Shop refuses to replace

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121582086#Comment_121582086

You were told correctly, the seller is entitled to have the TV inspected to find the reason for the fault.

You can't just waltz in with your 1 year old TV under your arm and demand a new one on the strength of your word.

cap.in.hand.

Could you ask them nicely to give you any television in the meantime while it's being repaired.

Buddy Bubs

You've created a drama for yourself here. Would be easier and less stressful to go with what they've offered you.

Yeah it's an inconvenience but you're not top of the queue apparently there's other repairs scheduled ahead of you.

Kaisr Sose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121581977#Comment_121581977

Your post is not that clear on that at all.

I second asking the shop.for a temporary replacement tv, which would deal with the inconvenience of being without one.

daarmcd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058330075/shop-refuses-to-replace

If the fault appears within the first 12 months, it is automatically assumed the fault was there when you bought it. This means you do not have to prove anything.

Ask for the product to be replaced

bucketybuck

As usual people take the citizens information webpage as actual law, when it is nothing more than a dummies guide or a starting point for people.

So you get phrasing like this:

If there is an issue with the product, you can either:

Ask for the product to be repaired or replaced

End the contract and get a refund

Ask for a price reduction

Withhold a proportionate amount of any outstanding payment

In most cases, you can decide which of the remedies above you would prefer.

Which sounds great to the consumer but in fact is actually very vague as to the actual law. For example, saying that you can ask for repair or replacement is basically meaningless because anybody can ask for anything, asking is easy. "Getting" is another thing entirely.

And, "In most cases, you can decide which of the remedies above you would prefer." Sounds great, except, "Most cases"? So which cases are not covered? Is this case one of them?

The OP is very sure that they are correct, and likely will be right up until the point where the small claims court rules that the shop made every reasonable effort to get the TV fixed as soon as they could, as is their right under section 23 of the consumer rights act.

(2) The consumer may choose between the remedies of repair and replacement of the goods unless the remedy chosen by the consumer— (a) would be impossible for the trader to carry out, or (b) compared to the alternative remedy, would impose disproportionate costs on the trader, taking all the circumstances into account, including— (i) the value that the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity, (ii) the significance of the lack of conformity, and (iii) whether the alternative remedy could be provided without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

Alerium

Thank you all for your responses. All taken on board and appreciated. Can the mod close the discussion please or alternatively advise how to unsubscribe from the thread/discussion?

Thanks again everyone.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121582543#Comment_121582543

If that's how things worked in the real world then every 11 months you could just powerhose your TV and then bring it back to the shop to be replaced with a brand new one free of charge, no questions asked.

A free updated TV for life, because you know your rights, because you read it somewhere on the internet.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121581894#Comment_121581894

where on the link does it say this?

if you mean the text "If something you bought turns out to be faulty, you can decide to get a repair or a replacement"; that could be interpreted two ways, one being what i think is your interpretation, that you get to choose which option.

i suspect 'repair or replacement' is a single option though; i.e. instead of a refund, the other option is 'repair or replacement'.

e.g. if a tiny, easily replaced component of a €1000 electronic item failed (let's say the clip to hold speaker cable on an amplifier), it would be unreasonable to demand the entire unit be replaced.

Alerium

Can someone please advise how to unsubscribe from this thread? I’ve tried turning off notifications yet they still come through. My questions has been answered. Thanks

magicbastarder

have you tried this:

carfinder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121582624#Comment_121582624

Wow, what an authoritative sounding post! A link to the actual law is provided in that Citizens Advice webpage.

Im going with a €500 telly, with no obvious signs of damage, which stops working after 11 months, is going to be a replacement as the standard remedy - the "very vague" fact you are referring to is not for this one. You seem to interpret section 23 as giving the trader the right to choose under the Act - a much more balanced interpretation is that the consumer has the choice except if the seller can prove the remedy chosen by the consumer— (a) would be impossible for the trader to carry out, or (b) compared to the alternative remedy, would impose disproportionate costs on the trader, taking all the circumstances into account, including— (i) the value that the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity, (ii) the significance of the lack of conformity, and (iii) whether the alternative remedy could be provided without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

Lets test this against the circumstances outlined by the OP

Would replacing the telly be:

(a) impossible for the trader to carry out - No

(b)(i) the telly is approx €500 - its relatively low value is important context given the unknown cost of repair

(b) (ii) already two weeks without the telly - its reasonable to classify this as significant inconvenience

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121582778#Comment_121582778

It only seems authorative to you because it's correct.

Cabaal

3 weeks (15 working days) is a reasonable time period for the shop to advise, given this time is allowed for TV to be sent to repair location, diagnostics, allowing time for parts to be ordered (if needed) and sending the item back to the shop. Not only that but shop may only have a specific day in the week that they send stuff for repair with a carrier.

10 calendar days simply isn't long enough for them to even send the tv for repair diagnostic consider that timeframe is actually 8 days when you factor in thw weekend and that 8 days is only actually allowing 4 days or less for repair diagnostic, part ordering etc after you factor in transit time with the carrier to/from the repair location.

OP is being unreasonable here and just making life harder for themselves.

Doe Tiden

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121582778#Comment_121582778

The fact it worked for 11 months the retailer would be well entitled to test and repair this item, the majority of warranty issues arise within the first month,

The fact it has no visible damage is of no consequence,

the retailer may not get support from his/her suppliers for replacement, the suppliers may actually have a service centre that handle the repair.

OP is looking for it repaired in 6/7 working days over Christmas, I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation.

daarmcd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583554#Comment_121583554

It does not matter. Fault with 11 months means that it was faulty from new.

Consumer should be given a replacement TV.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583595#Comment_121583595

Do you have a little toy gavel you can use when you're finished typing?

Cabaal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583595#Comment_121583595

Without diagnostics you can't say that for certain, it's merely a belief.

For all we know the OP could be trying to pull a fast one and the tv could be water damaged or they could have dropped it causing a defect, shop is perfectly entitled to diagnose the fault first.

The Continental Op

I repaired our TV last year and it took more than 10 days for the spare parts to arrive. The OP is being unreasonable.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121582778#Comment_121582778

Who are you to declare that €500 of the traders money is low value?

And why do you gloss over the "unknown cost of repair" when it is the most important factor in the entire scenario?

If the repair is a simple low cost part, a switch for example costing <€20, then the seller can quite rightly claim that full replacement at >€500 is a disproportionate cost on the trader compared to the alternative remedy. They most certainly will not get laughed at in court for making the suggestion.

JVince

Oh boy, yet another foolish post with someone thinking they know everything when they actually know feck all.

OP - you will find that the SCC will correctly side with the retail store and you will lose.

Your arrogance is probably your worst enemy.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121582543#Comment_121582543

Another foolish and misinformed post.

Can you please send a link to this?

(I'll save you time - there is none)

bucketybuck

The buyer doesn't have to prove anything.

But that doesn't mean that the retailer isn't allowed to check the product and use any evidence of damage as a reason to reject the claim.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583831#Comment_121583831

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2022/act/37/enacted/en/print#sec22

Burden of proof under sales contract

22. (1) [...]Where it becomes apparent during the period of 12 months beginning with the relevant time that goods supplied under a sales contract are not in conformity with the sales contract, the lack of conformity shall be presumed to have existed at the relevant time unless—

(a) the contrary is proven, or

(b) such a presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the poster said "If the fault appears within the first 12 months, it is automatically assumed the fault was there when you bought it. This means you do not have to prove anything" - they were correct about that. The second part of their post ("Ask for the product to be replaced") does not follow from the first.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584399#Comment_121584399

and as stated -

(a) the contrary is proven, or

(b) such a presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity.

Hence a retailer is fully entitled to investigate and issue and if for arguments sake the fault is caused by an electrical surge, they are entitled to reject the complaint.

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583595#Comment_121583595

No, consumer should not be given a replacement Tv. There is due process to be done.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585964#Comment_121585964

The poster said "If the fault appears within the first 12 months, it is automatically assumed the fault was there when you bought it. This means you do not have to prove anything" - that is correct. You said it was a "foolish and misinformed post". You were wrong.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586000#Comment_121586000

So this part of the statute can be ignored?

(a) the contrary is proven, or

(b) such a presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586005#Comment_121586005

Who's ignoring it? What relevance does it have to the poster's statement? Once again:

"If the fault appears within the first 12 months, it is automatically assumed the fault was there when you bought it. This means you do not have to prove anything"

The buyer does not have to prove anything. Nothing in that statement says that the seller does not have the option to prove the contrary

HeidiHeidi

Edit - replied to the wrong poster