Consumer Law avoidance?

[gman]

I've come across this before with Argos when an Xbox controller was faulty just after 6 months and they said I would have to deal with Microsoft. Despite me pointing out Consumer Law they refused to deal with it unless I could prove the fault, which would mean brining my son's Xbox and TV into the store lol

But just recently I bought a Nintendo Switch from Smyths and the guy said just as I was about to leave that if there's a fault within 30 days I can bring it back to them, but after 30 days I would have to go to Nintendo. Again, is this not in contrary to Consumer Law? I have seen a few reviews online also commenting about this.

I didn't bother saying anything because he was young and probably a temp as accordingly to online reviews they are notorious for only employing short term workers, but am I missing some loophole they may have discovered?

 

[ecoleman]

Quite simply, your contract is with the retailer and not the manufacturer. It doesn't matter if its 30 days, 6 months or 4 years later.

It is true that after 6 months you have the burden of proving a fault existed at the time of purchase although most consumer electronics like xboxes etc usually carry at least a 12 month warranty. I guess the issue is that most of these box shifters don't have the means of testing something like an xbox controller unless they have an xbox/tv setup on display.

You are within your rights to get another shop to look at it (a gaming specialist shop for example) and have them write a report, although they may charge for this.

Certainly between 30 days and 6 months the burden of proof is with the retailer to prove/disprove a fault.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You might think that legislation to protect consumers would be simple but one look at the 2015 act will disabuse you of that idea: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

To answer your main question about the Nintendo: the shop assistant is entirely wrong - your contract is with the shop, not Nintendo.

 

[john.margetts]

Quite simply, your contract is with the retailer and not the manufacturer. It doesn't matter if its 30 days, 6 months or 4 years later.

It is true that after 6 months you have the burden of proving a fault existed at the time of purchase although most consumer electronics like xboxes etc usually carry at least a 12 month warranty. I guess the issue is that most of these box shifters don't have the means of testing something like an xbox controller unless they have an xbox/tv setup on display.

You are within your rights to get another shop to look at it (a gaming specialist shop for example) and have them write a report, although they may charge for this.

Certainly between 30 days and 6 months the burden of proof is with the retailer to prove/disprove a fault.

Although your contract is with the retailer, there is nothing to stop the retailer using the manufacturer (or any other business) as their agent for warranty issues.

 

[ecoleman]

Although your contract is with the retailer, there is nothing to stop the retailer using the manufacturer (or any other business) as their agent for warranty issues.

Yes, there is. The law

 

[Jelster]

Although your contract is with the retailer, there is nothing to stop the retailer using the manufacturer (or any other business) as their agent for warranty issues.

Yes, there is. The law

Err, no. If something fails and I don't have the ability to test or repair it, I can get it repaired at my cost. So, sending it back to the manufacturer is fine, as long as the turn around time isn't excessive. A lot of electronics are dealt with this way - including cameras.

 

[ecoleman]

Err, no. If something fails and I don't have the ability to test or repair it, I can get it repaired at my cost. So, sending it back to the manufacturer is fine, as long as the turn around time isn't excessive. A lot of electronics are dealt with this way - including cameras.

Are you talking as a retailer or a consumer?

A a consumer you can absolutely go directly to the manufacturer but the retailer can not force you to do so.

As a retailer, you can of course sent the item back to the manufacturer for a repair or replacement but you can not force the customer to deal directly with the manufacturer.

 

[woof woof]

I had this recently and "No, I paid you, my contract is with you" worked on the third repeating.

Good luck with it Graham.

 

[ecoleman]

Faulty product? How to get a refund, repair or replacement - Which?

If an item you've bought develops a fault, your refund rights depend on when you bought it and who is responsible.

www.which.co.uk

The retailer is responsible​

If what you’ve bought doesn’t satisfy any one of the three criteria outlined above, than the retailer that sold it to you is in breach of the Consumer Rights Act.

This means that your statutory consumer rights are against the retailer – the company that sold you the product – not the manufacturer.

You can still make a claim against the manufacturer if you have a guarantee or warranty, or if the product has caused additional damage or injury, but we strongly recommend that you deal with the retailer in the first instance.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Amazon used to try this with the always breaking Sennheiser Ear Buds within the guarantee period.
Went on chat or phone and stated they as the retailer are responsible.
Without fail replacement or refund was offered or probably repair if they were a more expensive item.

 

[Jelster]

Faulty product? How to get a refund, repair or replacement - Which?

If an item you've bought develops a fault, your refund rights depend on when you bought it and who is responsible.

www.which.co.uk

The retailer is responsible​

If what you’ve bought doesn’t satisfy any one of the three criteria outlined above, than the retailer that sold it to you is in breach of the Consumer Rights Act.

