Faulty vacuum, and retailer not replacing it.

Forums › Off topic › Faulty vacuum, and retailer not replacing it.

mattwnz

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

Topic # 138826 17-Jan-2014 19:41

I purchased a rechargable vacuum cleaner nearly a year ago, and it was great. I also got a really good deal on it, and it was over 50% off the retail price that other retailers were selling it for. The other thing is it had really good reviews, was consumer top rated, and it had a 2 year warranty. However in the last week I noticed that it was no longer charging and the charging light no longer worked. I thought that it would just a simple process of either getting it repaired, or they would replace it. Other retailers also still sell it.

I took it into the retailer, and they checked their computer and said they they no longer sell that particular model, and their first offer was just to refund me the money I paid. I said I wasn't happy with that option, becuase I wouldn't be able to then buy a like for like replacement for the money they refunded me.
They said that was the best they could do, unless I switched it for another model and I paid the difference. They were still selling the model below this one, and I would have to pay about an extra $80 if I took that option. The RRP of the one they were still selling, has the same RRP at other retailer for the model I purchased . However the rrp of it at this retailer was quite a bit less, but was probably due to them getting rid of that model.

I told them that I want to be put in the same position I would have been in if the vacuum hadn't failed, eg replace it with the same model, which was still a current model. They said that they can't go to their supplier / manucturer for it as it isn't their policy, nor can it be repaired, as they don't repair items that are under $150. I asked for it to be repaired, but they refused. My interpretation of the CGA is that the customer can chose whether they want a repair, a replacement or refund, when the fault is substantial. They also have to maintain spare parts. The fault is substantial in this case as it no longer charges, nor works, because it can't be charged. So I chosen for full replacement, at no cost. They said they would try to see if they could do a straight swap for the lower model they do have in stock, but wouldn't find out until next week, but I have had to push them to do that. Am am not 100% happy if I would be as happy with that model, because it is a lower model which implies it isn't as good, even though it has the same current RRP / value. I am basing the value, on what it costs today to replace it, rather than the special sale price I purchased it for.

I am just wondering if anyone has come across this type of problem before when getting something fixed or replaced?

I guess I could instead go to the manufacturer about it, and see if they could arrange for them to replace it with the identical model with the retailer. However I would have thought that the retailer would do this for me. They have said that some retailers have exclusive rights to some models, which is why they no longer stock this particular model. So they can't order it in, because they don't have the rights to it, and they can only replace it with ones they stock.

1 | 2

1492 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 435

Subscriber

Reply # 969079 17-Jan-2014 19:52

Seems to me that they are acting in good faith and meeting their obligations under the CGA, as below.

They are being reasonable by not repairing as it is a low value item and they are offering to refund you your money. That you got a great deal isn't thier fault and they are proceeding in good faith and in accordance with the act.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
19Requirement to remedy
(1)A supplier may comply with a requirement to remedy a failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee—
(a)by—
(i)repairing the goods (in any case where the failure does not relate to title); or
(ii)curing any defect in title (in any case where the failure relates to title); or
(b)by replacing the goods with goods of identical type; or
(c)where the supplier cannot reasonably be expected to repair the goods, by providing a refund of any money paid or other consideration provided by the consumer in respect of the goods.
(2)Where a consumer obtains goods to replace defective goods pursuant to subsection (1), the replacement goods shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be supplied by the supplier and the guarantees and obligations arising under this Act consequent upon a supply of goods to a consumer shall apply to the replacement goods.
(3)A refund referred to in subsection (1)(c) means a refund in cash of the money paid or the value of any other consideration provided, or both, as the case may require.

Dunnersfella

3137 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 360

Reply # 969081 17-Jan-2014 19:59

The retailer simply needs to ring the supplier on your behalf.
If the supplier cannot supply one from their warehouse, the supplier can ask another competing business to return an un-used unit to the supplier, and then send it on to you.
Most suppliers will do this, as long at they still have a working relationship with the store you bought it from.

That's logical, right?

On the other hand...
A full refund would put you in the same position you were PRIOR to purchasing the unit. So if you factor in your (almost) one year of use, it's like you've received a free, year long lease! Not a bad result I'd have thought... I'd love to buy a lounge suite on sale, then upon returning it, be given my money back a year later!
So I don't think their solution is being mean / frugal, and I doubt you'd win in small claims court as they HAVE offered you a FULL refund for something you got a years use out of.
My $0.10.

mattwnz

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

Reply # 969083 17-Jan-2014 20:07

Handle9: Seems to me that they are acting in good faith and meeting their obligations under the CGA, as below.

