Do you know your consumer rights?

This may apply in your case: “What happens when the consumer changes their mind?
Normally a consumer has no automatic right to change their mind and to cancel a contract; therefore if this happens they are in breach of contract. However, there is an automatic right to cancel in some special cases, including most consumer contracts made at a distance (for example, mail order or internet) or at a consumer’s home etc. See ‘Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Charges) Regulations 2013’ below.

If a consumer cancels the contract wrongfully, the trader can claim the reasonable costs incurred. Where the trader cannot recover the lost sale (for example, by making another booking in place of the cancelled one) their claim may include loss of profit. If the consumer has made full or part payment up front, the trader can only retain enough to cover these losses and must refund the difference.”

The builder may have set time aside for your work and not taken other jobs on, for example. As you made a contract you may well have to accept you cannot break it, unless the builders condition could be termed “unfair”. I’m not sure the 14 day right to cancel would apply in your case. However, as a significant amount was presumably involved I would get legal advice before proceeding; Which? Legal would be a good start.

The Argos recall list includes 17 product groups over the last year that have safety problems. This is not many out of their whole range (assuming that is the total – but I’d suggest there will be others unreported or undiscovered). However, it looks as though some of them fail regulatory standards. This is of great concern as it implies that Argos, as some other retail outlets, do not take sufficient due diligence in selecting products and manufacturers.

Retailers must be deterred from taking a lax attitude towards product safety. In my view only substantial financial penalties will do this when they sell a batch of defective products that they could, through proper investigation, have rejected before sale.

We need Trading Standards properly funded and staffed to police the system for the protection of consumers and to deal with careless retailers.

Some companies such as Argos, B&Q, John Lewis, Tesco and even Currys (a company that we rightly criticise over other matters on these pages) have links to recent recalls recalls from the homepage on their website and I have seen posters in shops. In contrast, Amazon and eBay have no such information.

Which? has identified various dangerous products on sale online, for example: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/09/killer-chargers-travel-adaptors-and-power-banks-rife-on-online-marketplaces/ Although these have been removed from sale I wonder if owners are aware that their phone charger could electrocute them or cause a fire if a problem developed. I would like to see legislation to require retailers to put conspicuous information about recalls on their websites and in their stores.

Sheila – I’m very sorry to hear about your injuries. I hope you never have a similar experience. A safe way to deal with a kettle that won’t switch off is to turn off the power at the consumer unit (fusebox). I once had to do this when a neighbour had a pan fire.

Actually, no. If an article is bought in a shop there is no statutory obligation on the retailer to refund or replace it if there is nothing technically wrong with it. You need to check the wording of the relevant customer information; it probably requires the product to be in its original packaging and unopened. This is not unusual with tech goods. Other retailers are more accommodating. Buying goods on-line [or by other forms of distance selling] is a way of obtaining the additional consumer right to a full refund provided the product is rejected within fourteen days of receipt. It is possible that a Currys PC World employee has misinterpreted or wrongly applied the company’s policy and if you feel that is the case then you should take it up with higher management. Whatever the company’s policy states it should be administered consistently and any exclusions from the policy should be declared.

I agree with John, but I did find some rather confusing information on the Currys website when looking for their terms & conditions.

Unwanted products
An unwanted product can be returned for a full refund within 21 days of delivery as long as it’s still in its original, unopened packaging. This returns policy for unopened goods is in addition to your statutory rights and applies to purchases made in store, online or over the phone.

Returns and exchanges can only be processed with proof of purchase. This can be the sales receipt, a bank statement or an online sales invoice. Please provide your order numbers when you return a product.

The website does not make it clear whether they are referring to goods bought in store or online but the reference to 14 days from delivery suggests the latter. I wonder exactly what “…opened them for inspection” means.

Perhaps put yourself in the shoes of a retailer who, if a product is returned simply because you do not like it rather than because it is faulty, or not as described, might then have difficulty reselling at the full price if necessary protective packaging has been removed and cannot be replaced..

