“Support: Give assistance to, especially financially: patronise (in a business sense).

Ian – Isn’t it clear that Malcolm occasionally buys things from Amazon but does not approve of their commercial behaviour? I don’t know why you are persisting with this line of questioning.

I am the same. I condemn Amazon over many aspects but nevertheless find it convenient, economical and unavoidable in the present circumstances to make selected purchases from Amazon. As Malcolm said, they have some virtues, and I see no sense in depriving myself of the advantages of them for the sake of some principles, which, with the best efforts in the world, I am not going to be able to influence.

We are free to patronise enterprises we don’t like if it suits our primary purpose. I don’t like half the pubs and restaurants I have patronised in my lifetime, and I moan about the big Sainsbury’s we use – but it’s just round the corner and Waitrose is two miles away.

The OED is a good book, but it doesn’t do the shopping.

Trading in a free marketplace is one if the perks of living in a democracy, but it’s when a business becomes too big too fast. that problems can occur, such as when they start to monopolise smaller businesses by acting first as an agent selling their goods and end up swallowing them. When this occurs it is time for the regulators The Competition &.Markets Authority (CMA), previously The Monopolies Commission, to intervene in order to stave off anti-competitive threats, capable of endangering the economy as a whole.

Amazon, Google and Facebook are the current giants who dominate global market trading, attributable to their fast and efficient customer service, and there is no doubt they owe much of that success to the COVID-19 world crisis and online selling.

The other side of the coin however, it is the people who indiscriminately and randomly buy without too much thought about if something seems too good to be true it probably is, who fall victims to these giants and then incessantly complain about them if they are faulty or inferior and not up to the required standard.

As long as the regulators allow these companies to continue to dominate the market, they will continue to trade untaxed, uncontrolled and unabated until our high streets become empty and void, leaving consumers vulnerable and exposed to a faceless online market with very little alternative other than to accept what is sent to them, with little redress if it happens to contain a label that states “Made in China” or some other Far Eastern undemocratic country of origin.

John:

Fair enough; you support Amazon and have never denied that. Malcolm made the outright comment that he did not support Amazon. Purchasing anything from them is supporting them, which is simply what I was pointing out.