Sale of Goods Act advice please

[JanH]

I am currently engaging in an endearing exchange of emails with 3 (mobiles). DS2 took out a contract, via a local shop, in mid September and shortly afterwards DD1 did the same but through a 3 shop. Her phone gets a lot more use and stopped working after about a month - it would not switch on. She went back to the shop, they sent hers off for repair and gave her a loaner while it was gone; when it came back they told her it was a fault in that model of phone. It has been fixed and works fine now.

DS1's phone (same model) conked out the same way after about 2 months. We took it back to the local shop but they said they couldn't help and we had to ring 3. 3's best offer was for them to pick up the phone for repair, by courier, "sometime between 9am and 6pm", and return it on the same basis 3 days later - and this was after a lot of time messing about on an 0870 number, getting cut off once, hanging around for ages, and then speaking to an Indian call centre which is frustrating at the best of times.

It is my understanding that if a product is "inherently faulty" a consumer is entitled to either a repair or a replacement, and the decision rests with the consumer, not the supplier - am I right or can 3 insist on repairing? If so should I have to wait in for hours, twice? I found some Sale of Goods FAQs from the DTI which includes I have offered to take it to the nearest 3 shop instead but they ignored that suggestion.

TIA - all advice gratefully received!

I have just looked at teh same site. Think you're right, you have the right to repair or replacement or refund. And teh contract is between you and the shop not you and the manufacturer. Would it not be easier to just request a refund now to save all the hassle?

If fault arises within 6 months of purchase you are entitled to a repair or replacement. Its up to the retailer to decide which, unless the fault is there pretty much when you get it home. You only have to deal with the shop you bought the product from, not the supplier. Its up to them to do that. The retailer has to pay all delivery costs. I would go to the shop where you purchased it and stand my ground. Quote sale of goods act.

If it is not practical or possible to repair or replace you are entitled to money back, or part thereof depending on how much use you have had from it.

Thanks, guys - trouble is, we didn't buy it from the shop - the contract is with 3, the phone is "free", the shop is just a kind of agent, which muddies the water a bit. We went to the shop in the first place thinking it would be nice and straightforward to deal with a local business instead of getting into this 0870 crap. And 3 have not tried to tell us to go back to the shop and stop bothering them, which I'm sure they would if they could.

Janglybells, is it really up to the retailer? Only I'm sure I remember reading in the past about people having faulty goods repaired, and being unable to subsequently request replacement when the repairs went wrong, and having to keep having repairs, which I thought implied that there was a choice initially, IYSWIM.

I thought it was your choice to accept a repair, replacement or refund (n/a here, I think). However if you accept a repair you can't subsequently demand a refund unless it can't be repaired - that would be at the retailers discretion. As you got it direct from 3 the shop isn't really responsible for it and as you got it "free" I'm not sure how you stand if the repair is unsatisfactory. You could try Trading Standards if you think it is a general fault which 3 is reluctant to deal with, they may have other complaints on file.

Ring your local trading standards department. Ask for a leaflet. I've got Community legal service leaflet No. 13. Problems with Goods and Services. Its by the consumers association.

HTH!

Thanks, Liz - 3 seem to be quite happy to deal with the fault, as they repaired DD1's phone satisfactorily - in fact I'm wondering if trying to insist on a replacement may end up being counterproductive, as a new one could conceivably have the same fault. My main gripe is the inconvenience of their pick-up system (plus having to toil through a long 0870 phone call and end up speaking to someone the other side of the world who doesn't understand everything I say, Indian callcentres drive me wild).

They're not well up on Sale of Goods Act though. When I first emailed them requesting a replacement, they said "3 are not the manufacturer of the handset and are therefore not responsible if the handset is faulty." I mentioned that in fact the supplier is responsible, not the manufacturer, and their current gambit is "It is the decision of the supplier whether they chose to repair or replace your handset" - hence this thread because I wasn't 100% sure if I could insist - but apparently I can?

All I really want to do is sort it out at a shop and not have to do it all on the phone!

Is this the page you looked at (Scroll down to Repair or Replacement)? It suggests that is what you can ask for rather than them decide for you, unless it is a disproportionate cost to repair. I would have expected that a courier could be more specific about the delivery on the day at least but 3 days isn't unreasonable imho.

No, that's a different one, it's clearer, I have bookmarked it! This bit's interesting: "The remedies of repair/replacement and the subsequent rescission or reduction in purchase price are not applicable to Hire Purchase contracts and other laws apply." I wonder if a phone contract is legally similar to HP?

The 3-day turnround isn't the inconvenient part, it's the 9am-6pm bit that bothers me - I expect the courier could give me a better time, but when I was speaking to the call centre I knew they wouldn't even know which courier, let alone give me a contact phone number, and there is literally nowhere else to ring with 3. All their correspondence has the 0870 number, there are no landlines or other numbers. I have asked twice now for a landline number (they must have one, surely?) but they haven't given me one yet.

We have had both our phones in for repair with 3 within 3 months of having them. We have since then given up and have gone back to 02. Anyway, dh was on the phone constantly to them for ages, at the time we were talking to them they appeared to have 2 call centres, one in India and one in Scotland. Think we managed to get through to the Scottish one in the evenings if I can remember correctly. So try ringing at completely different times.

Message deleted

Hooray! Another infernal from wiggy!

Thank you - I had a feeling Sale of Goods might not cover it - bum.

OK - have rung the shop - I feel a call to Trading Standards coming on. He says he does not deal with 3 direct, he uses an intermediary called European Telecom, and that there is nothing he can do himself.

AAAAARGH. Back to square 1 - Trading Standards says that because there was no consideration (?) the shop isn't responsible (so he was right, bum again, glad I wasn't very snotty with him!!!) and I have to tell 3 in writing - he suggested recorded delivery - that their arrangements are too inconvenient and I need details of the courier in order to find out what time they will be picking up. (He agreed that staying in for 2 whole days is not on.)

Oh god - have I got the energy for all this...jenkel, I wish I could switch too but we are stuck with this contract until next September!

Well, was there no consideration? Presumably you only got the phone 'free' because you purchased soemthing else? There was something in it for him really.

No consideration between me and him, I think, Tink - obviously he gets something from somebody or he wouldn't do it!

It's a murky old world in mobile phone contracts. The TSO gave me details of OTELO which is the mob's equivalent of OFTEL (am braindead today, can't remember what title is) but there's something up with it and we are FORBIDDEN.

Did teh shop make clear to you it was acting as an agent?

I doubt it but I honestly can't remember precisely what was said - most of the time we were there consisted of him filling on an on-line application form for me. I certainly assumed that the shop would deal with any probs but didn't ask. The phone originates from 3 and our "purchase" of the contract with them pays for it.

Oh. My legal knowledge is now fully exhausted. If it was unclear to you that the were acting as an agent then it is deemed to be that they were acting as the principal (I think), But the filling in off a form (and the nature of the mobile phone business) might have correctly given the impression that they were acting as agents. So, back to Square 1. You know what my solution is? No-one should have mobile phones

You know what, Tinker? I agree!

Message deleted