CRA 2015 repair by manufacturer

[thischarmingman]

Evening all.

Long story short, purchased a steam generator iron from JL last September which refused to work in Jan of this year. Sent off to manufacturer for repair. Received iron back and it worked fine until last weekend (3 months after repair).

I have written to JL requesting a replacement (different brand) explaining that i had lost faith in the ability of a premium priced product to offer the reliability that i would have expected.

JL have replied that i need to go through another repair process as the item is over 6 months old - i think that this is within their terms and conditions.

I would very much appreciate better understanding my position under the CRA - does it matter who repaired the item initially and can i request a replacement under the CRA?

Many thanks

Paul

[R0b]

Re: CRA 2015 repair by manufacturer

In short, their terms and conditions don't require you to go through a second repair, the CRA only says you need to repair or replace. Followbig failure of the repair your entitled to a refund if same issue. Or in your case if you want an alternative that is something that JL could offer but not obliged to do so since it's a different product.

I'm out all day so I'll tag [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION] to comment further, if not I'll respond when I'm back

The issue is that you sent to the manufacturer rather than JL direct, but I think it's a moot point, Assuming JL would have passed it onto the manufacturer. The CRA is rights against the trader who sold the goods not the manufacturer themselves if they didn't sell you it.

[thischarmingman]

Re: CRA 2015 repair by manufacturer

Many thanks ROb.

I have written back to JL and attached details of the 1st repair whilst pointing out my understanding of position - right to reject or appropriate refund.

I'll see what they come back with.

Thanks again.

[thischarmingman]

Re: CRA 2015 repair by manufacturer

Ok, after a little bit of email to and fro the response from JL is below. Looks to me that i have a take the repair or leave it. If there is no other option open to me i'm going to take the repair but it is not my desired outcome - would asking for details of the 1st and 2nd repairs be a worthwhile activity on the assumption that if the same fault i'd then push for a refund?

"Thank you for your email regarding your understanding of the consumer rights act 2015, I have read the section from your email which relates to claiming under the act in the event that an inherent fault had been proved through an independent report at your expense.

After a 6 month period the onus falls to the consumer to prove that the current fault was there at the point of delivery. This section does state that if a retailer has not provided a resolution or refused to do so then you can claim a partial reduction refund.

In this case we are more than happy to carry out a repair under your guarantee policy, that will get you back into the position before the fault occurred. To do this we will have the item inspected so that a fault can be confirmed and resolved.

It states in the act that the retailer can choose to offer a replacement or refund or repair based on what is more economically viable to do so.

In this case we are not asking you to prove any fault was inherent and we are certainly not refusing you a resolution under guarantee.

In terms of the act itself and your question of after 6 months, I have found in section 30 item number 2 section 2, advises that goods under guarantee :-

“Guarantee” here means an undertaking to the consumer given without extra charge by a person acting in the course of the person’s business (the “guarantor”) that, if the goods do not meet the specifications set out in the guarantee statement or in any associated advertising,

a, the consumer will be reimbursed for the price paid for the goods, or
b, the goods will be repaired, replaced or handled in any way.

Also section 23 of the act advises under your Right to repair or replacement

subsection 3
The consumer cannot require the trader to repair or replace the goods if that remedy (the repair or the replacement)—
is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

In this case if you were to have a intendant report that confirmed, the current issue was inherent and not related to the last repair or any part of that work carried out. Should you then claim a partial refund after any reduction being applied, you will not be in the same position before the fault had occurred where as.

With the repair being offered under the terms of the guarantee we are providing the resolution in line with the most economically viable option.

I hope that this has clarified that we are offering you a resolution for this problem in the most economically viable way whilst honouring the guarantee that is in place with your purchase. "

Looks to me that i have a take the repair or leave it. If there is no other option open to me i'm going to take the repair but it is not my desired outcome - would asking for details of the 1st and 2nd repairs be a worthwhile activity on the assumption that if the same fault i'd then push for a refund?