Can B&Q insist on repair instead of exchange?

[panther12]

Last year my brother brought a £210 table saw from B&Q. It has only been used about half a dozen times and recently he came to use it and sparks shot out of the motor. As it is still within 12 months he rang B&Q who said to contact the manufacture who will arrange to pick it up for repair. He explained that he needs it ASAP for a job he is doing now and they then told him to bring it down and they will get someone to look at it. He did this thinking they will exchange it but when he arrived at the store they still insisted that it will have to be returned to the manufacture for repair which could take 14 days. Just wanted to know if he is entitled to have the item exchanged (they did have the same in stock) or can B&Q insist that the item is sent back to the manufactures for repair?

[buzby]

You don't say how long he's actually had it. If it went wrong within the first month, I'd certainly expect a one-for-one swap, but if he's gone past this, he's to let the retailer repair it - there's no automatic right to a brand new replacement. Retailers can do this if they wish (good customer relations) but there's no law that forces them to.

[Bookworm]

Hmmm, not quite true. The repair or replacement must be carried out within a reasonable time and without causing significant inconvenience to the consumer. If this does not happen or the repair or replacement is not possible, then the consumer can rescind the contract (claim a refund) or request a reduction in purchase price.

 

Since buyer has made it clear he needs the product straight away for a job he is currently doing, it would clearly come under "significant inconvenience" and he would be quite entitled to insist on one of the other remedies.

[gyzmo]

Whoa! He's doing a job? If he has bought it for business purposes (and this is determined by the circumstances, not whether he calls himself a consumer or not) then Part 5A does not apply, and conditions in the rest of the Act become warranties, I believe. In such a case, it will be damages only (which is cost of repair or repair itself).

[Bookworm]

I did wonder too, but I thought he might have meant that doing a job meant something being done at home, you know the way that, oh, I don't know, finishing a dissertation could be called by someone as "a job needing doing".

 

I was going to post about the business aspect too and then forgot to. Thank goodness you're here.

[gyzmo]

Oh all right! Anyway, if you care to have a look at my signature you will realise I am nearly done anyway and as its late (and I have been working since 7 am) I thought I'd call it a night and have a peep round here. Just as well I did given the amateurs hanging around :p [Gyzmo books anonymously on next flight out of solar system to avoid Bookies wrath]

[Bookworm]

[borisbeaver]

Do you know if your Brother cleans the saw after use.

 

Table saw's make a lot of fine dust and it can get into the motor causing the brushes to spark.

 

I have a table saw and use it regularly. Before it goes away, it gets cleaned down with using a 2" brush and vacuum cleaner.

 

I concur with Buzby that if it had gone wrong in the first few months then it would be seen as defective.

 

Table saws get a lot of abuse, simply from the makeup of different types of wood. Softwood, Hardwood, Pressure Treated, Green, etc. These cause different stresses on the motor and is made worse if you are not using the correct type of blade. Also the type of cut. They are primarily designed for rip cuts, i.e. with the grain, not cross cut, across the grain.

 

Finally storage. At with any motor driven device, these should be stored somewhere dry. A damp atmosphere can cause the stator to degrade and cause the brushes to wear down quicker than normal.

[buzby]

Hmmm, not quite true. The repair or replacement must be carried out within a reasonable time and without causing significant inconvenience to the consumer.

 

Always of course assuming this was indeed a consumer. In either case, if the equipment was critical to a particular requirement, then it would be up to the Busineess OR consumer to either have a spare or insurance to ensure no disruption.

 

Following your advise (assuming it was an accurate interpretation ) there would be no requirement for insurance policies to cover equipment or mobile phones breaking down because you could simply demand a replacement.). If there is anything that you depend on, you can almost always count on it to let you down sometime (Murphy's Law). Therefore being unprepared for this would be reckless - moreso if this was a trader.

 

Again, there is no thought given to whether the device was maintained correctly (which would lead to breakdown) and if this was discovered as the motor was clogged with wood-dust, unless this could be proved to be a design flaw, rather than the owner not cleaning it properly after every use, then B&Q is quite correct. It all hinges on the timeframe to failure, and how the item was used.

[Bookworm]

there would be no requirement for insurance policies to cover equipment or mobile phones breaking down because you could simply demand a replacement.).

 

Indeed.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/2639-comments-extended-warranties.html

 

Food for thought. If that's possible.

[buzby]

Nope - different situation. And anyway, extended warranties wouldn't apply to business use. This isn't insurance in the accepted sense - it wouldn't cover you for theft or indeed consequential loss. There IS a place for phone insurance (especially when going abroad), but Extended Warranties are and have always been a complete waste of space.

[robin9342]

These stores never seem to have a consistent policy. I took a drill back to B&Q last year. It was their own brand, well over a year old, with no receipt, but they replaced it no question with a newer, better model worth £20 more and at no cost!

 

If there is a different branch nearby, they might be more sympathetic.

[gyzmo]

I think that comes down more to staff attitude. Some staff seem to think it's heir own goods and money they are giving out, not that of their employers.