Computer Act!ve - UK (2022-01-19)

Consumeractive

Westandupforyourlegalrights

LEAD

CASE

14

CASE UPDATE

CASECLOSED CASEONGOING

LG refundsreader after Amazon ignores him

Problemswithinherently

faultygoodsarealwaysthe

retailer’s responsibility, butthat

doesn’tmeanyou shouldn’t

alsocontactthe manufacturer.Sometimes

they’llstepinwhenaretailerfailstohelp

That’s what’s happenedinColinFisher’s

case(seeIssue 62 0),whenAmazontold

him tocontactLGdirectlyaboutafaulty

monitor.Amazonwaswrongtodothis -it

shouldhaveofferedarefund,repair or

replacementratherthanpassColinontoLG.

However, LGconfirmedthatthemonitor

wasinherentlyfaulty,andofferedtorefund

Colinthemoneyhe’dpaidAmazonfor it,

eventhoughitwasunder no

legalobligationtodoso.

Wedidn’twanttolet

Amazonoff thehook,

however. WeadvisedColin

totell thecompanythatthe

onerepair it wasallowedhad

failed,andthatnowithadto

givehimarefund.LG’s admissionthat

themonitorwasfaultysupportedhis claim.

Thisapparently didn’t mattertoAmazon,

becauseitignoredColin’semails.

Wecouldhavegot

involvedagain toshake

arefundoutofAmazon,

butinthisinstanceColin

understandablychoseto

acceptLG’s offerofa

refund.However,Amazon’s

poor customerserviceleaves

asourtaste.

Is Amazon

exempt from

UK’s CCRs?

Q

IboughtaTowerHousewaresair

fryerfromAmazoninMarch.

Nowthecontrolknobisbroken,

butTowerhasn’trepliedtomyrequests

forhelp.Amazonsaysit’stoolatetoask

forareplacement.Doesthismean

AmazonisexemptfromourConsumer

ContractRegulations(CCRs)?

ColinFaulkner

A

Amazon’sEuropeanHQisin

Luxembourg,butthatdoes n’t

meanit’sexemptfromUK

consumerlaws.However,Colin’scase

doesn ’tfallun dertheCCRs,whichcover

goodsbo ughtinsituationswherethey

can’tbee xaminedfir st,suchasf romthe

internetoracatalogue.

Colin’sfryerappearstobein herently

faulty,soit’scoveredbytheConsumer

RightsAct.Amazonsoldthefryer,soit’s

responsible forsolvingtheproblem.As

Colinhashadthecookerformorethan

sixmonths,Amazoncanaskhimto

provethefaultwasn’tcaused byfair

wearan dtearora ccidental damage. It’sa

pityTowerdidn’trespondtoColin,

becauseitmay beeasierforhi mtom ake

aclaimifTowerofferedamanufacture r’s

warran ty.

Q

InOctober

2019 ,I

boughta

£9 00 Pioneer

LX-5 00 4KBlu-ray

playerfromHiFix

(www.hifix.co.uk).

Thisdevelopeda

faultinMarch2 02 1, soHiFixreturned

ittoaPioneer-approvedrepaircentre

underthemanufacturer’stwo-year

warranty.However,becausetherepair

centrecouldn’tfindthepartstofixit,

HiFixagreedtogivememymoney

back,butsaysithastobereimbursed

byPioneerbeforeissuingtherefund.

Isthisright?

RonnieHare

A

Sincecontactingus,Ronnie has

receivedarefundfromHiFix,

buttheretaile rwaswithinits

rights towaitforPioneertoprovide the

funds.ThisisbecauseRonnieso ughthelp

usingPioneer’swarranty, notthe

ConsumerRigh tsAct(CRA).

Howeve r, despitehavingtow aitforthe

refund,Ronniepr obablydidtheright

Is theretailer

allowedtowait

before refunding?

thingbyusingthewarranty.Ifh e’d

pursue darefundundertheCRA,

HiFixwouldhave beenallowedtoask

himtoprove thatthefaultwasinherent

rather thantheresultoff airwearand

tearoraccidentaldamage. Thisis

becausemorethansi xmonthshad

passed sincepu rchase.

EvenifRonni ehadbeenabletoprove

thefaultwasinheren t,HiFixwouldhave

beenallowedtosendthedeviceback

forrepair,andwouldalmos tcertainly

have encounteredthesameproblemof

findi ngparts.It’strue thatthelaw says

customersshouldn’thavetow aitan

unreason ablylongtimeforrepairs,

butajudgemayrulethatretailers can’t

beblamedforglobalsupply-chain

problems ,andtheref oreallowfor

longerwaittimes.

19 Januar y–1February 2022 •Issue

si

i

a

b

u

a

re

p

ionthat asourttas