Problem with DELL laptop - rejection under SOGA?

[mcuth]

Hi all

 

A little wordy post, but probably needed to give you the full background.

I'd like some advice on rejection under SOGA please....it's an area I think I'm ok with to start off with, but have run into stubbornness from DELL & Tesco credit card and am a little stuck with where to go next.

 

Here's the story:

On 29th December last year, my wife ordered a DELL Inspiron laptop online directly from DELL with her Tesco credit card (toptal cost £349) and it was delivered on 30th December. Until around April time, it was fine and had no problems - however it started to develop an intermittent display issue (horizontal lines across the screen) which appeared to be connected to the angle that the screen was at (i.e. it went away when the screen angle was changed). It didn't happen very often, but in May she logged a call with DELL technical support to try and get it resolved. Typically the problem did not occur when the rep was connected to her machine and he simply changed the display drivers (being in the IT biz myself, I reckoned it was hardware-related, but of course in this instance my opinion counts for nought).

 

DELL closed the call with an email to say that if it re-occurred, to send screenshots to that email and they'd reinvestigate. Of course, the problem wasn't resolved and on 5th June we sent screenshots (which don't show the issue, because the video card obviously thinks it's sending the "right" info to the display), along with camera-shots of the screen and a video of the problem occurring (both of which show the issue quite clearly).

 

On 6th June, DELL support called and advised that the laptop would need repair - agreeing with me that there was a problem with the hardware. 3 options were available:

i) Have the laptop collected and returned to DELL for repair - would be FoC as under warranty but would take 10-12 business days;

ii) Pay £29.00 and have an engineer visit at a location and time of our convenience; or

iii) Pay £60.00 and have 12 months cover for an on-site engineer for this problem and any others.

 

I told him that option ii was best (noting that we would not expect any further major problems with the laptop and if any did occur, the laptop would be rejected under SOGA). We both have jobs that have us in meetings and/or out of office at various points in the day, so getting a convenient time is quite hard work. I stated that the following Monday (13th June) would be a convenient time as we were both on leave - the rep advised that he couldn't book the appointment for the following week, but we simply had to reply to their email with the requested date and location before 1500hrs Friday 10th June and the appointment would be booked without a problem. We paid for the engineer visit was paid for and we sent an email on 8th June requesting Monday 13th June for the visit.

 

On Friday 10th June after 1800hrs, we got a phone call from DELL stating that an engineer wouldn't be available for Monday 13th June after all and they could do Tuesday 14th June instead. Obviously we'd planned out the rest of the week based on DELL coming on the Monday, so that week was unachievable. As far as we're concerned, at this point DELL breached a verbal contract for an engineer visit on Monday 13th June and we had no faith that they'll be able to arrange a repair without some significant inconvenience to us - therefore I verbally rejected the laptop under SOGA as being of unsatisfactory quality (developing a major display fault within 6 months). DELL refunded the £29.00 paid for the engineer visit and gave me an email address to write and reject it in writing.

 

On Sunday 12th June, I wrote an email for my wife to send to DELL setting out the above and rejecting the laptop - to which Robin D'Cruz at DELL replied with:

Firstly we would like to that you for the email.

 

Upon reviewing the case we have noticed that the tech support representative that tried to get in touch with to inform you about the service, however when he did get to speak with you it was too late to book the service for Monday. Kindly provide us with a day when the service can happen(working Hrs and weekday) and we will do the need full.

 

We replied with:

You have quite plainly either not understood my email, or chosen to completely ignore it.

The laptop is rejected under the Sale of Goods Act (1979) as amended - I will repeat:

 

The laptop will be boxed up and no longer used awaiting return to DELL - please send the following:

1. A pre-paid label for return postage of the laptop (alternatively, details of how to arrange a collection at a date and location convenient to myself);

2. confirmation that you will be immediately issuing the refund of £349.00 to the credit card used for purchase;

 

The deadline for response remains the same (i.e. by Sunday 19th June 2011) - however if you do not agree to this rejection, please advise asap in order that I can take this up with my credit card company (they are jointly liable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974). If this is the case, you should also furnish me with a UK address that County Court papers can be served upon should this be required.

