My wife bought a "clearance" phone from mobiles.co.uk and it died less than
24hrs after receiving it.

We've contacted the seller but they're only offering repair or exchange (as
they have no more of this particular model), no refund.

I've checked their T&C and indeed it does say that they only have to offer
an exchange but I would have thought that it's a clear case for a complete
refund under the SOGA.

They say that the phone has prior use on it (hence the "clearance" price)
and because of this, no refund can be given. Is this really correct?

Tim

IANAL

I was under the impression that if it was sold as "Faulty Screen", and you
complained on this point after receiving it, you have no comeback. However,
if indeed it did have a faulty screen, but also any incomming calls for
example didn't work, you would be able to return the phone due to that
problem.

However, as its a Clearance line, that to me says its the last of that line,
and as such, should still be working fully. I expect that you should be
entitled to a replacement or repair, and if they can't provide this, a
refund.

See what others say before acting though.

Regards


SantaUK

SantaUK wrote:

However, as its a Clearance line, that to me says its the last of
that line, and as such, should still be working fully. I expect that
you should be entitled to a replacement or repair, and if they can't
provide this, a refund.

They are offering replacement (with an alternative phone) or repair, I just
thought that under the SOGA, one should be entitled to a full refund,
particularly when something has failed so quickly.


See what others say before acting though.

Will do.

Tim

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:26:44 +0000, Tim wrote:

My wife bought a "clearance" phone from mobiles.co.uk and it died less
than 24hrs after receiving it.

Are you rejecting it under sales of goods act, or distance selling regs?
It makes a difference about what you can expect from them.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
SantaUK wrote:

However, as its a Clearance line, that to me says its the last of
that line, and as such, should still be working fully. I expect that
you should be entitled to a replacement or repair, and if they can't
provide this, a refund.

They are offering replacement (with an alternative phone) or repair, I
just thought that under the SOGA, one should be entitled to a full refund,
particularly when something has failed so quickly.


See what others say before acting though.

Will do.

Have a read at the Consumer Direct website on the following link, there is a
contact number to ring if you need further advice.
http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/

Tim wrote:

They say that the phone has prior use on it (hence the "clearance" price)
and because of this, no refund can be given. Is this really correct?

Bull**** - a retail purchase which fails within 24hrs due to a fault which
was not specifically advised is clearly eligible for refund. Warn them in
writing and then sue them, you'll win hands-down.

In message , Steve Walker
writes

Bull**** - a retail purchase which fails within 24hrs due to a fault which
was not specifically advised is clearly eligible for refund. Warn them in
writing and then sue them, you'll win hands-down.

I agree, clearance or not it didn't work so they should replace or
refund unless you want to accept one of the alternative phones on offer.
--
Paul Harris

On Mar 4, 1:26*pm, "Tim" wrote:
My wife bought a "clearance" phone from mobiles.co.uk and it died less than
24hrs after receiving it.

We've contacted the seller but they're only offering repair or exchange (as
they have no more of this particular model), no refund.

I've checked their T&C and indeed it does say that they only have to offer
an exchange but I would have thought that it's a clear case for a complete
refund under the SOGA.

They say that the phone has prior use on it (hence the "clearance" price)
and because of this, no refund can be given. *Is this really correct?

As mentioned above, it is stercus taurorem.

It may also be a criminal offence, contrary to The Consumer
Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976, to seek to
publish any terms or conditions that attempt to prevent a customer
claiming a refund for faulty goods.

Vide http://preview.tinyurl.com/no-no-refunds

Christopher Bowlas wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:26 pm, "Tim" wrote:
My wife bought a "clearance" phone from mobiles.co.uk and it died
less than 24hrs after receiving it.

We've contacted the seller but they're only offering repair or
exchange (as they have no more of this particular model), no refund.

I've checked their T&C and indeed it does say that they only have to
offer an exchange but I would have thought that it's a clear case
for a complete refund under the SOGA.

They say that the phone has prior use on it (hence the "clearance"
price) and because of this, no refund can be given. Is this really
correct?

As mentioned above, it is stercus taurorem.

It may also be a criminal offence, contrary to The Consumer
Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976, to seek to
publish any terms or conditions that attempt to prevent a customer
claiming a refund for faulty goods.

Vide http://preview.tinyurl.com/no-no-refunds

I phoned out local trading standards office and they comfirmed that the
complany concerned are clearly in the wrong and also highlighted misleading
statements in their returns policy that breech distance selling regulations.

I certainly won't be buying from http://www.mobiles.co.uk again.

Tim

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:48:10 -0000, "Tim"
wrote:

Christopher Bowlas wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:26 pm, "Tim" wrote:
My wife bought a "clearance" phone from mobiles.co.uk and it died
less than 24hrs after receiving it.

We've contacted the seller but they're only offering repair or
exchange (as they have no more of this particular model), no refund.

I've checked their T&C and indeed it does say that they only have to
offer an exchange but I would have thought that it's a clear case
for a complete refund under the SOGA.

They say that the phone has prior use on it (hence the "clearance"
price) and because of this, no refund can be given. Is this really
correct?

As mentioned above, it is stercus taurorem.

It may also be a criminal offence, contrary to The Consumer
Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976, to seek to
publish any terms or conditions that attempt to prevent a customer
claiming a refund for faulty goods.

Vide http://preview.tinyurl.com/no-no-refunds

I phoned out local trading standards office and they comfirmed that the
complany concerned are clearly in the wrong and also highlighted misleading
statements in their returns policy that breech distance selling regulations.

I certainly won't be buying from http://www.mobiles.co.uk again.

So have you told them what trading standards say?