Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Confused on Consumer Law

Confused on Consumer Law

Postby MickDundee » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:04 am

Long story short
Purchased a Gaming card ( not cheap) , main game kept crashing out and I wasn;t sure if it was my PC not able to cope with it or not (PSU) .
After testing and advise from friend I sent initial letter after around 2 months to seller, then again 3 months after that due to work and other things, but had stopped using the card after a month and bit.

Finding out afterwards around 6 -7 months , that the company went into administration around 3 months after purchase, I tried Section 75 with my Credit Card Company.

Dead lock went through Ombudsman ( pain as they decided on matters without my material and even after, kept their decision) and lost.

What I don't get and can't seem to find any Cases or Law on, when their is a breach of contract with a seller who no longer there, then why is it not a breach under Section 75 with the Credit Card Company?

The ruling was that, since I can get the card repaired by the manufacturer, then no Breach?

I thought the whole point of Consumer Law was, if a product fails ( Satisfactory Quality (SoG as before Oct 2015)) you can get a Refund or replacement, but being no seller available to action that, then why do you lose out on warranty and so on, as the card was packed away?

One other factor, there was no paperwork supplied with the goods, just a shipment note. Nothing which constitutes the Act which replaced Distance Selling Act, as I rejected goods ( maybe I should I have said in letter, I reject the contract)

Friends and other's I talked to, have never had an issue claiming under Section 75 when a seller goes into Administration.

I know you don't give Legal advice here, but it more of, what cases or anything , if I pursue in Small Claims, or will it go against me again?
MickDundee
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:42 am

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby atticus » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:09 am

Will the manufacturer repair/replace the card?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby atticus » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:12 am

If the credit card agreement is one to which s75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) applies, then a small claims case appears to have decent chances of success, based on what you have said. See also s75A.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby MickDundee » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:14 am

The will repair, but won't give the full warranty.

My understanding was, Manufacture warranty is an addition and can not be a means to resolve a matter.

Something like this

Sales of Goods Act

There is no obligation on manufacturers to offer warranties (or
guarantees). Any rights of redress against the manufacturer, given to
the consumer under a product warranty, are in addition to their
statutory rights against the retailer. This means that the retailer (not the
manufacturer) should be their first port of call when a product turns out
to be faulty.

However, if a good has an inherent fault, the retailer cannot evade
responsibility by simply referring the consumer to a manufacturer’s
warranty. A warranty does not replace or limit a customer’s statutory
rights. If they wish, consumers are entitled to rely on the remedies
available to them under sale of goods legislation rather than their rights
under a warranty.
MickDundee
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:42 am

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby MickDundee » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:25 am

atticus wrote:If the credit card agreement is one to which s75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) applies, then a small claims case appears to have decent chances of success, based on what you have said. See also s75A.


Tried reading through it all, and the Ombudsman (not named which per rules here) didn't help and made comments like, well you should have used the card so you wouldn't have lost warranty.

Same with , it doesn't matter if the Manufacture has now confirmed it is a fault with the card, as they already made their decision.

Even tried appealing the adjudicator, but the next inline went with the adjudicators findings despite them failing to asking right questions to Manufacturer etc.

It Is a possible option of using Legal service from House Ins, but I need to see if I have it and if there is excess to pay, as it would be cheaper at a Small Claims.

Just doing my head in with, what have I missed here?
MickDundee
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:42 am

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby MickDundee » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:32 am

Any other input?
MickDundee
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:42 am

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby atticus » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:57 am

Other than this?
atticus wrote:If the credit card agreement is one to which s75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) applies, then a small claims case appears to have decent chances of success, based on what you have said. See also s75A.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby MickDundee » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:18 am

Thank you for that , I was just trying to get some input on, how the Ombudsman also use Law? or do they?

I was totally confused how they ruled as they did, if Section 75 was used as set out?

Based on reading info before and your input, I still read it as, in the absence of the retailer, the Credit Card Company would be liable.

Thank you again and just a relief that there is still a chance.
MickDundee
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:42 am

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby atticus » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:46 am

Did the Ombudsman issue a reasoned written ruling? That may contain the answers to your question about his approach.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Confused on Consumer Law

Postby MickDundee » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:10 am

The usual, their findings are correct and not done anything wrong.

Just ends up wasting time to try complaining, as they just been backing each other up as I also questioned if they read the full papers I submitted. This was due to the last and final decision maker, didn't even know if the card was with the manufacturer or not. This also was the same with other decisions, where they seemed to have only included only what the Adjudicator decided and no reference to anything I submitted.

I presume the outcome is now online at their site.

Edit - the calls are recorded their end so It easy to prove what the person said.
MickDundee
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:42 am


Return to Contract and Consumer Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest