There is one thing I would like to point out regarding this matter and that is proof of purchase. We see people who claim to have purchased items from us but do not have the receipt for them and these are items that are under a year old so you can imagine what will happen when the general population get hold of this piece of stupidity.
Just wanted to post to clarify a few points for the OP,
The length of time you had the item was much longer than 1 year infact it was around 23 months.
The refund has been calculated taking into account the benefit of use you have had from the goods, this is a legally allowed calculation and if indeed you have already spoken to trading standards or consumer direct as it actually is now then they should have advised you of this. If they didn’t I would call them back and ask them to clarify.
I recently attended a court case on this exact point and Scan Computers won the case, so my understanding of this point is back up by an actual ruling from a district judge.
In regards to the EU posting that has been made, well we all know or at least should know how the media glorify facts, I can confirm that the EU warranty being talked about has NOT been adopted in the UK currently. A case can be brought before a judge in the UK for upto 6 years from purchase, to be successful on this a claimant once exceeded 6 months from date of purchase would need to prove that the goods were inherently faulty and that the fault existed at the time of purchase.
Last edited by wesleyaldred; 17th June 2009 at 12:56 PM.
If he's spoken to his local trading standards department then that's still trading standards surely and not the Government comsuner direct advice service?
Also, your comment in italics is not right. The resoltion is *not* a draft. It just hasn't been adopted by the UK.
So, what I'd say to you is this - which does your company find more important? Holding on to a few quid or retaining customers who can potentially spend hundreds of thousands of pounds with your company via their schools?
You only have to read the other posts to understand there are quite a few customers you have had in the past which are not very happy with your level of service - me being one of them.
If want repeat business, cut the crap and offer a replacement or a full refund. I would totally understand if the item was 5 years old and way out warranty but with all the cases highlighted in this thread it's clear the perception people get is that you make it as difficult as possible to either get a replacement / money back or a suitable outcome.
Welcome to Edugeek btw - bit of a heavy baptism !! [ Specially from me ]
Sure, in this case £40 is a small amount, but then in allowing that we set a precedent that everyone would expect and the next case might be a whole lot more, soon you would start to have an impact that is far more than nothing to Scan as a company.
The fact here is that there is absolutely NOTHING illegal in the procedures we follow and that is most definitely a fact and when taking into account the much bigger picture we have to remain fair to everyone in every case.
Now we have someone from Scan on here I will tell you another one.
We needed some parts urgently so we paid extra for a timed delivery. (midday I think).
It was half term. We had informed Scan that there would be someone there. The courier turned up at the school realized it was half term and didn't even try to find anyone. I was sat in reception easily visible through a glass wall.
We contacted the courier to ask about the delivery and were told the school was closed and they couldn't deliver today as the driver was now in another area.
We contacted Scan to try and get the before midday delivery charges refunded and were refused.
Now I know you are going to say this is not a Scan problem it is a problem with the courier, but to maintain goodwill I feel you should have refunded the delivery charges and claimed the money back against the courier company. After all you are their customer.
This is why my school will no longer use Scan.
So, your companies returns policies, whilst you may think they are 'equal' and 'fair', are not up to snuff.
Procedures that clearly benefit yourselves and NOT the customer.The fact here is that there is absolutely NOTHING illegal in the procedures we follow and that is most definitely a fact and when taking into account the much bigger picture we have to remain fair to everyone in every case.
As for the bigger picture, you only have to read the various comments made by members on this very forum that they think your procedures clearly don't work & they are not fair, not fair at all.
So Wesley, The Item that was in warranty could not be replaced? So what happened to supplying an item of equal or better value?In commercial and consumer transactions, a warranty is an obligation or guarantee that an article or service sold is as factually stated or legally implied by the seller, and that often provides for a specific remedy such as repair or replacement in the event the article or service fails to meet ...
Also, regardless of its age if its under warranty I would expect either a working item or my full money back not some aproximation of what YOU think its worth based on assumed use.
All you have done is give the image of a money grabbing company who will spin and manipulate laws to save them some money.
Similarly, if the product fails prematurely, it may have been defective when it was sold and could then be returned for a refund or replacement. If the seller dishonors the warranty, then a contract claim can be started in court.
Vale of Glamorgan - Trading Standards and Consumer Protection information for the UK
And its all to do with reasonable expectations. If I buy a £1000 pc I have a reasonable expectation that it should work well and without fault for at least 6 years. I do not have to prove that it was due to a manufacturing fault at time of purchase. If it fails during normal use within the expected life of the product then it is deemed to have been of substandard quality and therefore I can reasonably make a claim.
And for Scan to note
"After A Reasonable Time
If a fault appears after that nebulous "reasonable time" has elapsed, don't despair. If it's in the first six months, and it's not because of fair wear and tear, accidental damage or misuse, then the retailer must still repair or replace the item. If he demurs, he has to prove the item wasn't faulty in the first place, or that it couldn't be expected to last that long. Often he'll choose to replace rather than repair it.
If more than six months have gone by, things change. You might still get a repair or replacement, but now you'll have to prove that the item was faulty when you bought it if the retailer disputes your claim.
Where delivery costs are involved, the retailer has to pay them, and repairs must be carried out within a "reasonable" time. If it's impossible to replace or repair the item, you can claim a refund of some, or possibly even all, of the purchase price (depending on how much the item has been used). However, if the fault causes personal harm or damage (a fire, for instance), then it falls under "product liability," which is the manufacturer's responsibility. First, though, go to the retailer; if they're unable tell you who the manufacturer is, then the liability becomes theirs."
Last edited by ICT_GUY; 17th June 2009 at 01:46 PM.
The vendor may be liable for up to 6 years, i.e. UK retailers are required to exercise some responsibility for defective goods for that period.
In other words, buy a kettle for £20 that goes wrong in 4 years time, you are not likely to be entitled to a refund or repair as the cheap kettle shouldn't be expected to last that long (yes, you've all probably got kettles that are many years older, but it is just an example!).
By the same token however, buy a TV for £2000 that goes wrong within the same time frame, and you have a good chance of a good 'claim'.
A vendor is also perfectly within their rights to offer to pay, for example, the cost of labour but not parts. The consumer cannot demand a refund where a repair is more suitable, for example.
As with much else in the Sale of Goods Act, it is down to whatever is 'reasonable'. Define reasonable - what is reasonable to you, may not be to me - ad infinitum.
Another point is that EU rules specify a 2 year term for warranty - this is actually less than the SOGA gives (i.e. 6 years).
So, next time you are told something only has a years warranty and would you like to purchase an extended warranty - question it!
So, a £32 motherboard that fails after 18mths - that would definitely fall within the EU ruling, but over 2 years, a vendor could be quite right to suggest such a spec couldn't reasonably be expected to last more than this.
A final point to make, is that only a court can rule on an outcome.
Last edited by theeldergeek; 17th June 2009 at 01:47 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)