Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

PC World Issue

Options
  • 08-09-2017 7:35am
    #1
    BelovedAunt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 803 ✭✭✭


    Hi lads, I bought a tv in PC World Waterford on the way back to Dublin on Sunday. I did this as Waterford were the only store with this particular tv in stock, as it's a 2016 model and is now finished.

    When I got home on Sunday night and set it up I realised that the screen was damaged. I had asked in Waterford if I could return it to a Dublin store if I had a problem, since that's where I'm based. They said this was no problem.

    I went to PC World Swords on Tuesday morning to return the tv. The manager refused this and was incredibly belligerent throughout. He basically said that it's not his stock so it's not his problem and that if I "go home and take a hammer to a tv" then it's not his problem. Even though I explained to him that he was breaking the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980 as the item was not fit for purpose.

    This was incredibly frustrating and as a result I had to make a 4 hour round trip back to Waterford to return the tv for a refund. When I arrived in Waterford they told me that it's their policy that any item can be returned to any store within the PC World group. They were incredibly helpful and nice, apologising profusely for the manager's behaviour in Swords.

    I'm just wondering who I should report this manager to, as his behaviour was totally unacceptable and the worst I have seen in retail.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    Your consumer rights have been fulfilled by the other store, his attitude sounds horrible and if you want to complain to PC World head office do so but that's all.

    Hopefully that won't happen again but the ideal solution would have been to contact the store or the head office earlier and ask them to arrange courier collection.


  • Options
    #3
    BelovedAunt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 803 ✭✭✭BelovedAunt


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    Your consumer rights have been fulfilled by the other store, his attitude sounds horrible and if you want to complain to PC World head office do so but that's all.

    Hopefully that won't happen again but the ideal solution would have been to contact the store or the head office earlier and ask them to arrange courier collection.

    Thanks. I did that but they said that they don't do courier collection unfortunately.


  • Options
    #4
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    BelovedAunt wrote: »
    Even though I explained to him that he was breaking the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980 as the item was not fit for purpose.

    Maybe both he and you were billergerent?

    How was he breaking the sale of goods act? - you did not purchase it from that store. You have no contract with that store and therefore that store has no responsibility to you in any way shpe or form except ina goodwill gesture in behalf of the other branch

    Act specifically says it is the store you purchased it from that is responsible.

    Ideally you would have had the waterford store get a contact name for swords who would then act on behalf of the waterford store.

    Always beware of quoting laws if you don't understand them 100% as it will mean any possible chance of goodwill will have gone and the store where you don't have any statutory entiltlement will tell you to clear off.

    If they have a compnay policy that says you can return to a different store, then that is in excess of the SOG act, but has nothing to do with the SOG act.


  • Options
    #5
    mickdw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,300 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    If its pc world policy to operate a returns policy across all stores, then this manager was clearly in the wrong and was an asshole.
    He suggested that the customer was commiting fraud. That is not acceptable anywhere.


  • Options
    #6
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,724 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    then this manager was clearly in the wrong and was an asshole.

    thats a terrible attitude.

    the manager in the other store may have been wrong, he may not. I don't know the store policy. even if he was wrong, it does not make him an asshole.

    Furthermore he was not breaking the sale of goods and supply act. OP telling him that will have probably made him even more intractable.

    Ideally you could have called ahead and made sure everyone was on the same page.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    mickdw wrote: »
    If its pc world policy to operate a returns policy across all stores, then this manager was clearly in the wrong and was an asshole.
    He suggested that the customer was commiting fraud. That is not acceptable anywhere.

    That's assuming that the op is giving an unbiased account - and usually you find the real story is quite different.

    And I'm no fan of the overpriced store that pc world is.


  • Options
    #8
    Obvious Otter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭Obvious Otter


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    Maybe both he and you were billergerent?

    How was he breaking the sale of goods act? - you did not purchase it from that store. You have no contract with that store and therefore that store has no responsibility to you in any way shpe or form except ina goodwill gesture in behalf of the other branch

    Act specifically says it is the store you purchased it from that is responsible.

    Ideally you would have had the waterford store get a contact name for swords who would then act on behalf of the waterford store.

    Always beware of quoting laws if you don't understand them 100% as it will mean any possible chance of goodwill will have gone and the store where you don't have any statutory entiltlement will tell you to clear off.

    If they have a compnay policy that says you can return to a different store, then that is in excess of the SOG act, but has nothing to do with the SOG act.

    This is completely false information. A PC World store isn't a legal entity on its own they operate as a group. His contract was with the company which includes all PC World stores in the Republic of Ireland. He's entitled to a refund from any store in Ireland.

    The manager, like you, was talking complete nonsense.

    You should probably brush up on your legal skills before being so condescending about a subject which you clearly don't fully grasp.


  • Options
    #9
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,059 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Obvious Otter wrote: »
    This is completely false information. A PC World store isn't a legal entity on its own they operate as a group. His contract was with the company which includes all PC World stores in the Republic of Ireland. He's entitled to a refund from any store in Ireland.

    The manager, like you, was talking complete nonsense.

    You should probably brush up on your legal skills before being so condescending about a subject which you clearly don't fully grasp.

    Provide citations for this claim, please.


  • Options
    #10
    Obvious Otter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭Obvious Otter


    L1011 wrote: »
    Provide citations for this claim, please.

    The contract is with the limited company that PC World operates under not the individual store.


  • Options
    #11
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,059 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Obvious Otter wrote: »
    The contract is with the limited company that PC World operates under not the individual store.

    That isn't a citation.

    Provide actual proof, and don't post so aggressively in the future.

    Effectively, the courts service will not agree with you in the slightest if you need to resort to them in a situation like this - you wouldn't even be entertained filing the case in Dublin despite PCWorld's Irish HQ being there. You will be required to deal with the courts in the area of the store.

    Another branch of a business may not be able to verify that proof of purchase is genuine, may not hold the same stock for replacement or have access to the same repair channels. Another branch of a retail chain may not even be the same limited company.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    Obvious Otter wrote: »
    This is completely false information. A PC World store isn't a legal entity on its own they operate as a group. His contract was with the company which includes all PC World stores in the Republic of Ireland. He's entitled to a refund from any store in Ireland.

    The manager, like you, was talking complete nonsense.

    You should probably brush up on your legal skills before being so condescending about a subject which you clearly don't fully grasp.
    There's one person that needs to brush up and I assure you it is not me. Legislation is very clear for the consumer - you return to the store you purchased it from.

    Black and white.


  • Options
    #13
    Obvious Otter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭Obvious Otter


    L1011 wrote: »
    That isn't a citation.

    Provide actual proof, and don't post so aggressively in the future.

    Effectively, the courts service will not agree with you in the slightest if you need to resort to them in a situation like this - you wouldn't even be entertained filing the case in Dublin despite PCWorld's Irish HQ being there. You will be required to deal with the courts in the area of the store.

    Another branch of a business may not be able to verify that proof of purchase is genuine, may not hold the same stock for replacement or have access to the same repair channels. Another branch of a retail chain may not even be the same limited company.

    PC World operates under the same limited company name in Ireland.

    You're also incorrect and confusing internal logistics and procedure with contract and consumer law. The internal structure and management of stock have absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

    Just becuase a specific store doesn't have a particular item in stock doesn't mean that they can effectively wash their hands with the situation as you're suggesting.

    The contract is between the consumer and x limited. It's really a very simple situation. I'm surprised at the confusion and poor advice been given on here.


  • Options
    #14
    Obvious Otter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭Obvious Otter


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    There's one person that needs to brush up and I assure you it is not me. Legislation is very clear for the consumer - you return to the store you purchased it from.

    Black and white.

    No you return the goods to the supplier. The supplier would be x limited.

    If what you're saying is true then if PC World Waterford closed then this consumer would have no rights. You're wrong.


  • Options
    #15
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,059 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    You still aren't providing a shred of evidence here. Effectively stating "I'm right" is not evidence


  • Options
    #16
    Obvious Otter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭Obvious Otter


    L1011 wrote: »
    You still aren't providing a shred of evidence here. Effectively stating "I'm right" is not evidence

    I never suggested that it was evidence. The 'supplier' in this case is a limited company. That company operates out of multiple locations in Ireland. The legal entity is the limited company and not an individual store.

    I was merely correcting a very condescending and incorrect post on this topic yet you seem to have taken umbridge with my post simply on the basis that it doesn't match your views on consumer law.

    If what you're suggesting is correct then the consumer would have no remit if PC World Waterford closed its doors. That's just simply not true and is extremely misleading. The contact is between the consumer and x limited.