 

On 14th June, Robin D'Cruz (apparently in "Customer Relations") replied with:

We have gone through the complete case history and we are extremely sorry but a refund for the system is not possible .The refund option is available only within the first seven days from the system delivery date, right now we can arrange a service call to resolve the issue.

Please find the attached file .

 

The attached file is a PDF of a letter addressed to my wife at my work's address (which is what we used for delivery....) stating the following:

I am writing in response to our conversation regarding your Dell system with service tag [readcted].

Firstly, we would like to thank you for taking the time to write to us and making us aware of your experience with Dell. We also apologize for any inconveniences you have encountered in the process.

On evaluation of the matter with utmost consideration, Dell concludes as follows.

As per the terms and conditions of sale and service, we are unable to offer a refund or a replacement system right now as per your original request.

This is according to Dell Terms and Conditions of Sales and Services.

http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/topics/topic.aspx/emea/topics/footer/terms?c=uk&l=en&s=gen&~lt=popup

Acceptance of Products on Delivery, "Cooling Off" & rights of return and cancellation

7.3 Consumers may cancel their Orders for any reason until, but no later than:

7.3.1 the end of the 7th "working day" (days other than weekend days & public holidays) after the day of receipt of the Product &/or of the Service Order Confirmation (as applicable)

In the event of a fault occurring with the system, we are ready to repair it for you according to the warranty agreement in a reasonable amount of time.

We acknowledge your rights as a Consumer.

Once again we want to assure you of our total commitment to your satisfaction with our services and products, and apologize for not meeting up to your expectations on this occasion.

 

Quite clearly they are trying to be completely ignorant of SOGA and are getting confused with the DSRs! Figured that attempting to deal further with DELL would simply be frustrating, we wrote to Tesco credit card with the following:

On 29th December 2010, I bought a DELL Inspiron N5030 laptop from the DELL website using the above card (see transaction reference [redacted] for the sum of £349.00). The laptop has proved to be faulty because it has developed a major fault with the display within 6 months of purchase (horizontal lines intermittently appearing across the screen, severely interfering with the display).

On 23rd May 2011, I gave DELL Technical Support the opportunity to resolve the fault by logging a support call via their telephone support. Various troubleshooting steps were taken but after the call the problem was not resolved.

On 5th June 2011, I emailed DELL Technical Support evidence files to show the problem still occurring and on 6th June they called to advise that the laptop would need to be repaired. We arranged for an engineer to attend my home address on Monday 13th June 2011 at an extra cost to me of £29.00. DELL then called in the evening of Friday 10th June 2011 to advise that an engineer couldn’t be booked after all and that the visit would have to be rearranged. This was firstly unacceptable due to the late notice and having arranged to be home on the Monday, but also unacceptable as we could not agree an alternate date for the appointment (I work from different offices and my husband is in & out of meetings all day, so it is very difficult to organise an appointment at work).

I now have no faith that DELL are able to arrange and/or keep to a convenient engineer appointment and consider that the development of a major display fault within 6 months of purchase that is unable to be remedied by DELL without some significant inconvenience to myself is not acceptable and is a clear breach of the terms of the Sale of Goods Act (1979) as amended because it does not constitute a product of satisfactory quality.

I have tried unsuccessfully to resolve this dispute with the retailer (see attached letter from DELL, who are clearly confused between the Distance Selling Regulations and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended) and am now looking to you to provide a full refund.

I base my claim on section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act (1974) which makes you jointly and severally liable for any breaches committed by the retailer.

I look forward to your response within 14 calendar days of receipt of this letter (i.e. by close of business on Friday 1st July, 2011).

 

On deadline day, we got a reply from Tesco credit card:

Thank you for your recent communication concerning the dispute with DELL

 

I note that you wish to make a claim against Tesco Bank under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Bank fully accepts its responsibilities under the Consumer Credit Act and considers each claim on its merits. Section 75 does not provide you with an automatic entitlement to a refund. It allows you to pursue a claim against the retailer and/or the credit provider for breach of contract or misrepresentation. You still have to prove that a breach of contract or misrepresentation actually occurred and that any reimbursement claimed is justified in the circumstances.

 

Therefore, in order that I can fully assess your claim, please supply me with copies of all the relevant documentation that you hold relating to this transaction including a copy of the invoice. It will also be necessary for you to provide me with an independent report, from a reputable retailer, detailing the current faults along with an estimate for repair.