They are being reasonable by not repairing as it is a low value item and they are offering to refund you your money. That you got a great deal isn't thier fault and they are proceeding in good faith and in accordance with the act.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
19Requirement to remedy
(1)A supplier may comply with a requirement to remedy a failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee—
(a)by—
(i)repairing the goods (in any case where the failure does not relate to title); or
(ii)curing any defect in title (in any case where the failure relates to title); or
(b)by replacing the goods with goods of identical type; or
(c)where the supplier cannot reasonably be expected to repair the goods, by providing a refund of any money paid or other consideration provided by the consumer in respect of the goods.
(2)Where a consumer obtains goods to replace defective goods pursuant to subsection (1), the replacement goods shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be supplied by the supplier and the guarantees and obligations arising under this Act consequent upon a supply of goods to a consumer shall apply to the replacement goods.
(3)A refund referred to in subsection (1)(c) means a refund in cash of the money paid or the value of any other consideration provided, or both, as the case may require.

But when the fault is substantial, it is my choice whether to accept the refund, or request for it to be repalced or refunded, not the retailers.
But I shouldn't be put at a financial loss due to the fault, simply because they no longer stock the item. It is not my fault it is faulty, not that they no longer stock it, it is the retailers, as they take responsibility for the products they sell. Also they were the ones who provided the discount, they regularly discount this items anyway, but wanted me to pay the full cost difference of their sticker price.

This is what the consumer website, i have removed irrelevant bits.

If the problem cannot be fixed, or is substantial, you can:

Reject the product and choose a replacement of the same type or similar value or a full refund of your purchase price; or
Claim compensation for any drop in the value of the product or service.
Have it repaired elsewhere and recover the costs from the retailer, if they refuse to fix a faulty product, or fail to do so in a reasonable time.

So according to that they shouldn't be trying to charge me xtra for replacing it with a similar product.

Ultimately I could just go to the manufacturer and get them to sort it out. I just want to be left in the same situation if the fault hadn't occurred. It is not as though it isn't under warranty either.

scuwp

2608 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1092

Reply # 969084 17-Jan-2014 20:15

The offer of a refund is more than reasonable in the circumstances IMO. This is being blown all out of proportion, and you may be cutting off your nose despite your face. Take the refund (you are not out of pocket) and go find another good deal. You will enc up having the free use of the appliance for a year. Pretty good by me.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

mattwnz

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

Reply # 969085 17-Jan-2014 20:15

Dunnersfella: The retailer simply needs to ring the supplier on your behalf.
If the supplier cannot supply one from their warehouse, the supplier can ask another competing business to return an un-used unit to the supplier, and then send it on to you.
Most suppliers will do this, as long at they still have a working relationship with the store you bought it from.

That's logical, right?

On the other hand...
A full refund would put you in the same position you were PRIOR to purchasing the unit. So if you factor in your (almost) one year of use, it's like you've received a free, year long lease! Not a bad result I'd have thought... I'd love to buy a lounge suite on sale, then upon returning it, be given my money back a year later!
So I don't think their solution is being mean / frugal, and I doubt you'd win in small claims court as they HAVE offered you a FULL refund for something you got a years use out of.
My $0.10.

I did ask them to do that, but they refused. I would be happy if they had done that, but they said that they work out solutions inhouse. I have infact emailed the manufactere to see if they can supply the retailer with one to replace it with, but whether I will hear anything ai don't know. Contact details on their website were difficult to come by, and I think it is all overseas based, as there is no phone number just an email form. (Black and Decker)

Also I would be perfectly happy with a repair, and I think it is probably something really easy to fix, possibly just a loose wire or connection. They are pretty basic things.

I have actually only used it about 5 times over the last year, so it has hardly had any use out of it. It does also have a 2 year warranty, and I am still inside the 1st year. But I don't think that would really factor into it, as you would expect something like that to last at least 5 years. My last one was 15 years old, and still works, but didn't hold it's charge as well, but it was the same brand and at least that one worked

mattwnz

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

Reply # 969086 17-Jan-2014 20:19

scuwp: The offer of a refund is more than reasonable in the circumstances IMO. This is being blown all out of proportion, and you may be cutting off your nose despite your face. Take the refund (you are not out of pocket) and go find another good deal. You will enc up having the free use of the appliance for a year. Pretty good by me.

Don't really want to waste time shopping around again , as whatever I choose will either be worse, or more expensive, and I am perfectly happy with the one I purchased. I just want it fixing or replacing with the same or equiv model, with the least hassle. I mean that is what I thought a warranty would do. A refund is the simple way out for the retailer, and I got the impression they were looking at the easiest solution for them.

Also hardly had any use out of it, it has mainly just been on the charger, so probably had a couple of dollars use out of it. It is in basically new condition, no wear etc. It may be a different story if it had been used significantly, and it had signs of wear.

