Jump to content


toys r us nintendo ds


MF1
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5333 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

MF1, this forum exists because people share. I am happy to read your letter, but not by pm. It also protects you so that if s/one wrongly advises you, it will get picked up and corrected.

 

As for conflicting advice, I don't see it. Apart from one person who seems to be advocating fraud :mad:, everyone is telling you to go through TrU, and not to send it to Nintendo direct. Which is the correct info. And TS have told you this too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i this week had a similar problem with tr us regarding a psp hand held console. i phoned tr us and was told the same to contact sony and given a tel number. i purchased this unit 4 months ago and it has an occasional fault where it just goes dead...i contacted sony and they tell me they handle all the complaints with psp directly not tr us and they would send me out a remanufactured unit to replace it and the remainder of my guarantee will stand......nooooooooo...not to be........ i paid for a new one and want a new one back with a full guarantee! it has been escalated twice already and am waiting for a further call now from the sony head office...will keep you posted. :) 007

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MF1!

 

Yes, I agree, you do seem to be getting lots of conflicting advice with some advocating going back to Nintendo, whilst others saying you should deal only through TrUs.

 

The advice you've had from Consumer Direct is good and correct - deal only with TrUs. In law your contract is with Toys R Us and not Nintendo! Nintendo, as manufacturers of the DS unit, may well give you a warranty with the unit but that does not in any way replace the supplier's obligations in law with you, the retail purchaser.

 

To me the facts are very clear-cut; you purchased by retail a Nintendo DS from Toys R Us about six months ago. Within that six-month timespan the unit the unit developed a fault, namely a hinge broke and you reported the fault to your supplier within six months of purchase. It has been discovered that there exists an internet website which contains numerous other instances of this fault occurring on other similar units thus probably indicating either a weakness in design or in manufacture.

 

The Sale of Goods Act is very clear that, if a fault occurs within six months of purchase of the goods, it is the seller's responsibility to prove the fault was not present at the time of purchase. (After six months it then becomes the purchaser's responsibility to prove the fault existed at the time of purchase.)

 

As I've previously said, I would have no more nonsense from the supplier but would simply, politely and firmly point out to them in writing (to their Head Office) their obligations under the law, i.e. they must either replace or repair the faulty unit they supplied, They must also do it at their expense. No if's, no but's! It's the law and any 'guarantee' given by supplier or manufacturer cannot take your rights away from you! Go as far as to sugest they take advice on the SOGA from their corporate legal counsel if they doubt the correctness of what you say.

 

The question of the rudeness of the store manager is a completely separate matter altogether and, in this regard, I would be surprised if TrUs do not make some recompense to your daughter.

 

As Bookworm before me has said, I too will happily have a look at your letter if you'd care to post it on here.

Jimbo 44 - always happy to help, but always willing to learn from being corrected too!!! Whilst any advice given may be based upon personal experience, please always be sure you seek guidance from a professional in the particular field.

 

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark, but a large group of professionals built the Titanic.

 

A 'click' on the scales is always appreciated if I have helped. Many Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

whilst i am totally in agreement with what you and bookworm say, these units are actually sold to the retailers on the conditions that the warranty work is carried out by sony. if a product is faulty within 28 days they will exchange the product at the store, outside that timescale all warranty work has to be refferred back to the manufacturer. i know this contravines the soga and everything else, but a repair i was informed by sony takes about 9 weeks, they also informed that they are only bound to repair the item? the problem is they do not make it easy for you to do anything other than go down the route they like and the retailers are encouraged to do the same and send all warranty work to sony, end of story. i will let you know what sony says when they return my next call, but i was clearly told all they are required to do is repair it? :) 007

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

no..i dont think you are missing something...they are both hand held games consoles sold by toys r us and subjected to the same returns policies..??? both get fobbed off with you must complain to the manufacturer by toys r us...seems very much in line to me? :)

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the problems are these companies, both nintendo and sony as they manufacture exclusive in demand products they are able to dictate to these retailers the terms and conditions of allowing them to sell their products and what their returns policy is..

you as a consumer are also restricted as to what you can do in the event of a fault.

it matters very little where you buy these products from , the returns policy is the same.

customer care has unfortunately gone down the toilet, as you can only buy a psp or dslite that is made by the relevant company from an outlet approved by them or theirs so you cant really take your business elsewhere.

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the greatest respect, jamesbond, I think you're missing the point slightly.

