carphone warehouse, quick advice needed...

[gyzmo]

You can easily fit the basics into a day. Shop managers and other floor staff etc should not need to know case law as they are unlikely to end up in court arguing a point. All that is needed is a basic outline of the main legislation and an understanding of the principles of fair trade and consumer protection.

 

Alas, the situation does not seem to be improving. The DTI as it was then commissioned an IPSOS survey of business and the public of their understanding of consumer rights. One would expect businesses to be more aware than consumers, and the same of larger businesses compared to smaller ones. But noooo - they were equally as clueless as each other.

 

There is also an excellent paper by Phillip Callum for the National Consumer Council entitled "The Stupid Company: How British Businesses throw away money by alienating customers". It's one I referred to in my dissertation and is well worth a read (the paper that is, not my dissertation!).

[Kraken1]

I meant a day is not enough in that you need to use it, or you forget it. It needs to be an ongoing thing. I think case law is useful, not to cite to but to apply to situations you are faced with, for eg when it comes to assessing damages or compensation.

 

The OFt do publish a handy traders' guide to consumer law though. I've actually given traders I've been arguing with a copy... it can help.

 

Businesses and consumers are equally clueless, but the advantage of the consumer is that they generally know and accept they are. Traders don't and won't...

[gyzmo]

lol! true!

[big blue one]

well spoke to cons direct today and hey disagree......

 

they said it was ok that she was given a refurn phone, and has no right to demand a new one.

[andie_303]

well I'm very confused because they didn't tell me that - it got me a brand new one from Virgin

[andie_303]

how long has you're friend had the phone?

[big blue one]

its my sis, she had it 7 mths. 18mth cont

[big blue one]

any advances on this information? im going to cpw tomorrow....

[big blue one]

right i spoke to cons dir again and they advised me same as you guys on here. was advised to gointo shop and request replacement and if they did not comply to send a letter then if no joy to contact them back...

 

ANY TEMPLATES FOR ME TO SEND?

[big blue one]

no templates?

[gyzmo]

try this (I am, again, somewhat tipsy so may need checking / editing).

 

Sirs,

 

I purchased from yourselves a Tocca mobile phone from yourselves (details attached) which has subsequently developed a fault. It has in fact developed a fault 3 times and had to be replaced with a refurbished Samsung Soul phone. This has also developed a fault.

 

You are reminded of the provisions of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which requires goods supplied to be of satisfactory quality and durability. It is quite obvious that the phones supplied to me do not conform to the contract of supply.

 

I require that you now provide a phone of suitable quality and durability as the contract originally requires, as I am no longer willing to accept a series of repairs before a replacement phone is given.

 

I believe I have been more than patient in this regard and seek your agreement and action within the next 14 days to prevent legal proceedings.

 

Yours, etc etc.

 

Attach copies of the contract and repair details carried out, as well as a bullet point factual list of faults and action taken until now. And DO report to Consumer Direct.

[Powlo1]

Best to make it simple here for you.

 

Warranties state that the Manufacturer has to be allowed to try and repair the handset 3 times. If they cannot then they have to replace with same model or one of a similiar and equal specification. And in this case the Soul (U900) would be classed as the replacement.

 

Now that the Replacement has developed a fault the circle starts again at the beginning, regardless of whether it was a replacement or not.

 

By the way Gizmo, it wouldn't really work bringing the contract into it as if you read through the T&Cs the mention of a phone is very rare and is not covered as the contract relates solely to the SIM.

[Kraken1]

statements in warranties cannot overrule stat rights or normal contract law.

 

Now that the Replacement has developed a fault the circle starts again at the beginning, regardless of whether it was a replacement or not.

 

This I disagree with - it is not the goods it is the contract.

[Powlo1]

The Phone is essentially supplied by the Network/dealer as a tool to use the network.

 

If your having problems with the phone or even if the phone for talking sake blew up, it doesn't breach the contract. As the contract is for the SIM not the phone.

[gyzmo]

Not really. Firstly, there is supply of goods. Secondly, it depends on how the product was advertised. If the emphasis is on the phone, then courts have ruled that the phone, not the airtime/sim is the main point of the contract.

[Kraken1]

also, without the phone the rest of the service is pointless. the provision of a phone is clearly a fundamental term of the contract.