 

I look forward to receiving your reply.

 

How best to respond now?

Are Tesco correct?

Do we actually need to get an independent report, given that the fault has appeared within 6 months of purchase and therefore it is for the retailer to prove that the fault didn't exist at time of purchase (prefectly happy to, just don't really see why we should)?

 

Thanks muchly in advance for any help & advice

 

Cheers

Michael

[perplexity]

Section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act covers the acceptance of goods, e.g.

 

(1) The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods subject to subsection (2) below—

(a) when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or

(b) when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.

Expecting the seller to resolve a problem is obviously inconsistent with the ownership of the seller so it is too late to reject; the goods were accepted.

 

To be in line with Section 11 of the Act, the implied condition of being fit for purpose (as per section 14) would also be treated as a warranty, rather than grounds for breach of contract.

 

You might also have noted section 48B according to which the cost of a repair must be borne by the seller.

 

Read the rest of Part 5A while you are at it. When a repair fails, the buyer is entitled to rescind, but not always to be fully refunded.

[MARTIN3030]

Hello Michael good to see you again.

Will move this to General Consumer issues-I think better response there.

[mcuth]

Hello Michael good to see you again.

 

Thanks Martin - you too - proverbial bad penny me though

 

Will move this to General Consumer issues-I think better response there.

 

Thanks, hope so as I'm a little stuck and I really want to stick it to this lot as DELL are a right royal PITA!

 

Cheers

Michael

[MARTIN3030]

Well you do have evidence that you did report the fault early.

I agree it seems as though they are looking at this under DSR.

Reading a few stories,it seems Tesco are one of the main culprits when it comes to dealing with s75 claims.

I am not so sure that there is any obligation to provide them with an ind report,but looking at the FOS website,it is fairly clear that those who have escalated a complaint,on the back of obtaining an ind report,have gone on to have their cases upheld.

There is a similar case to yours in the May issue of the FOS news,although in this instance the Student went on to purchase another Laptop,outside of this,her story is materially the same as yours,that she notified them early,and was restricted by her studies insofar as other things went.

 

I think it is for you to decide whether to get an ind report,or else pursue both the supplier and Tesco to provide you with a deadlock response in writing,and advising them that you will be making a formal complaint to the FOS.

 

Here is the FOS example case from Issue 93 of their newsletter;

 

93/10

complaint about faulty laptop bought with credit card

 

Miss T’s new laptop developed a serious fault just six weeks after she had bought it, so she took it back to the supplier and asked for a refund or replacement.

The supplier told her it was unable to help. It suggested that she should get in touch with the manufacturer, who would arrange to inspect the laptop and then decide whether to repair or replace it.

Miss T explained that she was busy revising for her college exams and could not afford to lose study time while the laptop was out of action. However, the supplier was adamant that her only course of action was to contact the manufacturer.

Concerned about the amount of time this might take, Miss T then visited a different supplier, where she used her credit card to buy another laptop.

She had used her credit card to buy the original laptop and a few weeks later, once her exams were out of the way, she contacted her credit card provider. She explained the problem she had experienced with the original laptop and said she wanted to claim a refund. However, the card provider told her it could not help because it was ‘not responsible for the quality of goods bought with a credit card’.

Miss T arranged to have her laptop inspected at a local computer centre and was told that there was a problem with the motherboard. She subsequently obtained another report on the laptop from an independent computer specialist. This confirmed that the motherboard was faulty – and said that replacing it would cost more than the value of the laptop. Miss T then referred her complaint to us.

complaint upheld

On the basis of the evidence supplied by Miss T, we said that the laptop was not fit for purpose, as it should not have developed a fault of this nature so soon after Miss T had bought it.

We noted that Miss T had attempted to reject the laptop as soon as the fault became evident. She had only bought a replacement because it was essential for her studies and because the retailer had failed to deal correctly with her complaint. We pointed out to the card provider that it was jointly liable with the supplier for any breach of contract.

The supplier had been in breach of contract by selling a laptop that was not fit for purpose, so we told the card provider to reimburse Miss T for the cost of the faulty laptop and of the two independent reports she had obtained. We said it should also pay Miss T £100 to reflect the inconvenience it had caused her by its failure to handle the complaint correctly.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/93/93-electrical-appliances.html

[MARTIN3030]

it should not have developed a fault of this nature so soon after Miss T had bought it.