 

Sony, Nintendo and, in fact, any manufacturer can 'impose' whatever terms they choose on a retailer in return for 'allowing' him to sell their products. The return of faulty goods to the manufacturer for repair is perfectly sensible in many cases.

 

However, none of these 'terms' can take away or alter a consumer's rights that are enshrined in law. Unless I'm very wrong, the purchaser's contract in law is solely with the retailer who sold the consumer the goods in the first place.

 

It therefore surely follows that, if the consumer so wishes, the onus (and cost, if any) of returning faulty goods to the manufacturer and/or exchanging them rests with the retailer and not the consumer. Whether the manufacturer chooses to repair, exchange for new or exchange for 're-manufactured' is between the retailer and manufacturer. However, if, under the SOGA, the consumer is entitled to a 'new' replacement, then nothing the manufactruer or retailer can say or do can take away that right.

Jimbo 44 - always happy to help, but always willing to learn from being corrected too!!! Whilst any advice given may be based upon personal experience, please always be sure you seek guidance from a professional in the particular field.

 

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark, but a large group of professionals built the Titanic.

 

A 'click' on the scales is always appreciated if I have helped. Many Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the greatest respect, jamesbond, I think you're missing the point slightly.

 

Sony, Nintendo and, in fact, any manufacturer can 'impose' whatever terms they choose on a retailer in return for 'allowing' him to sell their products. The return of faulty goods to the manufacturer for repair is perfectly sensible in many cases.

 

However, none of these 'terms' can take away or alter a consumer's rights that are enshrined in law. Unless I'm very wrong, the purchaser's contract in law is solely with the retailer who sold the consumer the goods in the first place.

 

It therefore surely follows that, if the consumer so wishes, the onus (and cost, if any) of returning faulty goods to the manufacturer and/or exchanging them rests with the retailer and not the consumer. Whether the manufacturer chooses to repair, exchange for new or exchange for 're-manufactured' is between the retailer and manufacturer. However, if, under the SOGA, the consumer is entitled to a 'new' replacement, then nothing the manufactruer or retailer can say or do can take away that right.

 

Absolutely right. To sum up, you always deal with the person you bought the item from. Thats all you need to worry about. The supplier etc is not your concern. You bought a product from X and that is all that matters. The rest is their problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

with the greatest respect for you guys, i am not missing the point at all.

the situation is that as a consumer you hit a brick wall and the law clearly states all they have to do is offer a repair of the product. whilst this may be inadequate as the repair in my case has been quoted as 9 weeks, you are left with no alternative other than to serve a claim on them in court.

this in its own right takes weeks to ensue and involves further cost to the consumer and to be honest not many want to go down that route, which sony know and act on accordingly.

you are correct in saying the soga applies but the only way to enact that right is through the courts as you are denied those privalagies full stop.

no matter how you look at it the consumer is wronged and the power they hold will only break on the service of a summons.

you can stand and scream the sale of goods act until you are blue in the face but the point is they will not respond to it until it is with the courts.

the point you are missing is that you have to accept a repair or take it to court.

if you take it to court you have further delays in using your product, it is that simple, yes you will win under the sale of goods act, but that does not replace the missed time your child is without the game or the upset and trouble caused, in exercising your legitimate rights under the soga.

i have 3 choices now with my psp...either start court proceedings against trus, keep arguing with sony about replacement or accept a refurbished unit in exchange...

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

well good news regarding my psp..sony head office have agreed finally to replace the unit with a new item...due to be delivered on wednesday via courier so will see what happens...toys r us to be honest were not interested in the soga at all and were insistant that they comply in full, and i found the manager at the leicester branch to be rude unhelpful and not at all interested in my complaint to the extent that he did not even bother to ask my name on the telephone or any further details other than make a complaint on the trus website if you dont like my decision......says a lot for toys r us i say.....007

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be warned, though, that by accepting a replacement from the manufacturer that you could seriously mess up your Sale of Goods Act rights against the trader - if your replacement goes wrong, you won't have the same level of protection as you would have done had you gone through the trader as you've effectively no longer got the product you originally bought from the trader.

 

That's why people recommend that you always try and use your statutory rights wherever possible, rather than a manufacturers' warranty.

