As a side note- I had a claim under guarantee with Parallel Imported years ago and they gave me the runaround no end. Sounds like they haven't improved much at all.

richms: My understanding and how we applied it was if we sent it out to you on our courier, then we would look after it both ways for repairs, but would bill you the return shipping if it was not faulty or was operator error etc.

If you picked it up or had your own courier collect it, then you dropped it back off, and if you wanted it sent out to you instead of picking up the repaired one, you paid for that.

gzt: So is anyone going to quote the act? It is recent and probably very straightforward wording.

 

•  

   

  (1)The consumer shall exercise the right to reject goods under this Act by notifying the supplier of the decision to reject the goods and of the ground or grounds for rejection.

   

   

   

  (2)Where the consumer exercises the right to reject goods, the consumer shall return the rejected goods to the supplier—

   

   

  •  

    (a)unless,—

     

     

    •  

      (i)because of the nature of the failure to comply with the guarantee in respect of which the consumer has the right to reject the goods; or

       

     

    •  

      (ii)because of the size or height or method of attachment,—

       

    the goods cannot be returned or removed or transported without significant cost to the consumer, in which case the supplier shall collect the goods at the expense of the supplier; or

     

   

  •  

    (b)unless the goods have already been returned to, or retrieved by, the supplier.

     

   

mattwnz:

Dunnersfella: I think a lot of people confuse the Consumer.org.nz website as a place to find FACTS on the CGA.
Yes, there's information, but there's a lot of opinion... and it could be argued that the opinion is often masquerading as fact.

So are they incorrect? That is their interpretation of the law, do you have a differing one that counters it? You would think that they would be in a better position to interpret it, than 99% of people reading the Act, who weren't lawyers. If they were wrong and giving people incorrect information, you would think that the ministry would tell them to correct it.

shortcircuit:

gzt: So is anyone going to quote the act? It is recent and probably very straightforward wording.

It's pretty much as I said was on the web site. This is an excerpt from the actual Act in case Consumer Org want to check their facts (I can't find anything in the act about supplier's requirement to courier repaired/replaced items):


22Manner of rejecting goods

• 
  
  (1)The consumer shall exercise the right to reject goods under this Act by notifying the supplier of the decision to reject the goods and of the ground or grounds for rejection.
  
  
  (2)Where the consumer exercises the right to reject goods, the consumer shall return the rejected goods to the supplier—
  
  
  
  • 
    (a)unless,—
    
    
    
    • 
      (i)because of the nature of the failure to comply with the guarantee in respect of which the consumer has the right to reject the goods; or
      
    
    
    
    
    
    
    • 
      (ii)because of the size or height or method of attachment,—
      
    
    
    
    the goods cannot be returned or removed or transported without significant cost to the consumer, in which case the supplier shall collect the goods at the expense of the supplier; or
    
  
  
  
  
  
  
  • 
    (b)unless the goods have already been returned to, or retrieved by, the supplier.
    
  
  
  
  
  

gzt:

shortcircuit:

gzt: So is anyone going to quote the act? It is recent and probably very straightforward wording.

It's pretty much as I said was on the web site. This is an excerpt from the actual Act in case Consumer Org want to check their facts (I can't find anything in the act about supplier's requirement to courier repaired/replaced items):


22Manner of rejecting goods

 

 

 

• 
  
  (1)The consumer shall exercise the right to reject goods under this Act by notifying the supplier of the decision to reject the goods and of the ground or grounds for rejection.
  
  
  (2)Where the consumer exercises the right to reject goods, the consumer shall return the rejected goods to the supplier—
  
  

   

   

   

  • 
    (a)unless,—
    
    

     

     

     

    • 
      (i)because of the nature of the failure to comply with the guarantee in respect of which the consumer has the right to reject the goods; or
    
    
    
    

     

     

     

    • 
      (ii)because of the size or height or method of attachment,—
    
    
    the goods cannot be returned or removed or transported without significant cost to the consumer, in which case the supplier shall collect the goods at the expense of the supplier; or
  
  
  
  

   

   

   

  • 
    (b)unless the goods have already been returned to, or retrieved by, the supplier.
  
  
  
  

This part looks like a faulty goods on purchase situation. Ie; very different from repair under warranty obligations.

shortcircuit: 

As a side note- I had a claim under guarantee with Parallel Imported years ago and they gave me the runaround no end. Sounds like they haven't improved much at all. 

On the other hand I've bought a lot of parallel imported cameras and phones from Expert Infotech in Auckland and they have replaced faulty goods without question on the spot.

surfisup1000:
My bro bought a phone from parallel imported which developed a fault a bit later (less than a year). Parallel imported said it was water damaged so too bad. 

My brother is adamant that it has never been exposed to water -- i'm guessing 'water damage' is a get-out-of responsibilities clause they use. 

surfisup1000:

shortcircuit: 

As a side note- I had a claim under guarantee with Parallel Imported years ago and they gave me the runaround no end. Sounds like they haven't improved much at all. 

On the other hand I've bought a lot of parallel imported cameras and phones from Expert Infotech in Auckland and they have replaced faulty goods without question on the spot.

My bro bought a phone from parallel imported which developed a fault a bit later (less than a year). Parallel imported said it was water damaged so too bad. 

My brother is adamant that it has never been exposed to water -- i'm guessing 'water damage' is a get-out-of responsibilities clause they use. 

Sanco:

surfisup1000:

shortcircuit: 

As a side note- I had a claim under guarantee with Parallel Imported years ago and they gave me the runaround no end. Sounds like they haven't improved much at all. 

On the other hand I've bought a lot of parallel imported cameras and phones from Expert Infotech in Auckland and they have replaced faulty goods without question on the spot.

My bro bought a phone from parallel imported which developed a fault a bit later (less than a year). Parallel imported said it was water damaged so too bad. 

My brother is adamant that it has never been exposed to water -- i'm guessing 'water damage' is a get-out-of responsibilities clause they use. 

Well, in my case water should come under warranty as it is sold as waterproof.

That said, I'll bite the bullet and keep the camera-less phone as I am not sure I'd get a proper warranty assessment on the phone and stand to lose return courier and $40 deposit. That money better go towards a new phone from expert infotech ;)

scuwp:

Sanco:

surfisup1000:

shortcircuit: 

As a side note- I had a claim under guarantee with Parallel Imported years ago and they gave me the runaround no end. Sounds like they haven't improved much at all. 

On the other hand I've bought a lot of parallel imported cameras and phones from Expert Infotech in Auckland and they have replaced faulty goods without question on the spot.

My bro bought a phone from parallel imported which developed a fault a bit later (less than a year). Parallel imported said it was water damaged so too bad. 

My brother is adamant that it has never been exposed to water -- i'm guessing 'water damage' is a get-out-of responsibilities clause they use. 

Well, in my case water should come under warranty as it is sold as waterproof.

That said, I'll bite the bullet and keep the camera-less phone as I am not sure I'd get a proper warranty assessment on the phone and stand to lose return courier and $40 deposit. That money better go towards a new phone from expert infotech ;)

Or buy from a licensed NZ retailer and have a better chance of a local store and after sales support.

Sanco:

scuwp:  ...

Or buy from a licensed NZ retailer and have a better chance of a local store and after sales support.

Agreed on the reputable store, actually. I can walk to them if something goes wrong.