Inspection – unless a product has a fault that can only be discovered by taking protective packing off I would suggest that this should be accomplished by the least intrusive means possible.

We should be fair to both retailer and customer.

The retailer could help customers by simple measures such as placing a warning sticker on clear packaging to say that this must not be opened if the goods are to be returned, and also to have clear terms and conditions that distinguish between goods sold in stores and online.

If the goods are faulty they can be rejected for a refund, including carriage, within 30 days, even if opened and used.

I expect only things you have bought and paid for give you consumer rights. There could be a breach of contract in your case which would probably be prohibitive to pursue. I presume you have checked that all the terms and conditions attached to the voucher have been satisfied. You are entitled to an explanation of why the voucher was rejected.

As it is within 6 months of purchase it will be assumed to have had a fault from new – unless it can be shown to have been abused. You are entitled, by law (the Consumer Rights Act 2015), to a repair or a replacement (depends on whether one is more disproportionate in cost to the other) and denying your rights is a criminal offence. Proof of purchase date might be the issue, but at worst you could have your sister send the dates she was on holiday, the date and perhaps the rough time she purchased the coat and I’d expect the store to have the sale on record.

If you cannot visit the store easily it might be worth sending Hunter a photo of the problem and of the label with your follow-up complaint.

In my view durability is not linked to a manufacturer’s warranty, but to what should be expected of a “normal” product of that type, taking account of its cost and other factors. Not easy, but many things aren’t. Someone can collect data on appliance lives before first repair of a failure, link with cost, usage, and build up a picture of what reasonable lives should be expected, or even legislate for what reasonable lives should be required. Life is not only time, but for some appliances like washing machines and dishwashers, would be cycles.

Some organisation are, I believe, already doing work on this – the EU and WRAP maybe.

If we (and retailers and, if necessary, courts) are to use the “durability” provision in the CRA we need some benchmarks to guide a decision on what is reasonable durability. That needs work; unless we tackle it we won’t help consumers.

Hi patz91 – As I expect you know, a warranty is in addition to your statutory rights provided by the CRA. Unless the terms of the warranty say that any refund will be reduced according to the age of the appliance, I would push for another replacement unless the terms say otherwise. I suggest reasoning with the retailer and point out that you bought an appliance with a decent warranty because you expected it to last a long time.

If you use the CRA you would probably have to pay for a report that provide evidence that the premature failure is related to a deficiency in the appliance and unrelated to how it was used. It might be helpful to subscribe to Which? Legal for advice and it is not necessary to be a member of Which?

Thanks wave.

In my case, I would rather just use the final right to reject under the CRA against the retailer as I’ve lost confidence in the washing machine – the first one I received had several faults and was replaced straight away by the retailer, the replacement developed a fault which was repaired under warranty and 3 weeks later has now developed a second, unrelated fault.

I’m just wondering how much the retailer would probably knock off for the 13 months of use in view of the fact that both the retailer and manufacturer were confident in its durability that they heavily promoted the 11 year warranty

I’ve searched and found a washing machine repair company which is a manufacturer authorised service centre who could come and diagnose the fault and provide a report for £45. I understand that if my claim against the retailer is successful, I could claim the cost of the report back from them

Hello again. I can understand your reasoning. We have all read of people who buy a new car and it has a succession of faults.

With luck, the report will identify a clear design fault but components like circuit boards can suffer random failures that cannot be identified as a manufacturing fault or caused by misuse. Most of these failures occur soon after purchase and this is presumably why faults are presumed to be present at the time of purchase for six months. After that, it is a case of negotiation.

Even though you are looking at rejecting the product, you can certainly make use of the fact that you were led to believe that the product would be durable. A secondhand washing machine that is faulty will be of little value to the retailer, who will want to minimise their loss and may not be generous with their offer, but this should be treated as negotiable, like the offer from an insurance company if a car is written off.