If I took the refund and purchased it again, I would be out $80, so that isn't an option, and I do still want to buy this particular model, and it is still a current model and being sold by other NZ retailers. The retailer wouldn't be out anything if they got the manufacturer to replace it, as they would just get a credit back for the old one. It just involves them to do some work.

surfisup1000

3022 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 808

Reply # 969091 17-Jan-2014 20:40

I'm usually the first to complain when retailers stuff you around, but, in this case, they did the right thing by offering a refund.

It sucks you got it on special though, i get it, but, thats life.

Handle9

1492 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 435

Subscriber

Reply # 969099 17-Jan-2014 20:51

2 people support this post

I think you are interpreting the consumer website in a way that suits you rather than in accordance with the law. It is very clear that a valid remedy to a substantial fault is a full refund of your purchase price.

It is the suppliers right to do this, you are referring to your right to reject goods if the supplier does not remedy.

I can't stand retailers who try and get out their obligations, in this case the retailer is behaving in a reasonable, and legal, way and I don't really think you are. Just my opinion, and IANAL, but I think you're being a bit silly and if you take it to the disputes tribunal you will lose.

mattwnz

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

Reply # 969100 17-Jan-2014 20:52

surfisup1000: I'm usually the first to complain when retailers stuff you around, but, in this case, they did the right thing by offering a refund.

It sucks you got it on special though, i get it, but, thats life.

Yes, but it is my choice whether to accept a refund as a solution according to the consumer website, where the fault is substantial. It is my choice whther to accept a refund, replacement or repair. It is not as though they couldn't get a replacement either if they tried, but they haven't even offered to try, which I don't think is good customer service.

If I did take the refund and purchase the same item at a retailer that sells it, then there is a consequential loss when I replace it, which would be the difference in the price I paid, and the price I have to pay to repurchase the item elsewhere, to put me back in the same position I would have been should the fault never have occurred. I guess I could always claim for that loss as part of the refund, but sure they wouldn't be happy about paying it.

mattwnz

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

Reply # 969103 17-Jan-2014 20:58

Handle9: I think you are interpreting the consumer website in a way that suits you rather than in accordance with the law. It is very clear that a valid remedy to a substantial fault is a full refund of your purchase price.

It is the suppliers right to do this, you are referring to your right to reject goods if the supplier does not remedy.

I can't stand retailers who try and get out their obligations, in this case the retailer is behaving in a reasonable, and legal, way and I don't really think you are. Just my opinion, and IANAL, but I think you're being a bit silly and if you take it to the disputes tribunal you will lose.

Thanks, and I do value your opinion, but you are incorrect about whose choice it is. I am not interpreting anything to suit myself, it is pretty clear on the ministry of consumer affairs website, quote

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-business/compliance/consumer-guarantees-act-1/providing-remedies-for-goods

If the fault is minor

If the problem with the goods can be fixed, then the customer can ask you to put it right. You must provide a remedy, but you have the choice of whether you will repair the goods, replace the goods or give a refund. You must act within a reasonable time and provide the repair or replacement free of charge. The customer must accept either the repair or replacement that you choose to offer. If you refuse to do something about the faulty goods when it is possible for them to be put right or if you take more than a reasonable time to put it right the customer can choose one of the following: If the problem with the goods can be fixed, then the customer can ask you to put it right. You must provide a remedy, but you have the choice of whether you will repair the goods, replace the goods or give a refund.
- their money back
-a replacement
- to take the goods somewhere else to be fixed and claim the cost of the repair from you.

It is now the customer's decision which of these options they choose.

If the fault is serious

When the fault is serious, cannot be repaired or causes a safety risk then the consumer has the choice to:
- get their money back
- get a replacement
- keep the goods but get some of their money back in compensation.

The customer can also claim for damage and loss caused by the problem.

So it is my choice which option I choose, not the retailers. Maybe the rules have changed recently?

Also I believe this applies in my case due to it being a serious fault.

What if the customer wants a replacement and I don't have any similar goods?

The customer can choose to ask for a replacement if you have refused or delayed putting a problem right. They can also choose a replacement if the problem is serious or can't be fixed. You must give a replacement if suitable replacement goods are reasonably available to you. This may mean ordering them from another branch or from the supplier. If no similar goods are available to you the customer will have to choose another option.

They are still a current model, so are readily available in this case for them to arrange to order in a replacement..

ubergeeknz

Fully Operational
3267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1063

Trusted

Vocus

Subscriber

Reply # 969119 17-Jan-2014 21:09

One person supports this post

mattwnz:
If the fault is serious

When the fault is serious, cannot be repaired or causes a safety risk then the consumer has the choice to:
- get their money back

This has been offered.

- get a replacement

The retailer does not stock this item anymore, hence this is not reasonable. You could push harder for them to replace it with an equivalent model, perhaps.

- keep the goods but get some of their money back in compensation.

You could always pursue this, and then try to repair the item.

But good luck with it. Personally I think you're wasting a lot of time for something worth < $150. If it were me I'd take the money and run, or break it open and try to fix it.

