Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest

Anyone Any Experience Of Taking Back Goods To B&q

Recommended Posts

Apparently the standard store response is to repeat only twelve months parrot fashion unless you push it, then eventually they cave in.

Might be worth taking the address of the local trading standards office (TSO) with you to show them you know who to report them to if they don't make you happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never heard of that - I would print it out and take the item back. Let us know how you get on.

Not heard of it either. I certainly haven't heard mention of a 6 year minimum under the sale of goods act. I really wish journalists would be a bit more thorough and state their references when making these types of statement. Besides, minimums are daft because you can't logically apply a minimum term to something which isn't intended to last the minimum term!

Consumer law basically requires that things be fit for their purpose which means that anything that breaks down prematurely isn't fit for its purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read up on this. The 6 year limit is merely the limit at which you can sue for damages.

The basic rule is that the good must "conform to contract", if it doesn't then you have a right to sue. You still need to prove that the good didn't conform to contract at the time you bought it which would mean it had an inherant fault. The fault must have been present at the time you bought it and can't be one that developed later as it it did you have no cause of action on which to base a claim. This could be quit a difficult thing to prove.

You don't have a free licence to return everything that beaks in under 6 years.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/.../page38311.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Six Year Rule flows from Statute of Limitation: for Simple Contracts an agrieved party to a contract has six years to file litigation from the date of the contract, generally.

However, the Statute can in certain circumstances be Set Aside by the Court if the Court is assured that for some definable reason the litigant lacked knowledge of a breach of such contract.

For Personal Injury, the Statute Limit is just Three Years: however in cases of medical malpractice, for example, the patient might not realise a problem was festering away until they actually discovered this (ANother consequential medical problem for example): and again, the Statute can be Set Aside on these grounds.

A case which falls outside Statute is commonlu known as "Statute Barred.

Sale of Goods Act (Originally 1893: this was the one I studied!) was repealed except Section 26 which is only concerned with execution, in 1979: subsequent legislation widened the act and beefed it up and incorporated EU Paramount EU law.

Simply, goods when sold must be "Of Merchantable Quality".

Additionally, they must demonstrate "Fitness for Use".

A cheap tin opener for example might well work OK for a couple of months and break: that's usual with cheap tin openers.

An expensive Larder Fridge is expected to last much longer.

The remedy - always - is to firstly approach the supplier you bought goods from. If they are disinterested and intransigent, then write to the company's Head Office (Ideally to the Chief Exec) formally, advising you plan to take action for relief via the County Court.

Always finish any letters with the paragraph: "If you know any reason why action for relief through the County Court should not be taken, please advise Us/Me within seven days from the date above."

Wait 14 days and if no response, hit' em with a Small Claims writ!

Obviously, you will have, if necessary to prove causation: i.e. what caused the goods to fail: e.g.s component failure; inherant design fault; poor manufacturing process; whatever.

Your "Quantum" (The amount you are seeking in damages) is the cost or replacement/repair, less fair wear and tear deduction for the length of time in satisfactory service, plus any contingent real losses; e.g. freezer fails repeatedly, supplier repairs incorrectly, £150 of food lost.

In 99% of cases most larger companies will seek to settle ASAP outside court as their putative legal costs to defend would far outweigh the majority of claims.

Part and parcel of the Small Claims Court Regime is that costs of either side are not recoverable, win or lose.

Except in exceptional circumstances.

Good Luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the advice. I tried today at my local store and was told that repairs and replacements were at the manager's discretion and I could get lost. I showed him my downloads on the Sale of goods Act and said I would go to Trading standards and he still said get lost.

I am now trying through a customer service manager at another store but I do not hold out much hope.

I think you may find your local TSO very helpful.

Re the earlier comments regarding the Sale of Goods Act (GB), I think this is an EU law not a GB one. I think the EU overrules the GB, not 100% sure though.

I'm sure the local TSO will have all the info you need as to whether your case is viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Six Year Rule flows from Statute of Limitation: for Simple Contracts an agrieved party to a contract has six years to file litigation from the date of the contract, generally.

However, the Statute can in certain circumstances be Set Aside by the Court if the Court is assured that for some definable reason the litigant lacked knowledge of a breach of such contract.

For Personal Injury, the Statute Limit is just Three Years: however in cases of medical malpractice, for example, the patient might not realise a problem was festering away until they actually discovered this (ANother consequential medical problem for example): and again, the Statute can be Set Aside on these grounds.

A case which falls outside Statute is commonlu known as "Statute Barred.