Very best of luck and please report back.

Allan, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives you legal rights that are against the retailer, with whom your contract was made. It is reasonable to contact the warranty company when a fault develops. As that has failed I consider you can pursue your CRA rights against the retailer.

The CRA says if your machine fails in the first 30 days you can opt to reject it for a full refund or choose a repair or replacement as an option. If you choose a repair and the fault is not resolved you can then choose to either keep the machine with a price reduction or you have a final right to reject for a full refund (if within the first 6 months).

Presumably you would wish to choose the full refund. This is the retailer’s responsibility to deal with, but I presume they will themselves make a claim on the manufacturer; their problem.

That’s my understanding but Which? may give a view.

Incidentally, it is a criminal offence for a retailer to deny your legal rights.

Here is a link to the legislation that you can draw to the retailer’s attention: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents

Hi Sean – It is the retailer that is legally responsible for goods rather than manufacturer. Assuming that you paid Carphone Warehouse for the phone, they are responsible for handling claims. If you have paid Apple for AppleCare cover then Apple would have a responsibility as set out under their terms & conditions, but otherwise I suggest you make a claim agains CW under the Consumer Rights Act. Hannah has provided a link to a page with a letter template two posts above. Best of luck.

My introduction to consumer issues was a reel-to-reel tape recorder that refused to misbehave when I took it back to the shop.

I don’t think you will get far unless you can prove that the fault exists, Richard, but if you manage the dealer should accept the date when you reported the fault rather than when they agree that there is a problem. I wonder if it would be possible to record the sound of the judder on a mobile phone. Juddering when pulling away can be due to a problem with the clutch or dual mass flywheel.

Mine too. I bought a radio-cassette player that chewed up tapes so took it back to the shop and asked for my money back. The shop refused but said I could choose another player. I asked for a demo with a cassette and after every player in the shop chewed up tapes, I got my money back. 🙂

I have this happen on an old car pulling away initially. It does not happen after that. The probability might be slightly unequal clutch springs, I was told. Mind you, it is on the original plate after 170 000m.

That’s a shame, Catherine – what’s the problem?

Hi Donna – Here is some advice on the Which? website: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-contracts-regulations#delivery-of-goods

It would have been easier to have dealt with this problem if you and the hairdresser had agreed on a delivery time and you had this in writing, because it would form part of your contract. If you have already waited longer than the maximum six weeks that was estimated and the hairdresser is still blaming the supplier you should certainly push for a full refund because they have not fulfilled their contract.

It would be worth collecting the facts and evidence, and contacting Citizens Advice, who should pass the case on to the local Trading Standards. Alternatively you could subscribe to the Which? Legal service and get personal advice: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/talk-to-an-adviser

I hope you get this sorted out soon.

Here is advice from Which? https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/i-got-food-poisoning-while-eating-out-can-i-get-my-money-back

Choose restaurants with a food hygiene rating of 5 on the Food Standards Agency website.

Lauren’s reply shows the importance of agreeing a deadline for delivery goods, and presumably the same would apply in the case of new kitchens and extensions. I wonder how many companies would be prepared to agree to deadlines, since they could face considerable losses if let down by a supplier when the customer claims a full refund.

Blinds should be designed [and made] to be fit for purpose in any position from fully open to fully closed and at all points in between. Some might argue that your right to a refund might depend on whether it is a functional fault or what might be considered a cosmetic impairment, but my view is that blinds also have a decorative function and should look right in all states.

If the making-up of the blinds has led to puckering then I suggest they are not of satisfactory quality – one of the three tests under the Cosumer Rights Act 2015. You should be able to claim a full refund if you do so within thirty days of taking ownership of the blinds. Beyond thirty days you have the right to claim a repair or replacement. The fact that your blinds are made-to-measure does not limit your rights. They should have been made with due care and diligence. Your rights are against the retailer.

For further guidance see the following Which? advice –
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act