Returning faulty goods
Discussion
Afternoon all
I purchased a pair of waterproof motorcycle boots in April 2017 from an online retailer in the U.K.
On Monday of this week I was caught in quite heavy rain.
I discovered that there is a seam coming apart an allowing loads and I mean loads of water into the boots subsequently soaking my feet. Both boots leaking from the same position.
Contacted the retailer who advise to send them back and they would let the manufacturer inspect them and decide to repair or replace, best timeframe of 2 weeks worst being 8!
I expressed my concern at the time this will take and the fact I will have to stump up for replacement boots to continue my commute!
Retailer states "I completely understand your frustration, however, we are legally obliged to follow the manufacturer's guideline as they were purchased over 30 days ago."
Apart from with soaking feet, where do I stand with this? Do I have to accept their statement or can I overrule it? What protection do I have when a product is clearly not fit for purpose after 3 months of light commuting only?
Thanks in advance
I purchased a pair of waterproof motorcycle boots in April 2017 from an online retailer in the U.K.
On Monday of this week I was caught in quite heavy rain.
I discovered that there is a seam coming apart an allowing loads and I mean loads of water into the boots subsequently soaking my feet. Both boots leaking from the same position.
Contacted the retailer who advise to send them back and they would let the manufacturer inspect them and decide to repair or replace, best timeframe of 2 weeks worst being 8!
I expressed my concern at the time this will take and the fact I will have to stump up for replacement boots to continue my commute!
Retailer states "I completely understand your frustration, however, we are legally obliged to follow the manufacturer's guideline as they were purchased over 30 days ago."
Apart from with soaking feet, where do I stand with this? Do I have to accept their statement or can I overrule it? What protection do I have when a product is clearly not fit for purpose after 3 months of light commuting only?
Thanks in advance
If the boots keep your feet dry when the seam isn't damaged then they are fit for purpose. A damaged seam doesn't make them unfit for purpose, it makes them faulty.
As you have had them more than a month then they can be repaired and that is all the supplier/manufacturer needs to do. If they give you a replacement, bonus, if they repair the boots then your feet will be dry and you have what you paid for.
As you have had them more than a month then they can be repaired and that is all the supplier/manufacturer needs to do. If they give you a replacement, bonus, if they repair the boots then your feet will be dry and you have what you paid for.
Tablecloth said:
If the boots keep your feet dry when the seam isn't damaged then they are fit for purpose. A damaged seam doesn't make them unfit for purpose, it makes them faulty.
As you have had them more than a month then they can be repaired and that is all the supplier/manufacturer needs to do. If they give you a replacement, bonus, if they repair the boots then your feet will be dry and you have what you paid for.
Cheers for the response.As you have had them more than a month then they can be repaired and that is all the supplier/manufacturer needs to do. If they give you a replacement, bonus, if they repair the boots then your feet will be dry and you have what you paid for.
Point taken regarding the fit for purpose/faulty statement.
I am in a position where the boots are faulty and in order for me to have what I paid for I need to be without, in order for me to continue my daily commute to work I will need to buy a new/secondhand pair!
I have no desire to own two pairs of boots. I appreciate it would be helpful right now but if my current boots weren't faulty then I wouldn't be in this position.
Quite pissed of really
Under the CRA You're entitled to a full or partial refund instead of a repair or replacement if any of the following are true:
the cost of the repair or replacement is disproportionate to the value of the goods or digital content
a repair or replacement is impossible
a repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience
the repair would take an unreasonably long amount of time.
Go with the last two and you should be able to get your money back and the return post should be at their cost too
the cost of the repair or replacement is disproportionate to the value of the goods or digital content
a repair or replacement is impossible
a repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience
the repair would take an unreasonably long amount of time.
Go with the last two and you should be able to get your money back and the return post should be at their cost too
craigjm said:
Under the CRA You're entitled to a full or partial refund instead of a repair or replacement if any of the following are true:
the cost of the repair or replacement is disproportionate to the value of the goods or digital content
a repair or replacement is impossible
a repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience
the repair would take an unreasonably long amount of time.
Go with the last two and you should be able to get your money back and the return post should be at their cost too
Thanks, I have sent hem a polite email requesting a refund when I send them back.the cost of the repair or replacement is disproportionate to the value of the goods or digital content
a repair or replacement is impossible
a repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience
the repair would take an unreasonably long amount of time.
Go with the last two and you should be able to get your money back and the return post should be at their cost too
Fingers crossed they agree.
I'm not joking when I say these things leak, my feet were swimming!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff