Thanks, and yes I agree, it seems that is the only thing that Currys/PC World understand. I got seven separate replies to my emails asking them, begging them, to at least look at their practices against the requirements of the regulations and seven times they simply refused to take a blind bit of notice. Blanket refusals to engage until I put in an online claims. Then they couldn't fall over themselves fast enough to settle . I didn't let them do that before really putting them through the ringer so that they knew what it was like to receive obdurate, unhelpful replies. This company (PC World/Currys) is woefully inadequate when it comes to real customer service, more than happy to continue to break the regulations which they are subject to and to do so without the slightest thought. They need to change their behaviour - fast, before they get a public and embarrassing rinsing for this behaviour.

Yes, I absolutely agree. The only problem is that the company will sail on regardless (literally) and carry on doing the same thing to everyone else! Hopefully a few people will read this, having googled the issue - as many as possible I hope and then maybe it will start to get sufficiently painful for the company that they will do something about it. I shan't be relying on them changing the way they behave simply because they know that would be the right thing to do though!

Sure SS, no problem. I bought a computer online from Currys and took it home and tested it. I found it was too slow for my needs so I emailed the Customer Services department and asked for my money back. They however said I could not have my money back as I had switched the machine on. This did not seem right to me as I did not think that would render me unable to assert my rights under the Consumer Contracts regulations which say that a customer who makes an online purchase has a 14 day cooling off period (which I was in). Testing the computer was surely only what one would expect to be able to do if one was trying out a model on display in a shop? Currys would not even enter into any discussion on that point however. These are the many responses I received when I askesd them if they would address my request with reference to those regulations: "I understand that you would like to see how the pc functions. However, we cannot take a product back once it has been used" "As the unit has been used, we are unable to offer a return and refund to you. Our policy states that the item must not be switched on or used in order to request a return" "Whilst I understand that you turned the unit on to test it, I regret that the unit is still classed as used. With this in mind, we would be unable to bypass our terms and conditions. "I am sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused. I have spoken to my Manager in regards to the issue that you have raised and as advise we are unable to offer a exchange or refund as the product has been used" "I can only reiterate what my colleagues have all previously advised, we would not be able to accept the item back, as it has been opened and used. I can confirm to you that any future emails of your will be read but may not be responded to" "As you have noted in your original email you have used the product. On this occasion as the product has been used we are unable to accept a return of the item" "I appreciate you are not happy with the outcome received. We are not trained to answer Legal queries so if you want to discuss this further with our Legal team your legal representative should write to them" Frustrating! It seems that they would only address the issue according to their own terms and conditions, and would not enter into any debate which involved my actual rights under the law. So I had no option but to take out a Moneyclaim online claim, to get a judge to order them to refund me. And lo and behold - within a week I received a letter from their legal department offering me a full refund, plus the £25 costs I had incurred by making the claim. The outstanding issue however is that this offer was made "without prejudice" - they were not admitting that I had a right to a refund, only repaying me on a non blame basis. So where does that leave people in a similar situation? The company has not changed its terms and conditions and, as a result, will continue to refuse to refund customers in a similar situation to me, probably hoping that they will not take it all the way to legal action (and buying off the very few who do). That seems wrong to me - particularly as the law is so clear and specific, and that they must absolutely know they are not adhering to it. As a result I want to make sure that this information is out there so that anyone who is in this situation knows that they are legally due a refund and they can get it if they want it. Hope that helps. If anyone knows any way I can get this message out to a wider audience, please do let me know. And if there are any consumer journalists reading this, do feel free to contact me and I will give you all the details!

If you have ever been bought a computer online and been refused a refund by PC World/Currys because you "switched it on" then I have good news for you - you can get that refund and the company has no right to refuse it. Anyone who buys anything online has a 14 days cooling off period, within which they can return a product and get a refund; that is the law. PC World/Currys however do not like to recognise this right when it comes to computers. They maintain that if you "use" a computer (ie switch it on) then you immediately invalidate your right to a refund and will refuse all refund requests from their customers.. They are not legally entitled to do this however! I bought a computer online from Currys, switched it on and tested it. I then decided it was not right for me (too slow). I contacted the company and asked for a refund, however that was refused - seven times. I then took out a small claims court case - and hey presto, the company fell over itself to settle that case and pay the £25 costs it had incurred me. The reason they settled is because they knew that they could not win the case as I clearly had the law on my side. They however have not changed their terms and conditions which contains this clause about not giving refunds if a computer is "used", clearly hoping they can get away with not refunding people unless they go to the bother of taking legal action. If you are having this problem with this company then please post here and I will tell you how to get your money back. This disreputable company should not be allowed to get away with depriving you of your legal rights in this way and I would be only too happy to help ensure they don't! Any questions, please ask away. I will check this regularly and give further details if required.