 

 

Miss T had attempted to reject the laptop as soon as the fault became evident.

 

We pointed out to the card provider that it was jointly liable with the supplier for any breach of contract.

[MARTIN3030]

http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/press/press-releases/product-press-releases/which-magazine/2011/01/consumers-deserve-more-credit-says-which--/

[perplexity]

According to the OP, Dell offered to "Have the laptop collected and returned to DELL for repair - would be FoC as under warranty but would take 10-12 business days".

 

From there on it's a matter of opinion, if that's "a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer", so before comparing a reputable company's responsible offer to repair with a rogue retailer who flatly refused, I would rather suggest to compare previous threads, about electronic goods sent for repair.

 

A couple of weeks is not so unusual, apart perhaps from the fly by night cowboys where it's a couple of months or more.

 

[mcuth]

Thanks Martin - that looks very relevant

I might just nip down to my local computer store and see if they'll do a report - then send a strongly worded stick up the backside letter to Tesco

 

Cheers

Michael

[MARTIN3030]

I think that once you have an ind report it leaves Tesco with lesser options,and a threat of escalation to the FOS could well see things happen sooner rather than later.

[perplexity]

Did you read section 11? c.f. (4)

 

Where a contract of sale is not severable and the buyer has accepted the goods or part of them, the breach of a condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless there is an express or implied term of the contract to that effect.

 

I am pointing this out because it confirms that there is no indisputable entitlement to a full refund apart from the Distance Selling Regulations; "treated as a breach of warranty", Part 5A of the SOGA defines the rights of a consumer, according to which the right to rescind is conditional and

 

For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

---

It seems to me that there is a fair chance to get your money back if you ask them nicely, but it may be counter productive to pretend to be entitled to more than is defined by the law, as a matter fact, and to pretend to know more about the law than they do, which is not necessarily so.

 

It might be that much more effective to act in good faith and to expect the same.

 

[MARTIN3030]

I am sure they were already asked nicely,but it fell on deaf ears.

[perplexity]

Come off it.

 

To threaten legal action because of a deluded understanding of the entitlement of a buyer is not what I call asking nicely. The amount of the refund is negotiable because the right to be reimbursed is conditional, not absolute.

 

The risk is otherwise that a party who refuses to negotiate has the costs to pay at the end of it. Sole traders cave in under pressure because it is not worth their while to put up a fight and the person you deal with is the one to cover the cost, at his own personal expense. With a firm like Tescos an administrator would have to play it by the book, without the authority to act on a whim, so the need is to read the book.

[mcuth]

Hi Martin

 

Small update...

Bit of a runaround getting the report sorted out - there's a PC hardware place near my work that I've used before for repairs, they were quite dismissive but would write the report in 7 working days and charge £40+VAT, or 3 working days and charge £50+VAT - told them to get lost. Then tried PC World (just passing last Satdi), who had 3 different staff check whether they still wrote reports - oh yes, booked us in for the Monday (at £29.99, so quite reasonable), only for us to be told on turning up that they no longer do reports..

 

Finally found a local PC hardware/peripheral repair place who were absolutely excellent - same day report for £35+VAT - identified it's a display issue and the display itself needs replacing at £125+VAT (the report charge would be deductible from this).

 

Have now drafted a suitable letter for the wife to send to Tesco by Special Delivery today giving them 14 days to refund or "deadlock" - will update with the letter contents when we get a reply

 

Cheers

Michael

[MARTIN3030]

Good stuff Michael,I can only think that the big boys dont like doing reports because they have had to suffer the consequences of these themselves.

Oh well......good you have things in hand.

What these people should be thinking of-is that a satisfied customer will be a returning one.

Look forward to the update as and when.

[mcuth]

Well, we have a reply, so here's my update....

 

We wrote to Tesco saying:

 

Thank you for your letter of 29th June 2011, the contents of which are noted. I thank you for your explanation of the operation of s.75 Consumer Credit Act (1974), which I was already aware of. To clarify - the breach of contract by the retailer in this case is the fact that the laptop is not of satisfactory quality as required by the Sale of Goods Act (1979) as amended. This is evidenced by the fact that the laptop has developed a major display fault within the first six months since purchase.