Sale of Goods Act (Originally 1893: this was the one I studied!) was repealed except Section 26 which is only concerned with execution, in 1979: subsequent legislation widened the act and beefed it up and incorporated EU Paramount EU law.

Simply, goods when sold must be "Of Merchantable Quality".

Additionally, they must demonstrate "Fitness for Use".

A cheap tin opener for example might well work OK for a couple of months and break: that's usual with cheap tin openers.

An expensive Larder Fridge is expected to last much longer.

The remedy - always - is to firstly approach the supplier you bought goods from. If they are disinterested and intransigent, then write to the company's Head Office (Ideally to the Chief Exec) formally, advising you plan to take action for relief via the County Court.

Always finish any letters with the paragraph: "If you know any reason why action for relief through the County Court should not be taken, please advise Us/Me within seven days from the date above."

Wait 14 days and if no response, hit' em with a Small Claims writ!

Obviously, you will have, if necessary to prove causation: i.e. what caused the goods to fail: e.g.s component failure; inherant design fault; poor manufacturing process; whatever.

Your "Quantum" (The amount you are seeking in damages) is the cost or replacement/repair, less fair wear and tear deduction for the length of time in satisfactory service, plus any contingent real losses; e.g. freezer fails repeatedly, supplier repairs incorrectly, £150 of food lost.

In 99% of cases most larger companies will seek to settle ASAP outside court as their putative legal costs to defend would far outweigh the majority of claims.

Part and parcel of the Small Claims Court Regime is that costs of either side are not recoverable, win or lose.

Except in exceptional circumstances.

Good Luck!

We've never lost a court claim for goods not being of merchantable quality. Normally, it's very easy to provoke the claimant to behaving in an unhinged way in court. Which is frankly unsurprising when they're prepared to waste a hours of their life filling in forms and attending court for something that's more than a year old and broken and cost no more than a couple of hundred quid.

We never settle if it's previously been judged the replacement/refund case is unreasonable.

The letter above is not a good idea. It can be painted that you are using the threat of court as a stick to beat the retailer with and are ergo a vexatious litigant.

One to write off as experience unless you have time on your hands or a perverse enjoyment of crusades. Buy a better make from a different shop next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vexatious litigant is either someone whose case utterly lacks a "Triable Issue" or one who enters a series of similar actions and thus wastes the Court's time.

Such is normally weeded out pre-trial by the District Judge evaluating the case merits: as they are now charged to do more than before of course.

The reason to add the final clause to a final letter of complaint is to avoid having to send a further letter under the Wolff Reform Regime (Access to Justice, i.e.).

A complainant must be able to prove (Essentially in the PTR Stage), that every reasonable effort has been expended to reach some amicable settlement.

At present, retailers are engaged in selling junk, all too often, which indeed lacks both merchantable quality and Fitness for Use: the second being probably more critical to the cause.

The majority of purchasers all too often simply junk the goods and replace them.

I don't really see how any litigous complainant might "Spend hours" assembling a simple case.

Crucial to most are a written report from a Third Party "Expert", certifying the goods are defective and explaining how and why.

Quite obviously, the putative quantum needs to be a reasonable sum to make the exercise worthwhile.

Back to my previous example of a twopenny tinopener, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I've got a dessicant electrical dehumidifier 18 months old which has stopped dehumidifying. I've checked all settings and filter but although fan still works no water is coming out and small room is about 80% humidity level.

I bought it in B&Q and wondered if anyone had taken anything back under the 2 year rule from the EU and if they were taken seriously.

Thanks for any help.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...-retailers.html

Your best bet it to write a letter to B&Q Head Office (Eastleigh I believe). Simply state that the item is not of merchantable quality on the grounds that anybody would reasonably expect a dehumidifier to last longer than 18 months. Ask for a replacement/fix or refund.

Give them 14 days to respond. If they don't respond or refuse to help then go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk, open a case, pay the summons fee (refundable if you win) and off you go. Takes about 15 mins and a court summons will be sent to B&Q.

I have done this four times over the last decade or so. Every single time I have had a full refund or replacement the moment they get the summons + the cost of the summons refunded.

The year guarantee is nonsense and the retailers know it, hence they don't want to go to court. If you buy a £1000 TV for example you can reasonably expect a TV to last a good five years minimum. If it failed after 18 months I'm pretty certain a small claims court would find that unreasonable.

You'll be surprised how simply the process is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've got experience of returning something to B&Q

Wife bought a Gazebo for ~£64 in the 25% off sale.

Zip on the bag broke so she took it back for a refund.

They refunded the full amount of £85 because they are staffed by idiots.

Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I've got experience of returning something to B&Q

Wife bought a Gazebo for ~£64 in the 25% off sale.

Zip on the bag broke so she took it back for a refund.

They refunded the full amount of £85 because they are staffed by idiots.

Nice.

This is simply it. If you've been to the store manager and then written to head office and still not received refund/replacement it's most likely you who is being unreasonable. Most large retailers know that a successful business keeps its customers happy and only doesn't refund the serial p1ss takers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is simply it. If you've been to the store manager and then written to head office and still not received refund/replacement it's most likely you who is being unreasonable. Most large retailers know that a successful business keeps its customers happy and only doesn't refund the serial p1ss takers.

Not true at all. Used to be but sadly no longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your best bet it to write a letter to B&Q Head Office (Eastleigh I believe). Simply state that the item is not of merchantable quality on the grounds that anybody would reasonably expect a dehumidifier to last longer than 18 months. Ask for a replacement/fix or refund.

Give them 14 days to respond. If they don't respond or refuse to help then go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk, open a case, pay the summons fee (refundable if you win) and off you go. Takes about 15 mins and a court summons will be sent to B&Q.

I have done this four times over the last decade or so. Every single time I have had a full refund or replacement the moment they get the summons + the cost of the summons refunded.

The year guarantee is nonsense and the retailers know it, hence they don't want to go to court. If you buy a £1000 TV for example you can reasonably expect a TV to last a good five years minimum. If it failed after 18 months I'm pretty certain a small claims court would find that unreasonable.

You'll be surprised how simply the process is.

I would be the first to recommend the small claims court for a landlord witholding a deposit etc but, I think this is a misuse of court resources unless large sums are involved. I'd also add that post-litigation you'll most likely be barred from that retailer's premises and with some of the larger retailers you may be surprised how restrictive that can become. For example, if you found yourself barred from B&Q and Homebase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've never lost a court claim for goods not being of merchantable quality. Normally, it's very easy to provoke the claimant to behaving in an unhinged way in court. Which is frankly unsurprising when they're prepared to waste a hours of their life filling in forms and attending court for something that's more than a year old and broken and cost no more than a couple of hundred quid.

We never settle if it's previously been judged the replacement/refund case is unreasonable.

The letter above is not a good idea. It can be painted that you are using the threat of court as a stick to beat the retailer with and are ergo a vexatious litigant.

One to write off as experience unless you have time on your hands or a perverse enjoyment of crusades. Buy a better make from a different shop next time.

We bought a loaf of bread the other week from Aldi, it was mouldy, could I ring up the store to log the fact it was mouldy No. Aldi don't do customer phone support. Try visiting the Aldi website, read the bla bla bla about customer service being paramount, yet there is no customer support phone or email address on their website. Was I prepared to do a round trip of 20 miles the day after I had bought it, No. Contacted the company who produced it, spoke to a manager who had as much idea about customer service as ...Aldi Dropped him like a brick and rang back the office that had given me his number. Eventually received a letter of apology and a five pound postal order, after emailing photo of the product and the wrapper.

Regards B&Q, had occasion to take back 8 replacement kitchen doors out of a total of 16. As it happens I monitored their break down [blistering finish] over 6 months period and took them back a week before the one year warranty ran out. Had no problem getting them replaced. The secret to getting satisfaction is how you present your case. However don't feel bound by the arbitrary 12 month warranties companies hide behind.

Regards the thread starter, push your case under the Sale of Goods Act "not fit for purpose" if it broke down after 18 months, then that unit is indeed not fit for purpose. I suspect you will have to write to head office, put your argument over to them. And if you meet resistance, inform them that it has gone from a faulty product complaint, to a loss of faith in the B&Q Brand.

I took a £9.99 Focus toilet seat back after 18 months, no luck in store, so wrote to head office. I informed them it had replaced a toilet seat that had been in situ for 18 years, where as their product only lasted 18 months. Brand loyalty issue...you see how good a company is when you have what you consider to be a valid complaint....£10 focus voucher and an apology

The Brits get the service they deserve, the Yanks on the other hand know and expect to get the service they pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be the first to recommend the small claims court for a landlord witholding a deposit etc but, I think this is a misuse of court resources unless large sums are involved. I'd also add that post-litigation you'll most likely be barred from that retailer's premises and with some of the larger retailers you may be surprised how restrictive that can become. For example, if you found yourself barred from B&Q and Homebase.

Nonsense, the small claims court, as the name implies, is for small claims.

