Faulty Goods Refund

[twinny-15]

My daughter bought a vacuum cleaner after a few months it became faulty and was replaced now after 2 months the replacement is also faulty!! When the first one was replaced she was told that she should have gone through the manufacterer but they would sort it this time .She now wants a refund from the shop she bought it.. is she entitled to one?? Thanks Twinny

[woofgang]

yes she is. The purchase contract is with the shop that she purchased from
http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained

sections 3 and 4 cover your question.
It is also against the law for the retailer to mislead consumers about their rights- for instance by saying that they need to go to the manufacturer "but I will sort it out for you just this once"

[Buenchico]

I'm only partly in agreement with Woofgang.

There is no doubt that your daughter's contract was with the retailer and that it's their responsibility to provide a remedy. However the right to a refund (in respect of defective goods) only exists until the customer has legally 'accepted' the goods. The length of the 'pre-acceptance' period isn't defined in law but it basically provides a window for the customer to get the goods home and to check that they're working. So it's likely that a court would rule that your daughter had 'accepted' the vacuum cleaner within a week or so (i.e. once she had initially satisfied herself that it was working).

Once the 'pre-acceptance' period is over, the retailer remains responsible for remedying problems that occur due to an 'inherent fault' (i.e. something which was actually wrong at the time of purchase - such as the use of poor quality components or poor workmanship) for up to 6 years. However the customer has NO right to a refund; the retailer must only REPAIR or REPLACE the item.

Chris

[woofgang]

its not clear is it Chris? I would argue for a longer period for "acceptance" in this case but i could see where the retailer might dig his/her heels in. There might also be an argument that a repair would cause an unreasonable inconvenience.