 

Incidentally, in this case I would have also advised that Toys R Us were the ones to pursue for a repair or replacement (whichever the trader deems most cost effective). The Sale of Goods Act states that any repair must be carried out within a reasonable time - although that time will be rather longer for a Nintendo than, say, for a fridge, as it's not an essential item. That doesn't mean they can take the mickey, though. If they can't repair it within a reasonable time, you're looking at a replacement or rescission of the contract (a partial refund, although if the item is quite new they won't be able to take very much off at all!).

 

I'm also happy to look at any proposed template letters on the public site here, I've seen a lot of them in my time and always happy to help :)

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar problem with my lads DS - argos won't hep because we don't have the receipt (it was a Christmas present from grandparents) :(

Looks like there are some dodgy hinges out there :(

 

You don't need the receipt.

 

As it sometimes depends on the person your forced to deal with try taking it to another Argos & if that fails start your claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we know what they should do...its a bit like the banks and the charges....but try going up against them and see how far it gets you without going to court....you hit a brick wall...i have spent two hours on the phone over this matter and got a new replacement psp on the way....that is better i believe than having the item repaired which under the soga is all they are bound to do..my warranty will be with sony but to be dead honest the reception i got in toys r us i am glad the warranty stays with sony..at least i will end up with a repair if it goes wrong again...trus did not want to know full stop and i have no doubts on my last discussion with them it would have gone to court if sony had not stepped in and replaced the item for me....the managers at trus would not do anything other than hand you over to sony for repair....i said i will take court action and issue a summons and he said sorry i cant help you go to sony do what you must if you wish to escalate it in group email the trus website......they MAY respond... the sale of goods only has effect when in the court...or trading standards can be bothered to do something.....which in my experience leaves much to be desired.

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you don't need a receipt to make a claim against a trader - all you need is proof of purchase and this can take many forms such as a bank or credit card statement, a cheque stub etc. Unless cash was paid, you should be able to grab something which counts.

 

I agree jamesbond that some traders will force the issue all the way to court, in my opinion this is foolish of them when there is a clear cut case but the law is there to be enforced and I for one would have no hesitation in taking a strong case there, these traders are banking on people not bothering to go to court and if more people were prepared to do so then maybe they'd take complaints a bit more seriously.

 

Incidentally, Trading Standards can't do anything in individual civil cases, they literally don't have the legal powers to do so, so it's not a case of not being bothered. They can't enforce the Sale of Goods Act as it's civil law. Only a court can do this.

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can advise businesses, certainly, and attempt to educate them, and I'm sure they do - but businesses don't always listen and they can't force them to. And like many departments at local government level there's usually a limit on resources!

 

It's nothing like saying that the police can't enforce criminal law - that's what the police have powers to do. Trading Standards departments have absolutely no powers to enforce civil legislation such as the Sale of Goods Act and most traders know this.

 

Aside from the Enterprise Act, which can't be used willy-nilly and still does not assist individual cases, Trading Standards can only enforce criminal trading laws such as those covering trade descriptions, underage sales, food labelling and content, weights and measures etc. They can't enforce civil law in individual consumer cases, it's ultimately up to the complainant to take the case to court.

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent advice rosie, and you are so right in what you say.in the case of my psp i am satisfied in that the service i am receiving now from sony is far more beneficial than toys r us would have given me without court proceedings. i have today received a brand new psp delivered by courier to my door, which is far more than i would have got had i had to take it to court..this route has benefitted me alot more than standing my ground and going through original trader..not only that but i have complied with their demands to let sony deal with it and if i do have any further problems, i can tell the courts that i was compelled to act in the manner undertaken by trus and that will be my defence. if i had taken the route advised about staying with the original vendor i have no doubt in my mind i would be worse off, in that i would have had to wait weeks for the repair and then still be left with a repaired unit. if i had taken the decision to go to court and excercise my rights under the soga, this in its own right would have taken weeks anyway and all the time the consumer is disadvantaged and put through hardship due to these refusals.. i think its horses for courses and i would not take this route in all circumstances, but in this instance it has been the best for my particular circumstances. 007

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

a quick update (sorry, i haven't been getting emails to say my thread has been updated, so assumed nothing more had been posted since i last looked here......)

 

well, i sent the letter which basically stated once again that it was TRU's responsibility as the fault was within the 6 month period to either replace or refund the unit. i also stated if they insisted this wasn't a manufacturing fault, that it was also their responsiblity to provide an INDEPENDANT report stating as such - with independant not meaning "we spoke to nintendo and they confirmed it's not a fault" - i.e. nintendo would not be independant.... this was as recommended by consumer direct when i last spoke to them.