Ah great, thanks v much! I will write to him and then report back!

I could not agree more silverfox1961. Any idea what his email address might be?

If you have ever been bought a computer online and been refused a refund by PC World/Currys because you "switched it on" then I have good news for you - you can get that refund and the company has no right to refuse it. Anyone who buys anything online has a 14 days cooling off period, within which they can return a product and get a refund; that is the law. PC World/Currys however do not like to recognise this right when it comes to computers. They maintain that if you "use" a computer (ie switch it on) then you immediately invalidate your right to a refund and will refuse all refund requests from their customers.. They are not legally entitled to do this however! I bought a computer online from Currys, switched it on and tested it. I then decided it was not right for me (too slow). I contacted the company and asked for a refund, however that was refused - seven times. I then took out a small claims court case - and hey presto, the company fell over itself to settle that case and pay the £25 costs it had incurred me. The reason they settled is because they knew that they could not win the case as I clearly had the law on my side. They however have not changed their terms and conditions which contains this clause about not giving refunds if a computer is "used", clearly hoping they can get away with not refunding people unless they go to the bother of taking legal action. If you are having this problem with this company then please post here and I will tell you how to get your money back. This disreputable company should not be allowed to get away with depriving you of your legal rights in this way and I would be only too happy to help ensure they don't! Any questions, please ask away. I will check this regularly and give further details if required.

That is v useful and interesting silverfox1961, thank you very much. It seems from that that PC World agreed to refund him despite him switching the laptop on, however they did do so "without admitting liability". I guess the main other difference is that he bought it in store and before the regulations changed about your rights buying online. In that way it isn't really definitive, interesting though it is. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to claim a refund for a computer from PC World having switched it on? It seems pretty clear to me that they have no legal right to refuse me!

Yes andyorch that is what their T and C's says, but what I am saying to them is that the Consumer Contract Regulations does not support that. The regulations say you can test a good as you would in a shop and I would have tested a similar model on display before I bought it. switching it on and doing that is therefore, I maintain, perfectly acceptable handling and they should give me a full refund. But even if they won't refund in full, an outright refusal also seems not to be the treatment I should get within the law. There is nothing that says that they can legitimately refuse me a refund, albeit they may be allowed to deduct a sum to return the computer to its original condition by resetting it. Am I right though - does anyone think different?

I will fkofilee, but who has the law on their side...?!

Apologies if this has been covered before, I had a look but could not see a similar thread. And the reason I wrote the above is because I am imagining this is a familiar complaint. It relates to a desktop computer I bought online from PC World and now wish to return. I am within the required 14 day time limit so I wrote to them asking for a refund. I pointed out that I had switched the machine on to test it and they then pointed me to their Ts and Cs which say that by doing that I could not now return the machine. I wasn't quite so certain they were correct about their right to refuse me a refund on that basis and I cited the fact that I was within my rights to test the computer at home in the same way as I would test one in a shop and that I would have tested a similar model on display before I bought it. No, they said (repeatedly) although they repeatedly failed to address my central point about doing the same as if I was in the store. I also pointed out that they had no right to absolutely refuse me a refund as they should, at the least, refund me my money less any drop in value by having tested it. Again they weren't having that. So we are at stalemate - but who is right? I'd be interested in any views as I intend to keep pushing this one with them!

At a time when all organisations have to look at what they do and how they do it, it's a wonder that this organisation continues to be so arrogant. I wonder how much Chief Executive Peter Wallwork gets paid for heading up this lot?

If anyone has had problems with a debt collection service and wishes to pursue a complaint about their behaviour through the Credit Services Association (www.csa-uk.com/) can I warn you that this is just about the most inept organisation I have ever come across! I brought a complaint to this organisation about one of its debt collecting members three months ago (the company were aggressively pursuing my elderly father-in-law for a debt he did not owe and for which they could produce no original bill). For three months this organisation (the CSA) sat on my complaint, failed to follow up and trequire their member to respond to me, failed repeatedly to acknowledge or respond to any of my emails I send them and then failed to actually address the complaint I originally brought to them. This is an organisation that exists because it is paid for by its debt collecting company members. My whole experience with them has left me with the very strong suspicion that they will do absolutely nothing to harm their relationship with the companies that pay for their own existence. In terms of the CSA being an even handed and independent ombudsman, they are absolutely nothing of the sort. Avoid!