    PC World Waterford isn't a legal entity and can't be sued. If you want to believe that they can then good for you.


  • Options
    #17
    mistress_gi
    Registered Users Posts: 963 ✭✭✭mistress_gi


    Post what you wrote here on their Facebook page. They should resolve it sharpish. That is what I had to do


  • Options
    #18
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,059 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Obvious Otter wrote: »
    I never suggested that it was evidence. The 'supplier' in this case is a limited company. That company operates out of multiple locations in Ireland. The legal entity is the limited company and not an individual store.

    I was merely correcting a very condescending and incorrect post on this topic yet you seem to have taken umbridge with my post simply on the basis that it doesn't match your views on consumer law.

    If what you're suggesting is correct then the consumer would have no remit if PC World Waterford closed its doors. That's just simply not true and is extremely misleading. The contact is between the consumer and x limited.

    PC World Waterford isn't a legal entity and can't be sued. If you want to believe that they can then good for you.

    You are repeatedly stating an opinion. Your opinion is not borne out in how the courts service requires you to operate should the retailer refuse to entertain you.

    Either provide evidence for your opinion or cease stating it as fact. Your initial post fell below any standards expected on here in its aggression.


  • Options
    #19
    Obvious Otter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭Obvious Otter


    L1011 wrote: »
    You are repeatedly stating an opinion. Your opinion is not borne out in how the courts service requires you to operate should the retailer refuse to entertain you.

    Either provide evidence for your opinion or cease stating it as fact. Your initial post fell below any standards expected on here in its aggression.

    You have provided no evidence to the contrary bar your own opinion that PC World Waterford is a legal entity on its own; it's not. The reply from the poster that I quoted was extremely condescending and contained incorrect information.

    The law expects you to return the goods to the supplier. PC World Waterford isn't a supplier; it's a retail unit for a limited company that operates in Ireland. You are entitled to return the item to any store within that limited company within the RoI.

    Now it would be reasonable to expect that returning the item to a different store would cause an extended lead time on a solution. If I purchased a tv in PC World Waterford today and they closed doors tomorrow then according to you and others I would have no legal rights under consumer law if the tv turned out to be faulty; that's not true. The supplier is a limited company that operates out of multiple locations in the RoI.

    You're entitled to return the item to any store; suggesting otherwise is misleading. That's not an opinion. It's a very simple concept that the supplier in this case is a limited company.

    I notice you have only asked me for citations too. One rule for one...


  • Options
    #20
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    mistress_gi wrote: »
    Post what you wrote here on their Facebook page. They should resolve it sharpish. That is what I had to do

    It has been resolved.

    The threat of social media has become a bit of a joke in retail its along the lines of "I'll tell your mammy on you" and the first thing every customer resorts to now, no matter if they are right or wrong.


  • Options
    #21
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,059 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Obvious Otter wrote: »
    You have provided no evidence to the contrary bar your own opinion that PC World Waterford is a legal entity on its own; it's not. The reply from the poster that I quoted was extremely condescending and contained incorrect information.

    The law expects you to return the goods to the supplier. PC World Waterford isn't a supplier; it's a retail unit for a limited company that operates in Ireland. You are entitled to return the item to any store within that limited company within the RoI.

    Now it would be reasonable to expect that returning the item to a different store would cause an extended lead time on a solution. If I purchased a tv in PC World Waterford today and they closed doors tomorrow then according to you and others I would have no legal rights under consumer law if the tv turned out to be faulty; that's not true. The supplier is a limited company that operates out of multiple locations in the RoI.

    You're entitled to return the item to any store; suggesting otherwise is misleading. That's not an opinion. It's a very simple concept that the supplier in this case is a limited company.

    I notice you have only asked me for citations too. One rule for one...

    You are the one making the claim contrary to the norm, you are the one who needs to back it up. And you haven't.

    A store closing changes the situation entirely. PC World Waterford has not closed.

    Please don't bother posting without evidence. Specifically that any part of the company that supplied an item is accepted as the supplier in consumer law. You have already been told the courts service do not accept this


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    tedpan
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭tedpan


    Did the manager in swords name begin with a J?


  • Options
    #23
    BelovedAunt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 803 ✭✭✭BelovedAunt


    tedpan wrote: »
    Did the manager in swords name begin with a J?

    He didn't have his badge on unfortunately.


