Consumer Guarantees Act: Right of replacement

Forums › Off topic › Consumer Guarantees Act: Right of replacement

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1715360 4-Feb-2017 13:00

I think the more Kiwis having issues that get the right advice and use their rights correctly and forcefully if need be the more compliant retailers will become and less likely to BS customers.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1715375 4-Feb-2017 13:22

mattwnz:

IANAL. However IMO it all depends on what has failed, to be considered 'substantial' But first it needs to be assessed. For example the power cord may have been bitten by the owners dog. Ask them to contact you once that has been done, to see if it is a substantial failure or not. It has to also be done in a timely manner. You could also ask for a loan tv while it is being repaired, as a repair inconveniences you more than a replacement, as it will likely take longer. eg if they were replacing it, you would unlikely be without the TV for long. During that time they have also got your money and product, so if the business went under you could likely lose both TV and money. I know people who have had this problem before. So there is a risk there.

In legal terms, the consumer can exercise an option of seeking a refund for a failure of a substantial character. As my analysis showed, the law clearly contemplates that it is the consumer's option as to whether to demand this, i.e. they can choose to accept a repair for a substantial failure but do not have to. Now in practical terms and as per s 20 as well, the retailer has to be given the opportunity to perform some examination to confirm, for example, that the thing wasn't damaged by the user.

But none of the above has nothing whatsoever to do with (1) the absurd and legally incorrect notion (as perpetuated by a few users in this thread) that the retailer must be given time to repair in all cases (again, there's a difference between being given time to assess whether the customer has made a valid CGA claim and the retailer having the right to foist a repair on someone) and that the OP cannot exercise his legal right to demand a refund/replacement regardless of whether there is a failure of a substantial character and (2) what you think is a substantial failure under CGA. There's only one definition of failure of a substantial character that matters under the CGA and I've already shown people where to find it. What you think there doesn't matter.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1715378 4-Feb-2017 13:28

MikeB4:

I think the more Kiwis having issues that get the right advice and use their rights correctly and forcefully if need be the more compliant retailers will become and less likely to BS customers.

Definitely. It would also help if people who are too lazy to even read small articles properly and have an obvious anti-consumer bend (both of which have been quite evident here) do not participate in advice-giving. I also think CGA-related disputes should be taken out of the DT and be put under the jurisdiction of an administrative body tied to the Commerce Commission, which is resourced to make quick but expert determinations. And in cases where suppliers and manufacturers have unreasonably denied consumers their rights, such decisions should be referred to the Fair Trading division of the CC for consideration of prosecutions or at least issuing of compliance notices.

richms

28343 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9325

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1715379 4-Feb-2017 13:34

The other thing they need to sort out is the ongoing problem of people having to battle past useless low tier staff that deny these things and then require escallation. Too many people seem to think that the company doing the right thing in the end is all that matters and if the problem is solved that its a good company. Problem is the number of people that will just go away at the first denial.

I dont give a crap if the staff member was not aware of their obligations, they work for the retailer so should be aware of them. If The FTA says they cant misrepresent their obligations etc but that happens all the damn time when you take something broken back and they try to stiff you with long waits etc.

Richard rich.ms

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1715380 4-Feb-2017 13:43

Or they try to claim that you did something that caused the problem. I have been there but fortunately knew enough to stand my ground. Someone else might not have.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

timmmay

20653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5166

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1715404 4-Feb-2017 14:59

dejadeadnz:

It really pays to actually read what you reference to or, even better, an actually highly readable and simple to understand legislation that is the Consumer Guarantees Act if you are going to give advice. And your advice is wrong.

The amount of misinformation, most of which coming from the usual IT/geek forum crowd who just loves to jump on the consumer, is quite staggering. Section 18 of the CGA relevantly states:

You can point out someone is incorrect without being an arse about it.

mattwnz

20259 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4524

#1715406 4-Feb-2017 15:06

richms:
The other thing they need to sort out is the ongoing problem of people having to battle past useless low tier staff that deny these things and then require escallation. Too many people seem to think that the company doing the right thing in the end is all that matters and if the problem is solved that its a good company. Problem is the number of people that will just go away at the first denial.

I dont give a crap if the staff member was not aware of their obligations, they work for the retailer so should be aware of them. If The FTA says they cant misrepresent their obligations etc but that happens all the damn time when you take something broken back and they try to stiff you with long waits etc.

If I detect any BS from staff, I quickly ask for it to be escalated to the manager. I also try to do things In writing if I feel it is going to be a little difficult. That means they are less likely to tell you anything that is incorrect, vs verbally. But I have never had any problems getting something either repaired, although usually replaced, under the CGA. You just have to be polite, but firm. I actually find banks in NZ far more difficult to deal with, and the customer service of a couple of the big ones is appalling

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

riahon

946 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

#1715412 4-Feb-2017 15:51

timmmay:

dejadeadnz:

It really pays to actually read what you reference to or, even better, an actually highly readable and simple to understand legislation that is the Consumer Guarantees Act if you are going to give advice. And your advice is wrong.

