Currys Customer Service is Apalling

[Magilla]

I did say certain manufacturers

 

Which is entirely irrelevant. It makes not one jot who the manufacturer is to the end user. If the manufacturer refuses (for whatever reason), then the shop has to bear the brunt.

[davyboy]

Which is entirely irrelevant. It makes not one jot who the manufacturer is to the end user. If the manufacturer refuses (for whatever reason), then the shop has to bear the brunt.

 

Quite correct.

The customer's contract is with the shop not the manufacturer.

The shop might have to send the goods back to the manufacturer for repair but if the goods get lost or damaged then it's up to the shop to recompense the customer.

The shop will then have to get recompense from the manufacturer or whoever they sent it to.

That is nothing to do with the customer.

[denlin]

Quite correct.

The customer's contract is with the shop not the manufacturer.

The shop might have to send the goods back to the manufacturer for repair but if the goods get lost or damaged then it's up to the shop to recompense the customer.

The shop will then have to get recompense from the manufacturer or whoever they sent it to.

That is nothing to do with the customer.

 

That may be true in most cases but as I keep saying certain manufacturers will not recompense for their faulty goods unless the retailer has gained their authorisation first. If you were in business and some of your major suppliers would not recompense you would not take the hit because you would soon go out of business:roll: It may sound harsh but in the real world no company could sustain this for long

[Alien52]

I ordered two items from the Currys web site last week, after they arrived I decided that I didn't want them. I returned them to a Currys branch yesterday and ,within 5 minutes, I was given a full refund. So for me Currys Customer Service is excellent !

[Waldo]

That may be true in most cases but as I keep saying certain manufacturers will not recompense for their faulty goods unless the retailer has gained their authorisation first. If you were in business and some of your major suppliers would not recompense you would not take the hit because you would soon go out of business:roll: It may sound harsh but in the real world no company could sustain this for long

 

Isn't it true in ALL cases, that the contract the customer has, is with the retailer, and the customer has NOTHING to do with the manufacturer?

 

If the retailer is out of pocket, because a customer returns faulty goods; they don't say to the customer "we need the manufacturer to recompense us, before we can recompense you". That's not how it works.

 

If you can't sustain that, you need to either put up your prices, or pay less for goods from the manufacturer (in light of the fact that they don't always replace faulty units etc) or something else. Just don't go whine to the customer that they need to wait for the manufacturer to replace their unit.

 

Well, you can if you want; but I'm sure more and more people will shop elsewhere, if you're not providing a satisfying level of customer service etc.

[Magilla]

That may be true in most cases

 

It's true for all cases in retail sales, a customer cannot waive their statutory rights.

 

but as I keep saying certain manufacturers will not recompense for their faulty goods unless the retailer has gained their authorisation first. If you were in business and some of your major suppliers would not recompense you would not take the hit because you would soon go out of business:roll:

 

I would because I would be compelled to by law if the customer insists on a replacement for a faulty item.

 

It may sound harsh but in the real world no company could sustain this for long

 

Unless they know their product has a high failure rate or is of questionable quality, why would they need to?

[denlin]

Isn't it true in ALL cases, that the contract the customer has, is with the retailer, and the customer has NOTHING to do with the manufacturer?

 

If the retailer is out of pocket, because a customer returns faulty goods; they don't say to the customer "we need the manufacturer to recompense us, before we can recompense you". That's not how it works.

 

If you can't sustain that, you need to either put up your prices, or pay less for goods from the manufacturer (in light of the fact that they don't always replace faulty units etc) or something else. Just don't go whine to the customer that they need to wait for the manufacturer to replace their unit.

 

Well, you can if you want; but I'm sure more and more people will shop elsewhere, if you're not providing a satisfying level of customer service etc.

 

I did not say we have to wait for the manufacturer to recompense us, what normally happens is we or the customer ring the manufacturer and get authorisation code. The customer can then go to store for exchange or refund or if item has been bought online we will arrange collection and customer can have exchange or refund.

[denlin]

It's true for all cases in retail sales, a customer cannot waive their statutory rights.

 

 

 

I would because I would be compelled to by law if the customer insists on a replacement for a faulty item.

 

 

 

Unless they know their product has a high failure rate or is of questionable quality, why would they need to?

 

Do you work in retail? because all items come with manufacturers warranty and while retailers have an obligation to their customers they still are obliged to follow manufacturers guidelines with regard to replacing that particular brand. I deal with this every day

[handypandy]

Do you work in retail? because all items come with manufacturers warranty and while retailers have an obligation to their customers they still are obliged to follow manufacturers guidelines with regard to replacing that particular brand. I deal with this every day

 

But surely, items 'damaged in transit', as in the case of the op, are nothing to do with the warranty? It is an issue between the retailer and the carrier. The item should have been replaced pronto, no argument.

[davyboy]

Do you work in retail? because all items come with manufacturers warranty and while retailers have an obligation to their customers they still are obliged to follow manufacturers guidelines with regard to replacing that particular brand. I deal with this every day

 

Once again the contract is between the customer and the seller.

A manufacturer's warranty doesn't take away the obligation of the seller towards the buyer.

This is from the Sale of Goods act:

F3848AIntroductoryE+W+S+N.I.

 

 

 

(1)This section applies if—

 

(a)the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and

 

(b)the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.

 

(2)If this section applies, the buyer has the right—

 

(a)under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or

 

(b)under and in accordance with section 48C below—

 

(i)to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or

 

(ii)to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.

 

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

 

(4)Subsection (3) above does not apply if—

 

(a)it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;

 

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

F3948BRepair or replacement of the goods E+W+S+N.I.

 

 

 

(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

 

(a)to repair the goods, or

 

(b)to replace the goods.

 

(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

 

(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

 

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

 

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

 

(a)impossible, or

 

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

 

©disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

 

(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

 

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,

 

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

 

©whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

 

(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—

 

(a)the nature of the goods, and

 

(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

 

No wonder customers have so much trouble getting satisfaction from sellers if their staff don't know the law.