I have reported the problem in a timely fashion to both yourselves and DELL and, under the Sale of Goods Act (1979) as amended, if goods break within the first six months after purchase then there is a presumption the goods were faulty when sold. In light of this, I do not believe that it is “necessary” to provide you with an independent report/repair estimate – however, in the interests of bringing this to a speedy resolution, I have obtained said report & estimate from xxxx (a local and reputable PC/peripheral repair company). The cost for this service was £42.00 (inc VAT) and this must be refunded in addition to the original £349.00 purchase price, now making a total of £391.00.

 

I should note that the cost/ability of repair has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this claim – given the problem at hand and my dealings and interactions with DELL, I have no faith that: i) they are aware of their obligations under the Sale of Goods Act (1979) as amended; ii) they are able to arrange and/or keep to a convenient engineer appointment without inconveniencing myself; iii) any repair will be long-lasting; or iv) the laptop will not develop further major faults during a reasonable period of expected trouble-free operation.

The summary of the problem was included in my previous letter, to assist you further, I have attached the following correspondence, indexed chronologically as follows:

**list of enclosures**

Should you refuse to refund the purchase transaction under s.75 Consumer Credit Act (1974), please provide me with a final/”deadlock” letter detailing your refusal in order that I may escalate my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service forthwith. However, if this is your intent, I would draw your attention to item 93/10 in Issue 93 of “Ombudsman News”, available at the following page: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/93/93-electrical-appliances.html

 

I look forward to your response within 14 calendar days of receipt of this letter

And Tesco have replied with (grammar and punctuation exactly as laid out below):

 

Than {sic} you for your recent communication concerning the dispute with Dell, the contents of which have been noted.

 

Having reviewed your dispute in detail, I see that your claim relates to the Sales of Goods Act (1979). I must point out that the Bank cannot be held liable under this Act however, it can be held liable for a breach of contract or misrepresentation under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

With this in mind, the Bank is required to put you back in the same position as if the breach had not occurred, in this case, I believe that this would require the Bank to arrange to pay for the repairs of £125.00 plus VAT and the cost of the report.

 

I am therefore now in a position to offer you the sum of £192.00, this offer is made in full and final settlement of any claim you may have against Tesco Bank. It is also made on a without prejudice basus and is not to be referred to in any legal proceedings that may follow.

 

Should this offer be acceptable to you, please sign at the foot of this letter, where indicated, and return the whole of this letter to me. Arrangements will then be made to apply the credit to your account. However, should you have any doubt as to your options then I would suggest that you seek legal advice.

So they've ignored a lot of what we said and despite not refunding the full amount, they haven't provided a deadlock/final letter as requested - bloody annoying. Also worth noting that they talk about crediting the account - well the balance on this card is zero (and my wife has already long since paid off the laptop amount)....

 

My opinion is to continue pursuit of the full amount of the purchase - any devils advocates out there?

 

Cheers

Michael

[MARTIN3030]

they haven't provided a deadlock/final letter as requested

 

Michael they have said;

I am therefore now in a position to offer you the sum of £192.00, this offer is made in full and final settlement of any claim you may have against Tesco Bank

 

So yes-they have made a full and final offer,which falls short of the amount that you should be entitled to-this should enable you to escalate it with the info that the FOS would want to see.

[mcuth]

So yes-they have made a full and final offer,which falls short of the amount that you should be entitled to-this should enable you to escalate it with the info that the FOS would want to see.

 

There is that - but should I at least reject that and give them one final opportunity?

(I'm only mindful that involving the FOS is likely to take more time)

 

I'm not in any doubt that Dell's failure under SOGA renders Tesco jointly liable under s75 CCA, but is there any reason at all to consider anything less than a full refund?

 

Cheers

Michael

[perplexity]

I'm not in any doubt that Dell's failure under SOGA renders Tesco jointly liable under s75 CCA, but is there any reason at all to consider anything less than a full refund?

 

I'd already answered that, and warned that Tesco would not be fooled.

 

If you can't be bothered to respect the advice, and to acquaint yourself, in particular, with the actual terms of the legislation (rather than a myth about the right to a refund), so be it.