The amount of misinformation, most of which coming from the usual IT/geek forum crowd who just loves to jump on the consumer, is quite staggering. Section 18 of the CGA relevantly states:

You can point out someone is incorrect without being an arse about it.

Is the view of one lawyer enough to make it true?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1715416 4-Feb-2017 15:59

If you disagree with my analysis, feel free to counter it by reference to the CGA. I actually have worked as a volunteer at a community law centre handling CGA and consumer finance inquiries and let's just say every time a company has forced me to go thermonuclear on them (I.e. writing a letter on the centre letterhead or drafting a proposed DT claim on similar analyses) on a client's behalf, they have without fail conceded that they are wrong in law.

The CGA really isn't a difficult statute to read and understand for anyone who has a tiny bit of motivation and average reading ability.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1715419 4-Feb-2017 16:14

That isn't the point Timmmay was making. If you could ever learn to resist the compulsion to grind everyone's face in the sand, you would probably become one of Geekzone's most valuable members.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

timmmay

20653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5166

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1715434 4-Feb-2017 16:20

I read the consumer summary, not the act, and I probably should have read a bit more. I only read as far as the passage I remembered. I don't think it's completely unreasonable for the retailer to send it for repair, so long as it's not going to take weeks. If they have to replace it do they eat the cost, does the manufacturer? Not that it's your problem.

It does seem that it's a substantial fault and under the act should be refunded or replaced.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1715436 4-Feb-2017 16:28

Rikkitic:

That isn't the point Timmmay was making. If you could ever learn to resist the compulsion to grind everyone's face in the sand, you would probably become one of Geekzone's most valuable members.

You do actually realise that I wasn't replying to Timmay? In any event, I have zero desire to conform to the likes of your and a few others' one-directional notion of posting propriety nor to what you consider to be valuable. It's apparently perfectly fine for people to post one-lined replies that are blatantly wrong but it's perfectly okay for people to get upset when someone points out the obvious truth that it's rather improper to assert that the OP is wrong/being unreasonable when they don't even make the effort to be correct and that such replies are indicative of the general anti-consumer sentiment that is often quite apparent on geek/IT forums for anyone who bothers to take notice.

aiyaznz

43 posts

Geek

#1715438 4-Feb-2017 16:34

dejadeadnz: If you disagree with my analysis, feel free to counter it by reference to the CGA. I actually have worked as a volunteer at a community law centre handling CGA and consumer finance inquiries and let's just say every time a company has forced me to go thermonuclear on them (I.e. writing a letter on the centre letterhead or drafting a proposed DT claim on similar analyses) on a client's behalf, they have without fail conceded that they are wrong in law.

The CGA really isn't a difficult statute to read and understand for anyone who has a tiny bit of motivation and average reading ability.

Thanks for your analysis of my situation. I did think that this TV had substantial failure as it wasn't switching on the most basic of function and that the law somehow did apply to this situation but wasn't certain. Now that you have reinforced the notion of consumers right to reject repair, I will take this further to the manager or higher to get a full refund. Thanks for your valuable insight. Much appreciated. Thanks all. Hope we all learnt that consumers have more rights than retailers in this situation. Therefore this deems them more liable for the products they sell to consumers and should not try to sell rubbish or be more responsible for the things they sell.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1715439 4-Feb-2017 16:40

One thing I'll add is that my analysis so far has only focused on whether I think the TV has suffered a failure of a substantial character and to correct the usual misinformation about the CGA. You should certainly clearly indicate to the retailer that you intend to exercise your right to reject the goods. If they suggested that they need to have time to assess the TV, it could be exactly as what I and others have indicated, that they just want to make sure you haven't damaged the TV/that you have a valid CGA claim. I would however absolutely stand your ground if they insist that you must accept a repair, if this is not what you are minded to accept.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1715441 4-Feb-2017 16:49

dejadeadnz:

You do actually realise that I wasn't replying to Timmay? In any event, I have zero desire to conform to the likes of your and a few others' one-directional notion of posting propriety nor to what you consider to be valuable. It's apparently perfectly fine for people to post one-lined replies that are blatantly wrong but it's perfectly okay for people to get upset when someone points out the obvious truth that it's rather improper to assert that the OP is wrong/being unreasonable when they don't even make the effort to be correct and that such replies are indicative of the general anti-consumer sentiment that is often quite apparent on geek/IT forums for anyone who bothers to take notice.

You can point out someone is wrong without all the attitude. A lot of people here are prepared to spend time and effort on behalf of others. Some are expert, some are just trying to be helpful. Most are at least minimally civil.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4