So mcuh for the new consumer act!

[Barkingmad]

I bought a little Metz flash on the 29th of January, which has not been used much, and is now faulty. As I understand the new Consumer act, if something is faulty within 6 months of purchase, the consumer has the choice of a repair, a replacement or a refund. However, I have been told by the Camera store owner that it will be sent in for repairs [with the offer of the loan of a flash while it is gone]. In response to the consumer act - I was basically told that I can take it court. So, in reality it seems that nothing has changed.

[Surly Ghillie]

I was basically told that I can take it court.

so why don't you? If the costs of a court case are too daunting, you can initiate your claim via small claims court. The chances are the mere fact of initiating legal proceedings might change the store owners's mind.

So, in reality it seems that nothing has changed.

So in reality everything has changed. With the law on your side, the only thing that hasn't changed is perhaps consumer apathy?

[Peter Veitch]

No need to go to court at all. You can lodge a grievance with the Commissioner at the "DTi, Consumer Protection". A hearing will be called, probably telephonically and the Commissioner will rule.

A friend of mine has just done this relating to service quality on an old Porsche by the local agents and got a ruling in his favour.

Here's something I found which outlines your rights and provides contact details.

[Barkingmad]

THank you so much! Appreciated!

[Phillip.Grobler]

I m not sure whats the issue ? It broke, they are prepared to fix it and even give you a loan unit

CPA is not a way to screw suppliers it is to protect against bad suppliers, knowingly selling bad products.
From the link Peter posted "Suppliers are obliged to refund, repair or replace the failed, unsafe and defective goods" - but its the suppliers choice.

Its only if it breaks again after the repair "Suppliers are obliged to replace goods or refund"

The responsibility does not even lie with the store it lies with the supplier, the store could have just given you the contact details of the suppliers of Metz directly to sort it out on your own.

[Anonymous]

I m not sure whats the issue ? It broke, they are prepared to fix it and even give you a loan unit

CPA is not a way to screw suppliers it is to protect against bad suppliers, knowingly selling bad products.
From the link Peter posted "Suppliers are obliged to refund, repair or replace the failed, unsafe and defective goods" - but its the suppliers choice.

Its only if it breaks again after the repair "Suppliers are obliged to replace goods or refund"

The responsibility does not even lie with the store it lies with the supplier, the store could have just given you the contact details of the suppliers of Metz directly to sort it out on your own.

I think if you refer to the act you'll see it says:

(2) Within six months after the delivery of any goods to a consumer, the consumer may return the goods to the supplier, without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and 45 expense, if the goods fail to satisfy the requirements and standards contemplated in section 55, and the supplier must, at the direction of the consumer, either—(a) repair or replace the failed, unsafe or defective goods; or
(b) refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer, for the goods.

They specify "at the direction of the consumer".

They also define supplier. [A] "‘‘supplier’’ means a person who markets any goods or services;" so they cannot pass the buck back to the manufacturer.

[Andre v]

As pfgrobler mentioned. Also not sure what the problem is?

They are sending for repair and even offering a loan unit, i see no need to hammer a camera store owner offering good service.

Maybe a bit of buyers remorse?

[Fanie]

I cannot see the "replace" option to work, new car has a rattle, after the first service it still rattles, now you want to force them to replace? I cannot see this work in practice, unless several attempts by the dealer to fix does not work?

I would give them the chance to repair, unless its now a case of buyers remorse, not wanting the purchase any more.

[Anonymous]

The fact is it's no longer up to the supplier to decide but the customer. It seems that the supplier knows this and is basically flipping the bird at the law and the customer who merely wishes to exercise his rights.

[Chris F]

Can somebody explain the difference between

"supplier"

"retailer/shop" ?

surely Pick and Pay does not carry the "liability" for each and every product in their store. At a guess I would think that they would pass this liability back to their "suppliers" (who very well might NOT be the manufacturer) ...

[Anonymous]

Can somebody explain the difference between

"supplier"

"retailer/shop" ?

surely Pick and Pay does not carry the "liability" for each and every product in their store. At a guess I would think that they would pass this liability back to their "suppliers" (who very well might NOT be the manufacturer) ...

I would imagine that as far as the consumer is concerned the supplier is, as the act defines, "a person who markets any goods or services".

The customer cannot be expected to deal with the seller's suppliers who often refuse to deal with the public directly in any case.

[WayneB]

I am very much in agreement with the philosophy that if I buy an electronic piece of equipment and it fails in short order, it must be replaced and not repaired. My reasoning behind that being that if the device failed so quickly off the assembly line, there is a very strong possibility that sub-standard quality control, sub-standard workmanship, or sub-standard components have been involved somewhere in the chain from the manufacturer's procurement/manufacture of the source components to the assembly, quality control, testing and supply of their products.

A good example of what I am referring to is Intel. In 28 years in the computer industry I have only ever seen 2 of their CPU's fail, one of which was due to being forced into the CPU socket the wrong way around causing a mini-eruption inside the PC, and the other due to a faulty cooling system in the days before there were thermal runaway shutdown features built into their CPUs. Now Intel's manufacturing, quality control and supply infrastructure is so strong that this is the sort of reliability that I can trust and believe in. What's more, I KNOW that if I have a problem with one of their products they will swap it out without question once proven to be the case.

Now obviously CPU's cannot be repaired, but what I am getting at is the reliability that is possible with adequate planning and implementation in the manufacturing environment. When I purchase a piece of electronic equipment, if I am paying a price for the established name of a company's products, I expect to get the same levels of quality, and if the product is faulty a repair is not providing me with a pristine fully factory condition item and I am therefore not a happy customer.