-
I recently bought an electronic item , on January 17th, which developed a fault. [The fault was probably there from the beginning, but that's by the by]
I am aware of the Consumer Rights Act (which replaced the Sale of Goods Act in October 2015).
This allows the legal right to a refund if faulty item and returned within 30 days of receiving it.
If item fails within 6 months, the vendor must offer a replacement, repair or refund.
The clock starts on the day after taking delivery. I was fortunate in raising the issue just before the 6 months timeout.
I believe that after 6 months, the onus is on the customer to prove item was faulty at time of purchase [rather than it be assumed], and in the case of refund an allowance can be deducted for usage.
In my case I was offered a refund or, as the item is currently out of stock, a new replacement when restocked in September.
As the item I have is usable, albeit faulty, I accepted the offer of a replacement in September. [I think the item is actually discontinued, and I may get lucky by getting an upgrade to latest model].
So I'm happy with outcome.
My question is.
On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?
-
-
If it were replaced under a manufacturer's guarantee then it certainly would NOT start from zero. I'd imagine the same principle would apply under consumer law, but the experts on here may disagree.
-
-
I also don't know...
Logically (and this is a dangerous approach to interpreting legislation), the purpose would seem to be either to guarantee a minimum period of use before it breaks, or to introduce a presumption that something that breaks within 6 months of sale was defective when it was bought.
If the OP took the refund, and bought a new one, there would presumably be no dispute that the clocks would have been reset? This is not what happened, but the position would be the opposite of the manufacturer's guarantee situation (ignoring that a guarantee is granted by the manufacturer, and does not affect the consumer's statutory rights). -
-
OP, with respect I'm not sure why the question arises because it considers a hypothetical situation....'On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?'
The first place I would look is your contract, not Consumer Rights legislation. And if the answer isn't apparent then simply write to the company and ask the question. When you've exhausted all internal options and if you are dissatisfied with the outcome then would be time to look elsewhere to see whether the result you need may be achieved by other means.
So far you're quids in i.e. a new iron, possibly upgraded, and no request to return the one with the fault which - you never know- might be of a temporary nature. You must be happy with the VFM aspect of their goods otherwise it would be common-sense to take the refund. -
-
@HCA
how do you know it was sn Iron
-
-
OP, with respect I'm not sure why the question arises because it considers a hypothetical situation....'On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?'
With equal respect HCA, and an element of confusion, there is nothing hypothetical about my question, or my situation.
I have been offered a replacement in September, and I have accepted the offer at face value.
Had my query be posited around the possibility that the replacement might mot arrive...
Or
If I had phrased the question "If the replacement product were to fail, would I be covered by Consumer Rights legislation..." etc
Then, I grant you , you could consider it a hypothetical situation.
But I didn't. My question is a general "Does the clock reset on receipt of a new replacement under Consumer Rights legislation?". No "if" necessary or included.
BUT...
I am intrigued. So humour me.
Why would it have been inappropriate to ask a hypothetical question anyway?The first place I would look is your contract, not Consumer Rights legislation.
Nope. My question was specifically referring to Consumer Rights legislation. Warrantee and good will are next steps, if and only if necessary.And if the answer isn't apparent then simply write to the company and ask the question. When you've exhausted all internal options and if you are dissatisfied with the outcome then would be time to look elsewhere to see whether the result you need may be achieved by other means.
I have no intention, nor need, to write to the company and ask the question. Unless, and until, the replacement item were to fail.So far you're quids in i.e. a new iron, possibly upgraded, and no request to return the one with the fault which - you never know- might be of a temporary nature.
I fully expect that when the item is back in stock, I will be asked to return the faulty item, before replacement is sent out. Clearly it would be a bonus, as the existing item is usable, and useful. But I consider it unlikely, so it is not a factor to be considered.
And it wasn't an iron!You must be happy with the VFM aspect of their goods otherwise it would be common-sense to take the refund.
I bought the item in a sale. If I took the refund, I wouldn't be able to replace item with equivalent for the price of refund.
-
-
OP, with respect I'm not sure why the question arises because it considers a hypothetical situation....'On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?'
With equal respect HCA, and an element of confusion, there is nothing hypothetical about my question, or my situation.
Utter twaddle!
-
-
-
Utter twaddle!
Why so rude?
Calling your response “twaddle” isn’t rude. If you think it is, go and ask your question on Mumsnet instead. -
-
OK humor me Andy, why is his question hypothetical? am I missing something??OP, with respect I'm not sure why the question arises because it considers a hypothetical situation....'On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?'
With equal respect HCA, and an element of confusion, there is nothing hypothetical about my question, or my situation.
Utter twaddle! -
-
It is not a live case. He is not asking how to proceed. He has already proceeded before seeking advice (which is not in itself a bad thing). He is asking what his rights are as regards the replacement. In effect his question is exactly what he claims it isn't - if the replacement fails during the first 6 months, does the 6 month rule apply.
His argument, which is utter twaddle, is that the general question which he asked in a live cases forum, which only has any application if the replacement fails within the first 6 months, is not hypothetical, because despite the context of this case, he couched it in terms of general application.
In live case forums, we apply the law to the facts. The facts in this non-case are entirely hypothetical.
I'm not sure whether you are genuinely this obtuse, or whether you are seeking to make a point. If the latter, I'm not sure it was the point you intended to make. -
-
It depends what "the protection clock" means. If it's the 6 months thing, then no. If it's the 30 days thing then yes, because the manufacturer can't get our of their duty to supply a non-defective item by supplying a defective replacement item after 30+ days.
-
-
... If item fails within 6 months, the vendor must offer a replacement, repair or refund...
... My question is.
On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?
You are not quite right about the word "must" regarding an item failing within the first 6 months. Essentially the statutory presumption is that an item which "does not conform to contract" within 6 months of delivery did not do so at purchase, unless the seller can establish otherwise. (The so-called 'reverse burden of proof'). See s 19(14) and (15) of the .
So if a purchased item fails or otherwise becomes faulty within 6 months you are entitled to a free repair or replacement unless the seller can show it conformed to contrcat when you bought it.
Regarding your question, the answer is: No - neither the 30 day short-term right to reject window nor the 6 month 'reverse burden of proof' period apply to a replacement.
But note that the seller is only allowed one attempt at repair or replacement. If that attempt fails you can claim a refund. A full refund if still within 6 months of purchase. If after 6 months the seller can reduce your refund to reflect the use you've had of the item. See s 24 of the above legislation. -
-
If it were replaced under a manufacturer's guarantee then it certainly would NOT start from zero. I'd imagine the same principle would apply under consumer law, but the experts on here may disagree.
That isn't necessarily always the case. It depends entirely on the T&Cs of the guarantee or warranty. -
-
@andy foster
thanks for your clarification of which, the first 3 paragraphs were informative the 4th wasnt.
-