Mis-sold Mobile, what to do?

[Jim.R]

Hi,
I've noticed from previous threads that we have some people on here pretty savvy with consumer rights, so I'm hoping someone may be able to offer some advice...

My father in law bought a new mobile just before xmas. His only requirement for it (other than making phone calls and sending text messages) was that it should work with his TomTom via bluetooth to allow him to get traffic updates while out on the road.
He chose a phone he liked and the sales assistant assured him that it would meet all his requirements. He asked about the compatability with TomTom several times and he was assured it would work.

Since the phone was a present from the mother in law, it sat unopened until xmas day and he didn't get a chance to test it until new year, and low and behold, it doesn't talk to his sat nav. He then rang TomTom for some advice and they confirmed that this phone wasn't compatible.

So he went back to the shop, explained his problem and was basically told "tough", nothing they could do as it isn't actually broken or faulty. Surely this isn't the case? I can't find a specific part of the sale of goods act that covers this though.

It's a PAYG phone rather than a contract upgrade.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated,
Jim.

 

[arclight]

Sale of Goods Act includes:-

Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

 

[mereology]

The shop doesn't actually have to give a refund or exchange unless it is broken or faulty by law - its just seen as good practice to do so.

However,

Your father in-law asked for advice and made his purchase based on assurances from an employee of the shop and from what you have said i think this situation could be covered by the:-

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Material information

Material information is information that the average consumer needs to have in order to make an informed decision about a product. It includes information which a trader is required by law to provide.

The act also covers the misleading of a consumer and mis-selling of a product.

The regulations dont actually provide any redress for these offenses but The fact that a trader is in breach of the regulations may be used when negotiating, pointing out that being in breach of this act this could lead to enforcement action being taken by the trading standards department of the local authority, might be enough to make them more co-operative!

Hope this helps and you managed to get it sorted

 

[Jim.R]

Thanks guys. Hopefully pointing some of this out to the retailer will at least allow him to swap it for a phone that does what he wants.

 

[Scarecrow]

The relevant part of the Sale of Goods Act that applies is that the goods are not fit for purpose. Being fit for purpose does not just mean that they must work. As your father sought advice for a specific requirement, and was reliant on the sales person to sell him a product that met that requirement, the fact that it doesn't entitles him to return the goods as not fit for purpose.

If he has any further problems with the shop, I suggest he goes to Citizens Advice to arm himself with the correct wording that he would need to use to resolve the matter.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

The relevant part of the Sale of Goods Act that applies is that the goods are not fit for purpose. Being fit for purpose does not just mean that they must work. As your father sought advice for a specific requirement, and was reliant on the sales person to sell him a product that met that requirement, the fact that it doesn't entitles him to return the goods as not fit for purpose.

If he has any further problems with the shop, I suggest he goes to Citizens Advice to arm himself with the correct wording that he would need to use to resolve the matter.

Unless he has it in writing from the shop that the phone was compatible with his TomTom then he's fighting a losing battle as it's his word against the shop.