Handle9

1492 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 435

Subscriber

Reply # 969126 17-Jan-2014 21:21

I find it interesting that you keep referring to websites other than those which actually have the act in them. How about you go and read the act.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/latest/whole.html

You have stated that it is probably a minor fault and in this case the supplier is acting in accordance with the act. I'm out of this conversation as I don't think you are being reasonable.

mattwnz

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

Reply # 969129 17-Jan-2014 21:25

Handle9: I find it interesting that you keep referring to websites other than those which actually have the act in them. How about you go and read the act.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/latest/whole.html

You have stated that it is probably a minor fault and in this case the supplier is acting in accordance with the act. I'm out of this conversation as I don't think you are being reasonable.

Reading the act is open to interpretation, it isn't that clear for someone who isn't a lawyer. IANAL and it is in lawyer speak.

Hence why I am referring to consumer websites, which explain it far better, and clear up the grey areas with examples. That is why they exist!

I said it was possibily a minor fault, but noone knows until it is looked at, and even then it should have been sent to be looked at for repair. If it was a $200 mobile they would send it off to be assessed, even though it would probably cost more in time to repair it.

The fact that they have refused to repair it means it is a serious fault, and if it costs more to fix than it is worth, then it would be defined as a serious fault.

throbb

387 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Reply # 969131 17-Jan-2014 21:29

mattwnz: -
Handle9: I think you are interpreting the consumer website in a way that suits you rather than in accordance with the law. It is very clear that a valid remedy to a substantial fault is a full refund of your purchase price.

It is the suppliers right to do this, you are referring to your right to reject goods if the supplier does not remedy.

I can't stand retailers who try and get out their obligations, in this case the retailer is behaving in a reasonable, and legal, way and I don't really think you are. Just my opinion, and IANAL, but I think you're being a bit silly and if you take it to the disputes tribunal you will lose.

Thanks, and I do value your opinion, but you are incorrect about whose choice it is. I am not interpreting anything to suit myself, it is pretty clear on the ministry of consumer affairs website, quote

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-business/compliance/consumer-guarantees-act-1/providing-remedies-for-goods

If the fault is minor

If the problem with the goods can be fixed, then the customer can ask you to put it right. You must provide a remedy, but you have the choice of whether you will repair the goods, replace the goods or give a refund. You must act within a reasonable time and provide the repair or replacement free of charge. The customer must accept either the repair or replacement that you choose to offer. If you refuse to do something about the faulty goods when it is possible for them to be put right or if you take more than a reasonable time to put it right the customer can choose one of the following: If the problem with the goods can be fixed, then the customer can ask you to put it right. You must provide a remedy, but you have the choice of whether you will repair the goods, replace the goods or give a refund.
- their money back
-a replacement
- to take the goods somewhere else to be fixed and claim the cost of the repair from you.

It is now the customer's decision which of these options they choose.

If the fault is serious

When the fault is serious, cannot be repaired or causes a safety risk then the consumer has the choice to:
- get their money back
- get a replacement
- keep the goods but get some of their money back in compensation.

The customer can also claim for damage and loss caused by the problem.

So it is my choice which option I choose, not the retailers. Maybe the rules have changed recently?

Also I believe this applies in my case due to it being a serious fault.

What if the customer wants a replacement and I don't have any similar goods?

The customer can choose to ask for a replacement if you have refused or delayed putting a problem right. They can also choose a replacement if the problem is serious or can't be fixed. You must give a replacement if suitable replacement goods are reasonably available to you. This may mean ordering them from another branch or from the supplier. If no similar goods are available to you the customer will have to choose another option.

They are still a current model, so are readily available in this case for them to arrange to order in a replacement..

The fault is not serious, read the definition of a serious fault. Just because the vacuum isn't working doesn't make it a serious fault.

The retailer has done what they should reasonably do and what a reasonable person would accept.

mattwnz

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

Reply # 969133 17-Jan-2014 21:34

throbb:

The fault is not serious, read the definition of a serious fault. Just because the vacuum isn't working doesn't make it a serious fault.

The retailer has done what they should reasonably do and what a reasonable person would accept.

How do you know it is not serious? It doesn't work... they won't even look at repairing it to even assess what is wrong. Doesn't get much more serious than that. The consumer affairs definition of serious fault is when the goods are substantially unfit for their normal purpose and they can't easily be made fit for the purpose or this can't be done within a reasonable time. As the retailer isn't even prepared to get it looked at for repair, it would be considered a serious fault, due to them not attempting to remedy it. Anything uneconomical to repair would be a serious fault, which they have pretty much admitted by refusing to even attempt to repair it.

What is your definition of a serious fault then?

If it was a broken piece of plastic, or faulty switch that can be replaced, then that wouldn't be serious, if economical to repair.

1 | 2