  • Options
    #24
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    Obvious Otter wrote: »
    You have provided no evidence to the contrary bar your own opinion that PC World Waterford is a legal entity on its own; it's not. The reply from the poster that I quoted was extremely condescending and contained incorrect information.

    The law expects you to return the goods to the supplier. PC World Waterford isn't a supplier; it's a retail unit for a limited company that operates in Ireland. You are entitled to return the item to any store within that limited company within the RoI.

    .

    The SOG act specifically says you are contracted to the "seller". The seller in this case is PC World Waterford which is a registered business name of DSG Retail Ireland Ltd which in turn is owned by Dixons Carphone PLC.

    The OP handed money over in waterford and therefore that is where the contract of sale was performed.

    The seller was not Currys PCWorld Swords, BUT a company may offer any additional policy they like once they meet the minimum standards set out by the SOG act.

    If in a hypothetical situation this was to go to the SCC, the action would be against DSG Retail t/a PC World Waterford and it would be heard on a Waterford sitting as that is where the contract was formed.

    Unfortunately there are far too many people on FB and online forums who state an (incorrect) opinion as "fact" when they have not the foggiest of what they are taking about.

    This leads to some consumers then restating this opinion quite wrongly and then finding that a store will not go beyond what they are leaglly obliged to do.
    Whereas if approached in a proper and mannerly manner without the "consumer rights" BS threats, you will find the vast majority of stores will go beyond what the SOG act provides.



    But there is no right in any way shape or form to insist a different branch of a retailer to correct an issue as it is always the place the contract was formed that is the legal location for any issue - same applies for most legal contracts.


  • Options
    #25
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,961 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    BelovedAunt wrote:
    I'm just wondering who I should report this manager to, as his behaviour was totally unacceptable and the worst I have seen in retail.

    They have refunded the money so there is no government /consumer office to report the manager to. PC World head office is the only place left for you to report him to.


  • Options
    #26
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,961 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    CeilingFly wrote:
    That's assuming that the op is giving an unbiased account - and usually you find the real story is quite different.


    I tend to try read between the lines of what people are saying but at the end of the day we have to assume that op is being 100 percent truthful.


  • Options
    #27
    tedpan
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭tedpan


    BelovedAunt wrote:
    He didn't have his badge on unfortunately.


    I've dealt with a tough manager in there, it was like talking to a wall.

    I understand pc world sword's concern with the damage as they would not have been able to confirm there was an issue prior to leaving the store. He could however have picked up the phone and called the other location. He probably didn't accept the return as it was store damaged and probably upsets the store that takes it back's sales figures.

    Still useless


  • Options
    #28
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,961 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Obvious Otter wrote:
    No you return the goods to the supplier. The supplier would be x limited.


    You return it to the place of purchase. A very easy way to know this is if op took a small claims court case it would have to be in a Waterford court. He can apply in Dublin but they will transfer it Waterford district.

    Think if this was a franchise. The law has to be place of purchase


  • Options
    #29
    BelovedAunt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 803 ✭✭✭BelovedAunt


    CeilingFly wrote: »

    Whereas if approached in a proper and mannerly manner without the "consumer rights" BS threats, you will find the vast majority of stores will go beyond what the SOG act provides.

    I never mentioned consumer rights to the manager. When I told a friend about it afterwards, they said that he had broken consumer rights.


  • Options
    #30
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    BelovedAunt wrote: »
    I never mentioned consumer rights to the manager.
    BelovedAunt wrote: »
    Even though I explained to him that he was breaking the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980 as the item was not fit for purpose.
    .

    Same thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,439 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    The SOG act specifically says you are contracted to the "seller". The seller in this case is PC World Waterford which is a registered business name of DSG Retail Ireland Ltd which in turn is owned by Dixons Carphone PLC.

    The OP handed money over in waterford and therefore that is where the contract of sale was performed.

    The seller was not Currys PCWorld Swords, BUT a company may offer any additional policy they like once they meet the minimum standards set out by the SOG act.

    Just out of technical interest where is this definition of seller defined? I skimmed through the sale of goods acts back to 1893 and as far as I could see "seller" is never specifically defined. For instance it could be taken to mean the employee in the store, but clearly this isn't the case as they are acting as a representative of the store or limited company. What's to stop you saying the individual store isn't asking as a representative of the limited company?

    Maybe it's written somewhere but I couldn't find it.


Advertisement