It's not exactly a thriller, but here goes (be a good idea to get a cup of tea and some biccies before going any further).....

When you enter into a contractual agreement (buying / hiring etc good and services) you and the seller are bound not only by the contractual terms between you, but also those enforced by Parliament. These are in the form of legislation such as Sale of Goods Act, Supply of Goods and services regs etc. They imply terms into a contract, and these terms cannot be excluded, over-ridden or taken away - you can't even agree to waiver them (write something like "I agree that Sale of Goods Act will not apply" it into a contract and it will simply ineffective).

These terms are there for a very good reason. The consumer is at a disadvantage when it comes to buying goods, and to address this imbalance the legislation mentioned above (as well as other legislation) has been enacted.

There are also terms that the seller has. These could be, for example, a right to return unused goods within a certain time for a refund if you don't like the product you have purchased. Such terms are additional to your statutory rights - remember that those cannot be taken away from you.

The effect is that your statutory rights are more "powerful" than the contractual rights you have agreed to (the store's return policy for example), and this is one reason why you should use this as opposed to using a warranty (be aware though that a warranty may cover something thta SoGA does not protect you for). If there is a dispute (faulty goods shall be used as an example), you do not have to argue that you have a contract stating that goods should be of satisfactory quality - that is already implied by legislation. If you were to argue some contractual term, it is for you to prove as such.

Also, using legislative rights forces the store to consider the law, and not act as though they are doing you a favour by providing some remedy out of the goodness of their own hearts (replacing / refunding / repairing). I have taken a faulty mobile phone back to a store, and the put the reason for return as "refund under 14 day store policy). NO! It is because the law was not complied with - that is a whole lot different and highlights the point at the start of this paragraph.

If you have a dispute with a retailer, you should also report it to Consumer Direct. As much as I dislike that service, it does have one very useful function - it collects data on complaints that Trading Standards can use. Before consumer direct, it was difficult for TSOs to get an idea of where problem areas existed. Now, with a national database, such information can be gathered and used. and what can it be used for?

The Enterprise Act. This Act is very good as it is there to disrupt unfair trading, and action can be taken against a retailer who is consistently failing to adhere to the law, or persisitently carrying out bad practice. If people report problems to Consumer Direct, then TSOs can see where such practices are carried out, and if it is on a regular basis then they can take action.

The effect of this is quite significant. Whereas before, if action was taken against a retailer, it was in the civil courts by the buyer, and was done on an individual basis. Possibly, a prosecution may be brought against the seller depending on the problem, but this would be to the individual complaint. Now, where there are lots of relatively small complaints against a retailer, action can be taken as a whole and the penalties are quite severe.

Reporting something to Consumer Direct wil not only provide some advice for you on action to take, but it will also force retailers to consider that they are not above the law, and cannot get away with providing, in common parlance, a crap service or sell duff goods. Knowing that people will complain if they don't get what they pay for, and knowing that all such complaints will be recorded and used against them will force them to act in a more responsible manner.

If however, you follow a certain someone's advice, then these matters will not come to the attention of enforcement authorities. They will not act as they will not see the problem occuring. Phoning head office, or using some warranty is basically rewarding the retailer for not providing what they should have provided in teh first place. Also, your contract is with the seller, and it is for them to provide the remedy. By not insisting on your legal rights, you are again rewarding the seller for poor performance and also telling them that they are allowed to fob you off.

Once a company realises that they cannot fob people off, then they will start to provide a better service. The fact that a staff member (referred to as some dopy person inflicted with acne by certain people) may not be fully trained in consumer affairs is neither here nor there. That is a problem for the retailer. If that person is not trained, then they should get someone who is, and again, companies will start providing better training so that problems are sorted out there and then rather than you having to take further action, which leads me onto the point of court.

Going to court, as I have always said, is a last resort and should only be used once all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. Parliament has set up a framework for this to be followed. It is called the English legal system, and as you have a contract, you are in it as is the store. By using this framework, no only are you taking reasonable action, you are also utilising the very powers that, if used often enough, will lead to the outcomes I have explained before. Bypassing these, such as phoning head office or using a warranty (those methods advocated by certain person(s)), again provides a reward for poor service and ill not lead to overall improvement.

The best form of protection you can have is knowledge. Before buying anything, mak sure you know what it is you want and that it is suitable. Get things in writing and NEVER sign there and then - a reputable retailer will always allow you to consider whether to use them or not.

If things do go wrong, remain calm, polite but firm. Let the seller know exactly what the problem is and that you are not happy with their otherwise excellent service (wryly).

Remember that their sorting it is not open for negotiation - they sold it to you and they are responsible for providing a remedy. If an in-store complaint does not work, then contact Consumer Direct (reasons stated above) and write to the company (by recorded delivery). If that yields no response, write to them again giving 14 days to reply. If that fails, then write a final letter stating you will take action if no response is received within 7 days. if there is still no response, then contact Consumer Direct to update them and ask if a TSO can contact you for assistance (some authorities do provide court assistance, whilst others can offer more advice).

So it is down to you. By following advice to the contrary, you may get your problem sorted, but you can bet your cotton socks that it will hapen again and again - not just to you but to everyone. Or you can make a stand, enforce your rights and make companies behave and do what they are supposed to do in the first place.

Hope you enjoyed your cuppa!

Hi There

My company has an employee store which will not offer a refund on a faulty/non-working item only a repair - even if the product is dead on arrival.

Are employee stores subject to the same statutory rights for customers as high street stores? Eg. Is this actually legal?