Barred! Don't be silly. I'm not suggesting taking every retailer on the high street to court. I can assure you I've been into Halfords many times since I whacked them with a court summons some years ago. And what are the chances of being banned from B&Q and Homebase? Not suggesting you summons companies for fun you know!

You come across as a retailer who can't stand consumers who enforce their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense, the small claims court, as the name implies, is for small claims.

Barred! Don't be silly. I'm not suggesting taking every retailer on the high street to court. I can assure you I've been into Halfords many times since I whacked them with a court summons some years ago. And what are the chances of being banned from B&Q and Homebase? Not suggesting you summons companies for fun you know!

You come across as a retailer who can't stand consumers who enforce their rights.

I just know of no retailer who has any calculating policy of avoiding refunds/exchanges/replacements. In most cases the benefit of the doubt is given to the customer. Any hoop jumping like having receipt etc. is simply to prevent fraudsters. For example, we'll just as happily take a credit card statement as proof of purchase.

I do know that most retailers have full-time staff devoted to the writing letters to head office brigade a large proportion of which are nutters.

I doubt HMCS is self-funding and I'd rather it's time and money was spent on disputes like with builders and on contracts in general, so it's a small claims court not a trivial claims court which seems to be the case since the entry barrier was lowered through the online service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heres an intaresting tit bit for you

I had Radio4 on and the German MEP who drafted said 2 year law was on

talked about it and then said she was living in the UK in a flat in London

Dish washer broke so she tuck it back to place on Oxford street

where they say sorry its out of warranty the had a chat and she

said EU law covers this, they said not to which she said

O YES IT DOS SEE I WROTE IT!

they gave her a new dishwasher

morel is get yourself German MEP

and take them in with you next time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be the first to recommend the small claims court for a landlord witholding a deposit etc but, I think this is a misuse of court resources unless large sums are involved. I'd also add that post-litigation you'll most likely be barred from that retailer's premises and with some of the larger retailers you may be surprised how restrictive that can become. For example, if you found yourself barred from B&Q and Homebase.

Landlord's Deposits are now covered by specific legislation: and in point of fact the first port of call is the arbitration service operated by either the deposit stakeholders under the scheme, or the arbitration service operated by the insurance bonded non-deposit holding scheme member.

Why would a tenant need to litigate?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TenancyDeposit/index.htm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TenancyDeposit/DG_066391

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've never lost a court claim for goods not being of merchantable quality. Normally, it's very easy to provoke the claimant to behaving in an unhinged way in court. Which is frankly unsurprising when they're prepared to waste a hours of their life filling in forms and attending court for something that's more than a year old and broken and cost no more than a couple of hundred quid.
I do know that most retailers have full-time staff devoted to the writing letters to head office brigade a large proportion of which are nutters.

need I say more?

Aldi must be the only major retailer, that deliberately omits any form of customer contact on their website. Quite happy to use electronic mail to bombard its customer base, but not happy for the customer to contact them.

They would rather load that responsibility onto their already hard pressed managers, who have to undertake every task from chief cook to bottle washer. And they of course know contact with the company if your not satisfied is nigh impossible. Unless like me you have a name and email address of someone who can sort problems out. Only had to use it once.

Last return I took back to Aldi was a wax jacket. First time I wore it was to walk into town and back, 5 minutes each way. In what could be best described as a shower. My shoulders were wet through before I got to where I was going. The manager said, lets just read the label and see what it says about it's water repellent properties. Jeez I said your retailing it as a wax jacket. Now whilst I don't expect it to be as water proof as a wet suit, I do expect it to keep me dry in a light drizzle................................he did give me a refund.

There is more reason to complain these days, because there is so much shoddily manufactured crap flooding into the retailers.

The Brits get the service they deserve, the Yanks on the other hand know and expect to get the service they pay for.

Need I say more

resulted in $180,000,000 being wiped of the share price of United, now that focused their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Lidl in UK and Aldi and sometimes Lidl in France.

Both have been good for a wide variety of things, including power tools and consumables: such as sanding disks.

They are cheap: they are cheerful: and they work.

And they are cheap enough to discard fairly quickly.

The core reality for me, is that most brand names costing bundles are also made in the same Chinese factories as the cheaper stuff sold by Aldi and Lidl.

For more demanding things, then I buy top brands: after research.

I would not realistically expect excellent quality from cheap brands.

That said, our expensive electric kettle in UK is sheer junk: whereas the Lidl "Bifinet" brand kettle we have in France is far superior: and much better designed! Same with the four slice toaster: compared to the expensive Russell Hobbs four slice toaster we have in UK.

