icubes.co.uk - Shuttle Unfit for Purpose and Credit Card Refund

[cilurnum]

Hi,

 

I purchased a Shuttle PC and components to assemble from a company (icubes.co.uk) which was faulty (wildly unstable system), sent back with full instructions from me as to how to reproduce the problems. They said they'd fixed one problem (the system does now boot with the memory I purchased which is one thing) but the system is still unstable when they said they'd fixed it and managed to install Windows. I can't verify that they did this as I didn't purchase Windows and nothing is on the system now.

 

I find this difficult to believe and can reproduce the problems. I also have all the online correspondence with them as well. I have built many systems in the past and this is the worst dead-end I've experienced. I would send it back for it to be fixed again, but I've been dissatisfied with the correspondence with the company as I feel things just haven't added up.

 

I'm wondering what my first port of call might be. I've informed the company in question that they've had a chance to fix it and have failed and I want a refund, but don't really want to return the goods just yet in case they do some sleight-of-hand (shift around components) so I can't reproduce the problem any longer.

 

This was purchased on my Nationwide credit card, and I'm wondering if an application and a letter to them in the first instance might be in order just so they know. Strictly speaking, it's still their money. Can the credit card company refund and chase payment on my behalf?

 

I haven't had call to do anything like this before so how do you think I should proceed?

 

Thanks in advance.

[cilurnum]

Looks as though I'll have to invoke section 75 here with the credit card company.

[Conniff]

The CC can claw back the money from them, but it's not just a case of taking it. They will correspond with them first and if they insist that you haven't given them a fair chance of repairing it, you might find that the cc co refuse a refund on the first occassion or until the co has had a fair chance of repair.

[cilurnum]

Hmmmm, that's not my understanding of the way section 75 works, although it is what I might expect a credit card company to try and say. The law is very clear on this - they are jointly responsible and you have a legal right to redress. Many also try to bring risk management into the equation by saying your purchase was risky, but again, the law is clear. It's the price they pay for being able to charge interest and fees.

 

I can certainly demonstrate that I have taken all reasonable steps to get it repaired, including paying for shipping for repair as well as conversations with the supplier, but there is actually no requirement of a 'first point of call'. There is no requirement within the law that talks about a 'fair chance of repair' either, although it does help with a credit card company's willingness to help. It doesn't matter how much the credit card company 'converses', they have no grounds to refuse.

[Conniff]

Yes, they are jointly liable, but they cannot, and will not, do a refund just because you ask. If that was the case, we would all go out and buy things and ask the cc to refund our payment.

 

You should be asking icubes for a full refund including all packing and postage costs.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Conniff

[cilurnum]

Yes, they are jointly liable, but they cannot, and will not, do a refund just because you ask. If that was the case, we would all go out and buy things and ask the cc to refund our payment.

In reality there is nothing to stop that from happening as they are allowing people to spend their money to make money, although if a mass of refund demands occurred it would see an awful lot more people refused credit cards and more scrutiny of spending and scrutiny from credit companies themselves as to whether goods are genuinely faulty. It's certainly the first time I've considered having to do this myself.

 

That's the whole nature of the creditor/debtor agreement - you get the same rights from the credit card company as you do from the retailer. I think you're assuming that the credit card company has to chase up payment on your (their) behalf and you have to wait for the results. You don't. That's great if they want to do that, but it is up to them to do that and doesn't stop the credit card company from being liable.

 

You should be asking icecutes for a full refund including all packing and postage costs.

I already have done, and they have now become unresponsive - hence the next step.

[Conniff]

If you get a cc refund you will not get back the postage and packing that you paid to return it for repair, only the amount that was taken from the card.

 

You will be sent a chargeback form to fill in after you contact the cc and they 'will' investigate before the refund is done.

[cilurnum]

If you get a cc refund you will not get back the postage and packing that you paid to return it for repair, only the amount that was taken from the card.

Yes you can. You can claim it under consequential losses. However, postage to send the goods to you initially might not be payable. I'm not too sure why you're giving seemingly misleading information.

 

You will be sent a chargeback form to fill in after you contact the cc and they 'will' investigate before the refund is done.

I'm sure they will investigate in the absence of the supplier having done anything and I can provide them with enough evidence that they promised it had been fixed, they hadn't answered my questions about what had been done and I can demonstrate that it can't do what they say they had done.

[Conniff]

Sorry cilurnum, I haven't read up on cc refunds as I haven't done it for years, now I have.

 

You are right in consequential losses. I wasn't saying that you will have a problem with a refund, but it's not as simple as just ask and it will be returned.

 

They might even pursuade the seller to refund as they would rather have the debt on your statement than not.

[cilurnum]

Oh no, because the CC company can effectively take over the role of the supplier and as such you still have to be willing to establish whether something is faulty, or they have to prove a fault. That side of things doesn't change.