I'd be really interested in your insight.

RAHB065

What do you mean by employee store? If the employees are buying as consumers and not for business then the same principles will apply. The fact that the goods are only offered to employees makes no difference. In fact, if the company has this as their policy (such as a notice saying they will not refund) then they will be committing an offence.

Hi Gyzmo, last September we purchased a Sharp Combi-Micro online from Millers who have now, unfortunately, gone out of business. The machine has developed a very noisy fault and is still under a twelve month warranty. I contacted Sharp who gave me then number of my nearest repair company who are in Exeter. We live in North Cornwall and this company have told me that I must pay them £40 to collect and re-deliver the machine after repair, or, I can deliver it myself to their store in Exeter, a distance of 60 miles, or deliver it to an associate retailer in Torrington, a distance of 40 miles. As a disabled pensioner firstly we would have difficulty in actually lifting the machine out to the car and then back indoors after repair and secondly we feel that we should have been offered this repair service for free, although it does say in the warranty that Sharp will not pay the cost of collection/delivery. Am I caught by the short and curlies or do I have any options?

It really depends on the terms of the warranty. As you point out, id does not cover delivery and there is little to be done.

I personally would contact Sharp again and plead to their better nature (if such exists) - surely they can agree to pay the fee for a disabled pensioner, even if it's a one off goodwill gesture for some free publicity. Is there a freind or relative who could take it if they are going that way? You could also post it but you then run the risk of damage in transit.

I don't normally recommend this, but a call to your local paper (or even a national one) may jolt Sharp's PR dept. However, such tactics rarely work as there are thousands of other such requests and the press only usually cover the juicy ones. That said, you've nothing to loose except the time and cost of a phone call.

Oh and just a little thing - you will find you get more responses if you start a new thread! This is a sticky for info purposes

Noted, thanks for taking the time to answer

You're welcome.

I do hope it gets sorted for you. Unfortunately, you are caught by the short and curlies but by no-one in particular (well, the legal system). It's the worst possible situation to be in with faulty goods. Do keep us updated. It may also be worth going to the CAB to see if they can "pursuade" (i.e, shame Sharp) into doing something decent.

Hope you didn't take the bit about starting a new thread as a criticism - it is apparently some kind of forum "ettiket".

Good luck.

Thanks gyzmo, I am new on here and still learning the rules. No offence taken, I'm too old to be sensitive anymore I leave that to the young 'uns. It looks as though I will have to make a specific journey down to Exeter, it will be cheaper that way even though all the ripoff Devon and Cornwall petrol stations have put their prices up ready for the holidaymakers arrivals 99.9p here at the moment, did someone say that the price of oil had collapsed??. Cheers

I wonder if there is anybody who might give me advice here. A couple of months ago my car developed a serious fault and needed a major component replaced. the job was done along with other tasks that were considered needed to ensure good service. Guess what, last week the car broke down with exactly the same fauld and the new major component that was fitted a couple of months ago had again failed. the car was towed to the repairing garage who removed the part and sent for examination ton the supplier who promtly said that the cause of failure was a problem in the engine. How do I stand legally and what action should I take?

Regard

Mike

thing is, would anyone actually bother to go through all of this for small amounts? It seems to me that there needs to be some kind of enforcement agency who fines any company for refusing to operate within the law from the first instance, without needing the consumer to write endless complaints.

agreed

Not sure if Statutory Rights are the information that the Trading standards told me, but here goes

I wish I had contacted the Trading standards before when I was ignorant of these things, but i did when my new gas boiler was 2 years old, I suddenly got no hot water. They have a list of the various items involved and for a new gas boiler the LEAST time expected before it goes wrong is 6 years ( thought that was a bit too little).

The manufacturers guarantee is one thing, but if it goes wrong in less than 6 years you have the right to claim off the person who sold it and of course installed it which is the plumber!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, if, for example, you paid British Gas for a new boiler, they are liable to repair the boiler free of charge if it goes wrong before the 6 years is up, and you do not need to pay a yearly service either.

So, it is advisable to contact the Trading Standards before buying an expensive item

Wonder what the brand new CAR limit is??????

I had and still have a problem with a local company which in tyhe course of carrying out a bathroom makeover contravened Scottish Water Byelaws 2004 by:

· installing pipework which was not adequately supported or clipped

· installing pipework which was not adequately insulated to protect against heat or frost, and;

· failing to fit isolating or servicing valves to pipe work where necessary.

Contacted SNIPEF who couldn't take any action because the fitter wasn't a member but suggested that I contact Trading Standards. Contacted Scottish Water and they also advised me to contact Trading standards. Spoke to 2 different laweres at CAB and they advised me to contact Trading Standards. After each of these conversations,I did try to get Trading Standards to do something about the problem but was advised that since they had no experts in plumbing, there was nothing that they could do about it. Then spoke to another person at Scottish water who expressed surprise the Trading Standards couldn't get involved and said that if they, Trading Standards, wanted to contact him by telephone, he would be happy to discuss the matter. I passed on the message but have no idea if they did, in fact, contact the Water Board.

At the end of the day, although I did get some advice from Trading Standards, I more or less tackled the issue by myself with help from the CAB.

However, I am still wondering how a company can contravene Scottish Water Regulations and Byelaws - the contraventions listed above are from a Water Board e-mail - and yet not incur the wrath of Trading Standards. Assuming that Trading Standards are correct, and I fully accept that they are, then in my opinion, this demonstrates, that there is a loophole in the Goods and Sevices Act that requires to be addressed.