Query re return of goods

[josswallace]

I have just had a longstanding dispute with a mobile phone refurbisher. I initially returned the phone as not fit for purpose as it did not funtion as I needed it to and it did not comply with the Sale of Goods Act. The refurbisher refused to return my money as he claimed there was superficial damage to to the rear case and insisted on returning the phone to me which I accepted under duress and informed that I would take the matter further. In the end the refurbisher admitted that the sales description was not valid but still refused to refund my money. Unfortunately for the refurbisher he had arranged the sale through Amazon Pay and once I sent Amazon the details they authorised the refund.

The position I am in now is that I have the phone and the refund and the refurbisher has offered a paynment of £50 for its return. I have accepted this offer on the grounds that the refurbisher accepts responsibility for the phone at the point of pick up. The refurbisher has refused to do this, expects me to package up the phone and send it off to them and they will then pay the £50. This is exactly what happened the first time and I am not prepared to do it.

The refurbisher is threatening me with court action although what they would charge me with has not been explained.. Am I within my rights to insist that the refurbisher takes responsibility at the point of pick up.

[R0b]

Hi,

Sale of Goods Act was replaced with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which is coming up to 6 years old, so I'm wondering why you are claiming it is defective under an older piece of legislation. Were you acting in the capacity as a consumer or a business when you purchased the phone?

[josswallace]

My mistake , I am just a consumer and was using the term sale of goods generally. Essentially I have been reimbursed by Amazon Prime because the seller was at fault with his description of the goods. I dont want the phone but there is nothing to stop the refurbisher pullinng the same trick again i.e receiving the goods then claiming there is something else wrong with the item. All i want to do is protect myself from any further sharp practice by insisting that the goods are examined on pick up so there can be no doubt as to who has the responsibility for the item