 

Section 75 is not an automatic entitlement to a full refund.

[MARTIN3030]

Well s75 is not an automatic right,and of course the amount of the refund is negotiable because the right to be reimbursed is conditional, not absolute.

I agree that sole traders in this situation are likely to cave in,whilst big boys like Tesco will go to the book.

The response looks quite templated though-and give or take a paragraph,probably is.

Yes the FOS route could take time,but dont be confused by their backlog of PPI complaints-this is likely to be handled quite timely.

For the purpose of clarity to Tesco-no harm in informing them that you are rejecting their offer,and will escalate it to the FOS,and that they will doubtless be requesting copies of your correspondence to resolve,which you will be making available to them.

[mcuth]

Well s75 is not an automatic right,and of course the amount of the refund is negotiable because the right to be reimbursed is conditional, not absolute.

 

Interesting - how do you mean "not automatic" & "conditional"?

 

Yes the FOS route could take time,but dont be confused by their backlog of PPI complaints-this is likely to be handled quite timely.

 

Ah right, I was being influenced by the old bank charges/PPI timescales...

 

For the purpose of clarity to Tesco-no harm in informing them that you are rejecting their offer,and will escalate it to the FOS,and that they will doubtless be requesting copies of your correspondence to resolve,which you will be making available to them.

 

Duly noted, thanks

 

Cheers

Michael

[perplexity]

Interesting - how do you mean "not automatic" & "conditional"?

 

The reply from Tesco correctly explained that

 

.... Section 75 does not provide you with an automatic entitlement to a refund. It allows you to pursue a claim against the retailer and/or the credit provider for breach of contract or misrepresentation. You still have to prove that a breach of contract or misrepresentation actually occurred and that any reimbursement claimed is justified in the circumstances.

 

In other words, you are not entitled to appoint yourself as the judge and jury of your own cause.

 

There is no right to say "this must be refunded", unless the contract of sale contains "an express or implied term of the contract to that effect", apart from the term implied by the Distance Selling Selling Regulations, whereby the statutory duty exists, to reimburse a consumer who owns the right to cancel a contract that the Regulations do not except.

DELL were clearly confused between the Distance Selling Regulations and the Sale of Goods Act because the buyer persistently acts as if to invoke the unconditional right to cancel and be fully reimbursed, the absolute right that the Regulations provide but the Sale of Goods Act does not provide.

 

Every section of the Sale of Goods Act that was previously identified prescribes a number of conditions. Tesco's offer to underwrite a repair appears to conform, correctly, to the conditions prescribed by Part 5A, because of which I surmise that their understanding is that the goods were accepted so the right to reject expired.

 

In particular then, the relevant conditions are prescribed by section 11 (When condition to be treated as warranty), therefore section 35 (Acceptance)

 

A buyer is "deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them".

 

The FOS case (above) considered that six weeks is not too late. Advice is also available from the OFT to the effect that six weeks is not too late and it is possible to argue that the right to reject should extend to six months because a lack of conformity "apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity", but I am not aware of a precedent to that effect and the Sale of Goods Act implemented this by way of Part 5A, not by associating the presumption with a right to reject.

 

The claim is not, therefore, a foregone conclusion..

 

[mcuth]

Decided I couldn't be bothered with another letter to Tesco & associated Special Delivery costs (finding things going missing under "Signed for" these days), so rang the FoS - they're going to write to Tesco to get them to reconsider and issue a final response, then we can progress

 

Cheers

Michael

[perplexity]

I noticed this for the OFT's Sale of Goods Act advice pages:

 

Some retailers decide that it makes good business sense to have their own returns policy that offers customers more rights than they have under the law - for example, promising them a full refund for undamaged goods, up to a certain number of weeks.

If you rather persist with the assumption that there is some sort of automatic entitlement to a full refund for used goods, when the few weeks is up, ... you were warned.

 

[mcuth]

After FOS involvement, got a letter from Tesco saying they'd reviewed & uphold the complaint - now offering full amount of transaction + report costs

Only issue is that they want to credit it to the credit card account when the transaction was paid off months ago and this would now result in a credit balance on the card - replied wanting the refund in a cheque.....waiting to hear back!

 

Cheers

Michael