 

i then gave them 7 days to reply (this is the second letter i've sent their head office customer service manager), and stated i'd take further action via the courts if i did not get a satisfactory reply.

 

i also asked them to write back to me, and not call me directly as they did to my 1st letter.

 

i HONESTLY thought this would do the trick and they would do the right thing finally....

 

the letter was sent on friday 1st december (recorded del), and we got a letter back in the post on saturday 8th as follows

 

"

i am writing further to your letter advisinf me of the problems you have experienced in regards to the nintendo ds that you allege has a manufacturing fault.

 

having discussed the content of your letter with our hayes store team i understand that they examined the item and found the hinge had broken and the screen had leakage.

 

the description of the problems provided is consistent with accidental damage and our store manager's opinion substantiates this.

 

in summary, we have been unable to find any manufacturing fault with the item and based upon this i consider that a refund is not justified in line with our original thoughts.

 

thank you once again for your letter and i am sorry that i am unable to be more positive in my response

"

 

(this from the customer service manager @ head office)

 

apart from the fact that they seem to have not really read my letter properly (i.e. no reference to my request for an independant report, nothing about the rudeness etc), there are inaccuracies in what they say.

 

yes, the hinge is broken - this is the issue i've reported all along

 

NO - the scereen does not have leakage - i've never said it did. the issue is just the hinge.

 

the actual store manager @ hayes has not set eyes on me or the nintendo ds - the manager we saw on the day was the electronics dept manager.

 

 

to say i'm furious is an understatement.

 

the next step appears to be court but i don't really have the time/money/patience to go through some lengthy process.

 

on the one hand, i think TRU are possibly just hoping that i'll back down and sort it out myself...but on the other hand, i really did think they would step up to plate here and sort something out.

 

at the moment the quickest route seems to be to get the unit back to nintendo myself - as i don't trust leaving it to TRU to send it back as i can see that taking weeks and weeks with countless telephone calls.

 

i know this lets them off the hook (something that hacks me right off!), but i've spent so much time and effort trying to sort this out already i just want a quick end to it now.

 

thoughts/feedback/views welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MF1

 

Well, well!! There certainly seems an underlying moral as far as Toys R Us and their respect for the UK's Consumer Laws are concerned! However, as I haven't any children, and am thus unlikely to be a customer of theirs, I suppose that doesn't really concern me directly.

 

In view of what I've just said, I can only advise what I would do in similar circumstances. I'm afraid, being 'the obstinate me', I would just have to fight on because of the sheer arrogance of the letter they sent.

 

I would do so by suitably adapting a LBA template from this site, outlining the facts again, rebutting the inaccuracies in their letter and sending it to them (along with another copy of the 1st December letter sent to them). I would give them fourteen days in which to get back to me with suitable proposals, (which should reflect my rights under the SOGA), to resolve the matter and finish with the definite itention of seeing the matter through to court if necessary. Naturally, as you have already done, I would send the letter via Recorded Delivery.

 

However, having said all that, I realise how easy it is for me to sit infront of my computer and 'pontificate' like this. I understand your desire to settle the matter reasonably and quickly but please, don't lose sight of what's been said above regarding the effect dealing directly with Nintendo will possibly have on your future rights as the consumer in the debacle.

 

Hope this helps a bit.

Jimbo 44 - always happy to help, but always willing to learn from being corrected too!!! Whilst any advice given may be based upon personal experience, please always be sure you seek guidance from a professional in the particular field.

 

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark, but a large group of professionals built the Titanic.

 

A 'click' on the scales is always appreciated if I have helped. Many Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks jimbo44

 

I would do so by suitably adapting a LBA template from this site,

 

can you let me know where i find this please - had a quick scout around but couldn't see anywhere obvious to find it ?

 

thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[/url]

Juggle this lot about

Sale of Goods Act Fact Sheet

URN No: 05/1730

 

 

Subject: Sale of Goods Act, Faulty Goods.

Relevant or Related Legislation: Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Key Facts:

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity

 

reversal burden of proof

 

Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees

 

Article 3

 

Rights of the consumer

 

1. The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered.

 

2. In the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge by repair or replacement, in accordance with paragraph 3, or to have an appropriate reduction made in the price or the contract rescinded with regard to those goods, in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6.

 

Article 5

 

Time limits

 

1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

 

EUR-Lex - 31999L0044 - EN

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...