This means that your statutory consumer rights are against the retailer – the company that sold you the product – not the manufacturer.

You can still make a claim against the manufacturer if you have a guarantee or warranty, or if the product has caused additional damage or injury, but we strongly recommend that you deal with the retailer in the first instance.

Exactly, and if the retailer choses to send it back to the manufacturer for repair, they can, as long as there is a "reasonable" time to repair. It doesn't have to be fixed by somebody in a workshop in the back of Currys!!!

 

[ecoleman]

Exactly, and if the retailer choses to send it back to the manufacturer for repair, they can, as long as there is a "reasonable" time to repair. It doesn't have to be fixed by somebody in a workshop in the back of Currys!!!

Where did I say it did?

 

[gman]

It does seem a bit of a cheeky one of them to pull, but the other side of me thinks that if I take it to the store after 30 days are they not just going to send it off to Nintendo anyway? So it could be more efficient for me to just cut out the middleman, although who pays for the postage? Hmmm....

I think it's more the principle that bugs me. I would have preferred them to say that it can still be returned to them but you might be quicker dealing with Nintendo directly or something like that.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

So it could be more efficient for me to just cut out the middleman, although who pays for the postage? Hmmm....

There's a problem with that approach: bypassing the retailer, with whom you have a contract, and relying on Nintendo, with whom you have no contractual relationship, could leave you stuck with a broken device and everyone denying responsibility.

 

[Jelster]

Where did I say it did?

Although your contract is with the retailer, there is nothing to stop the retailer using the manufacturer (or any other business) as their agent for warranty issues.

Yes, there is. The law

Up there!!

As a retailer I can, if I wish/need to, return the item to the manufacturer for test & repair. We used to do it all the time when I was in the 2 way radio industry. We often/sometimes just replaced a unit with a new one, and then stuck the repaired unit into our hire stock, but only if it looked like either a major fault or the customer was a major account.

 

[ecoleman]

Up there!!

As a retailer I can, if I wish/need to, return the item to the manufacturer for test & repair. We used to do it all the time when I was in the 2 way radio industry. We often/sometimes just replaced a unit with a new one, and then stuck the repaired unit into our hire stock, but only if it looked like either a major fault or the customer was a major account.

Up there what?

As a retailer of course you can return goods to the manufacturer for test / repair or replacement. I've never said you can't. It's pretty obvious that a retailer may need to return the faulty goods to the manufacturer.

What I said you can not do, as a retailer, is insist the customer deals with the manufacturer directly "as an agent".

 

[Jelster]

This is hard work....

Although your contract is with the retailer, there is nothing to stop the retailer using the manufacturer (or any other business) as their agent for warranty issues.

and your reply was:

Yes, there is. The law

If you can't see that there is no point in having any further debate!!

 

[ecoleman]

This is hard work....



and your reply was:



If you can't see that there is no point in having any further debate!!

A retailer can not insist a customer contacts the manufacturer directly by simply stating that the manufacturer is "their agent"

It's as simple as that. The customer only ever has to deal with the retailer.

If the retailer needs to send goods back to the manufacturer, then that is between the retailer and the manufacturer.

It's really not hard work. It's plain English and the law.

 

[gman]

There's a problem with that approach: bypassing the retailer, with whom you have a contract, and relying on Nintendo, with whom you have no contractual relationship, could leave you stuck with a broken device and everyone denying responsibility.

You kinda missed out the later part of my post though that would address that:

I would have preferred them to say that it can still be returned to them but you might be quicker dealing with Nintendo directly or something like that.

 

[Jelster]

A retailer can not insist a customer contacts the manufacturer directly by simply stating that the manufacturer is "their agent"

It's as simple as that. The customer only ever has to deal with the retailer.

If the retailer needs to send goods back to the manufacturer, then that is between the retailer and the manufacturer.

It's really not hard work. It's plain English and the law.

Like I said, it's hard work.

I never stated that the customer had to send it back to the manufacturer, the retailer does it.

You totally misunderstood what I and @john.margetts were trying to point out. Most electronics retailers don't have the facility to repair stuff, they send it back to the manufacturer/distributor to get it sorted.

 

[ecoleman]

Like I said, it's hard work.

I never stated that the customer had to send it back to the manufacturer, the retailer does it.

You totally misunderstood what I and @john.margetts were trying to point out. Most electronics retailers don't have the facility to repair stuff, they send it back to the manufacturer/distributor to get it sorted.

F*** me, that’s what I’ve said front the start. We’re done here.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You kinda missed out the later part of my post though that would address that:

Indeed, because it would not address that.

It's a good rule of thumb that if you allow them to behave outside the letter of the law, then you're weakening your own position.

However, it's your money and advice given by we non-lawyers is worth exactly what you're paying for it.