You get in terms of quality what you pay for.

You want a "Wax Jacket"? Then buy a Barbour!

Or visit your local tack shop and buy the sort of much cheaper and hardwearing wax jacket farmers wear.

My own hackles are bound to rise when and where some spotty faced jerk at such as B & Q or worse, Dixons and PC World tries to point me towards their warranty: their warranty is on top of the consumer's statutory rights: not instead of.

And the consumer has the right of expectation of reasonable longevity of effective operation of any product, depending on the average life expectancy of similar products, competitive in that market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I'm a great fan of Aldi, indeed I'm using one of their PC to write this.

If I spent a great deal of time in an environment that warranted a Barbour, than that is what I would buy.

but saying

You want a "Wax Jacket"? Then buy a Barbour!

That's a bit like saying, you want a car, then buy a Rolls Royce....which is in fact an argument for a one product/brand environment, which is absolute rubbish.

Discount retailers sell on price, but you cannot get away from the fact that if it fails to do the job, it is not for purpose period.

Though I have never had to go to court, I've never failed to win my case regards to products "not fit for purpose"

My first claim was for a "dogs doodars" Silver Cross pram, costing an arm and a leg 40 odd years ago. In the end I side stepped the stockist who saw me as a moaning get, as the pram wheels on the latest SC product kept buckling time after time under normal usage. I tipped up at the manufactures premises. Most firms will settle when presented with the evidence, what I resent is the effort I sometimes have to apply to get a refund.....but it does not put me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I spent a great deal of time in an environment that warranted a Barbour, than that is what I would buy.

but saying

That's a bit like saying, you want a car, then buy a Rolls Royce....which is in fact an argument for a one product/brand environment, which is absolute rubbish.

Discount retailers sell on price, but you cannot get away from the fact that if it fails to do the job, it is not for purpose period.

Apols: I didn't mean it quite like that: and I was really thinking of Barbour before they became a sort of status symbol for the braindead and overpaid.

Wax jackets need regular re-waxing: which isn't cheap.

A co-director of mine was a regular rider: and had her grandfather's full length Barbour riding coat: it was regularly re-waxed. She also had an older relatives riding boots: really excellent and re-made here and there.

Another chum also has his grandfather's Barbour shooting coat: grandad was a farmer in Cornwall.

Again regularly re-waxed.

Whilst I am now (Locally) struggling to find a decent snob (Cobbler), I have decent shoes some of which are over 30 years old.

Properly looked after and regularly fed with proper polish: hand-lasted and leather uppers and soles.

Cheap attire lasts only a short time and is binned: decent clothes and footwear last almost indefinitely.

And classic style don't change very much either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
I would be the first to recommend the small claims court for a landlord witholding a deposit etc but, I think this is a misuse of court resources unless large sums are involved. I'd also add that post-litigation you'll most likely be barred from that retailer's premises and with some of the larger retailers you may be surprised how restrictive that can become. For example, if you found yourself barred from B&Q and Homebase.

How do they police such bars? Even asssuming credit cards could somehow be blacklisted, paying with cash would get around this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do they police such bars?

Employ overpaid professional footballers.

Any problems from punters and then the footballers punch their lights out; carry out a series of "Professional Fouls": and chuck 'em out the door.

Simple.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just know of no retailer who has any calculating policy of avoiding refunds/exchanges/replacements. In most cases the benefit of the doubt is given to the customer. Any hoop jumping like having receipt etc. is simply to prevent fraudsters. For example, we'll just as happily take a credit card statement as proof of purchase.

I do know that most retailers have full-time staff devoted to the writing letters to head office brigade a large proportion of which are nutters.

I doubt HMCS is self-funding and I'd rather it's time and money was spent on disputes like with builders and on contracts in general, so it's a small claims court not a trivial claims court which seems to be the case since the entry barrier was lowered through the online service.

The high street retailers to be fair are not bad at refunds when a reasonable case is presented - the real difficulties lie with some of the big online companies who will do almost anything to prevent you sending something back.

I find your attitude to who should and shouldn't use the courts odd to say the least. The courts are there to enable justice for everyone not just who you think deserves it. You have to pay £70 to issue a summons now and if it gets to court then there will be a further listing fee of £100. I'd imagine that would put off most truly trivial or very small cases. Have you not noticed that the Government are more than happy to push millions of little cases through the courts every year? Doing 34mph in a 30mph limit, failure to pay for a TV Licence, failing to keep up with council tax. As I said the courts are for everybody or there would be no redress and hence people could behave how the wanted as long as the sums involved were 'small'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.