I bought a rather expensive motorcycle jacket last month, and this morning I noticed the cuff zips are pulling out of their stitching. Yes, it’s snug (Not tight, just snug) when done up over my gloves, but it should be, that’s how motorcycle jackets work!

So I nipped into the shop on my way home and the salesman (Who was helpful) said he’d have to get hold of the boss and ask weather it should be repaired or replaced. They have a 28 day guarantee for exchanges, he said, and outside that it’s up to the boss. I’m 6 days out of that.

Now, to be honest, I’d rather have a replacement. This is a £250 Dianese jacket and I expect it to hold together when I’m sliding down the road, and not fall apart when I put it on!
If it was a fashion jacket, fair doos, but it’s not

So, what’s the verdict, whaddaya think?

Replacement or money back, innit?

Or send your very own Customer Service Liaison Officer down there….

Repair / replace / refund – your choice. Dainese is a quality product and yo have paid a quality price. No ifs buts or ands – you want a replacement you get it.

As an aside tho I always had my gloves over my jacket

PP, forget that rubbish they said, within 6 months the regs say you can demand a replacement. The 28 days is just their own internal b*****s.

TJ, I was hoping you would reply! 🙂

Thanks for the advice, sounds about right to me
(This is a textile jacket. Gloves ALWAYS should go inside or the water runs down the arms and into your gloves. The cuffs are very wide and designed to be worn this way. For leather, yes, I agree)

SUGDENR
Cheers again for the advice. Is there a link to something I can print out and take in with me by any chance?

Or send your very own Customer Service Liaison Officer down there….

Are you volunteering? 🙂

I wouldn’t go in there armed with pages from the SOGA, just go in knowing your are right and try to be diplomatic as they are less likely to take a defensive attitude.

just politely remind them of their duty should you deem the item to be faulty. now they can’t say the item isn’t faulty and that is that. but if, like you say it is un-stitching through general use and this is a protective peice of clothing, then I highly doubt they will try to argue otherwise given that it is obviously not ‘fit for purpose’

consumer direct website or google for sale of goods act

Just re-read my OP. I wasn’t clear, sorry.
They will REPAIR it no problem, but as I’m out of the 28 days they don’t automatically REPLACE. I’d rather have a replacement.

I’ve just done some reading and the only references I can find to the 6 month thing say “repair or replace”

http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

I have always found this to be quite a powerful one to produce.

it doesn’t matter if it’s outside THEIR 28 days. SOGA superceeds this ‘benefit’.

it is faulty, they should replace it or give you your money back.

thatz da law innit

Disnae copy and paste well but its clearly laid out in that link

I should add that they can ask to send the item off for testing etc in order to confirm that it is faulty.

an item should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable amount of time. it would appear to me that the item doesn’t satisfy either of these statemnts and I would be surprised if they find it not to be.

Relevant bits are;

If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
is legally entitled to:
P a full refund, if this is within a reasonable
time of the sale (“reasonable time” is not
defined in law but is often quite short); or
P a reasonable amount of compensation
(or “damages”) for up to six years from
the date of sale (five years after discovery
of the problem in Scotland).

There is one exception. This is when the
buyer is a consumer and returns the goods
in the first six months from the date of the
sale, and requests a repair or replacement
or, thereafter, a partial or full refund. In that
case, the consumer does not have to prove
the goods were faulty at the time of the
sale. It is assumed that they were. If the
retailer does not agree, it is for him to prove
that the goods were satisfactory at the time
of sale.

First 6 months assumed faulty at start and you can demand a full refund – hence accept a relacement instead.

it is faulty, they should replace it or give you your money back.

thatz da law innit

I’m no so sure as it is, to be honest. It keeps saying REPAIR OR REPLACE.

Hey-ho. At least if they repair it should be stronger than a new one!

I think you need to allow them the opportunity to fix it to good as new, if not then you can ask for/demand a replacement, and then a refund if the problem persists.

Repair / replace / refund – your choice. Dainese is a quality product and yo have paid a quality price. No ifs buts or ands – you want a replacement you get it.

As an aside tho I always had my gloves over my jacket

It’s not your choice. If the shop offers to repair it in a reasonable time then you have to let them do that.
If they can’t repair it then its replace or refund.

PP agreed that is confusing, but you are assuming that it is the retailer who gets to choose whether it is repair or replace, there is nothing there that gives the retailer the decision. The accepted rule is that within 6m it is assumed that the goods were duff at the start and so you may demand what you bought – a new undamanged item, after pereriod a repair can be acceptable if the goods can be sucessfully repaired so as to be as good as new.

It keeps saying REPAIR OR REPLACE.

by ‘it’ you mean them [dianese]. it doesn’t matter what they say, just what your rights are and your rights, assuming the item is genuinely faulty, are such that you can demand a replacement or refund.

It’s not your choice.

Wrong, this is a common misunderstanding and this is what was changed principally by the ‘sale of goods regulations’, there is nothing that give the seller that power of decision and in fact in the first 6m it is upto the consumer.

weirdnumber

Nope its the consumers choice you do not have to accept a repair – read the link above

Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
is legally entitled to: a full refund,

its very clear – no ifs buts an ands

Are you volunteering?

Well, I am available for a small fee*.

*It’s beer. I won’t lie. I am easily bought. 😳

once again TJ completely ignores the ‘reasonable timescale’ part of the sale of goods actthis provides the retailer with wriggle room as it has NEVER been tested in law, whilst i agree at this time scale you should get a refund/replacement, who’s idea of ‘reasonable timescale’ is open to interpretation by both you and the retailer and may differ
.

TBH its a crappily written law that provides unscrupulous retailers with wriggle room

Hope you get the right resolution PP, sorry to have to write the above but you need to know what COULD happen

weirdnumber

Nope its the consumers choice you do not have to accept a repair – read the link above

Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
is legally entitled to: a full refund,

its very clear – no ifs buts an ands

The right to reject goods and get a refund if usually only a few weeks after which the buyer is assumed to have accepted the goods, and not that 6 months outlined where you are then entitled to a repair or a replacement.
The seller can offer a repair first and you have to allow them the opportunity to repair the product.

Weirdnumber – where do you get that from? A fault is assumed to be a manufacturing fault if it appears in the first 6 months and a manufacturing fault means repair / replace / refund the buyers choice – the law is very clear on this – read the link above

Are you a retailer?

TJ could you define the reasonable time scale for me in which you can demand a refund as I cant see it in the SOGA you must know it as you always bang on about it……..

if it is faulty, you can demand a repair or replacement or a refund. there is not expiry time on this other than the one regarding the lifetime of the product which is very subjective. given that this item is designed to protect a rider from the tarmac, I would expect it to last a good number of years and if it was falling apart after a few months I would be asking for a new one

Teh hustler – it depends on the circumstances and the expoected lifetime of the item. a £250 portective jacket shuld last more than 28 days.

Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 (or some other figure) days after purchase?

No. Depending on circumstances, you might be too late to have all your money back after this time, but the trader will still be liable for any breaches of contract, such as the goods being faulty. In fact, the trader could be liable to compensate you for up to six years.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets

Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a “reasonable time” but how long is that?

The law does not specify a precise time as it will vary for most sales contracts as all the factors need to be taken into account to be fair to all sides. The pair of everyday shoes may only have a few days before the period expires but a pair of skis, purchased in a Summer Sale, may be allowed a longer period by a court.
Q5. After the “reasonable time” has passed, what can I do?

You may seek damages, which would be the amount of money necessary to have the goods repaired or replaced. Frequently retailers will themselves offer repair or replacement. But, if you are a consumer (not making the purchase in the course of a business) you have the statutory right to seek a repair or replacement as an alternative to seeking damages.

TJ, Yes I work in retail. It’s not my own company though.

Two seconds worth of googling for consumer information…

Watchdog
Which

Also TJ the reasonable time a product should last and therefore be replaced or repaired differs from the time in which you have to reject a sale and get a refund.

I thought you would work in retail as you are doing the usual attempts to weasel out by a retailer.

Please not I have quoted from the government guidence on the law

From your links

If you buy something which doesn’t meet these conditions, you have the potential right to return it, get a full refund, and if it will cost you more to buy similar goods elsewhere, compensation (to cover the extra cost) too.

Note, however, that the right to reject goods and get a full refund only lasts for a relatively short time after which a buyer is deemed to have ‘accepted’ goods. This doesn’t mean that the buyer has no legal redress against the seller, just that he/she isn’t entitled to a full refund.

Instead a buyer is first and foremost entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced. If these remedies are inappropriate, then you’re entitled to a suitable price reduction, or to return the goods and get a refund (reduced to take account of any wear and tear).

hows that tar brush there TJ?

No he’s right though; too many retailers try to bullshit their customers, and often even act unlawfully.

Some retailers are good and do meet their legal requirements and more TBC 🙂

So they bloody should, It’s us customers what keep them in business!

Also TJ the reasonable time a product should last and therefore be replaced or repaired differs from the time in which you have to reject a sale and get a refund.

Exactly so whats the argument about? the fact remains the item is believed to be faulty and therefore should be offered either a repair, refund or replacement regardless of whether he’s accepted the sale.

the two facts are separate. you dont relinquish your rights by accepting the sale.

the above comments assume that TJ or the OP are the ones that can define the reasonable timescale, unfortunately this isn’t the case it is open to interpretation by both the purchaser and the retailer and therefore negates the automatic right to a refund until such time as someone tests it in law, thew reasonable time scale differs by product, but show me where it says 1 day, 1 week 1 month or 1 year in law, it doesn’t……as I said B4 its a crappily written law that gives unscrupulous retailers wriggle room as their interpretation of reasonable will often be alot different to that of the consumer this is the reality and is pretty crappy

Oh dear, yes weasel out of it that is what I am doing.
I am trying to offer accurate advice on the sales of goods act to the best of my ability. I work in retail but I also buy things, the difference is I know my rights and don’t make them up then get angry when my made up rights aren’t met.

Yes repaired or replace. A retailer doesn’t have to replace if they can repair in a reasonable time. The law doesn’t specify which they have to offer over the other.

I didn’t write the law and I am not claiming that it is especially pro-consumer but neither am I going to give inaccurate information on it.

Final link then, from the Office of fair trading website. It actually makes it really clear and is useful to read.

Under Section 5 your customers rights.

Acceptance

Customers are entitled to reject goods if they are faulty (do not match the description, are not of satisfactory quality, or are not fit for purpose) and receive a full refund if they have not yet accepted the goods.

Before a customer is believed to have accepted the goods they have purchased, the law allows customers a reasonable opportunity to inspect or examine the goods and this should take place within a reasonable time.

The law does not give a time limit for acceptance. When trying to decide if a customer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect their goods, consider what an impartial person in a court would think reasonable for that product in the circumstances.

Faulty goods that have been accepted

If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty) for any of the reasons outlined and the customer has accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance.

Now the 6 months part that you keep going on about.

Requesting a repair or replacement

If a customer has accepted the goods and is requesting a repair or replacement because the goods are faulty, the onus on who is required to prove the problem depends on how long ago they purchased the item.

Under six months – the customer does not have to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If you disagree it is up to you, the retailer, to prove the item did conform to contract (or that the fault did not exist) at the time of sale.

Over six months – you are entitled to ask the customer to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If they are able to do this they are entitled to a repair or replacement.

Also TJ the reasonable time a product should last and therefore be replaced or repaired differs from the time in which you have to reject a sale and get a refund.

Exactly so whats the argument about? the fact remains the item is believed to be faulty and therefore should be offered either a repair, refund or replacement regardless of whether he’s accepted the sale.

the two facts are separate. you dont relinquish your rights by accepting the sale.

Your rights change after you have accepted the sale.
Once the item has been deemed to be accepted then you are not entitled to a refund. As per your rights you are entitled to repair or replacement.

The hustler – if the fault is an inherent fault you have an absolute right to reject it and the remedy is replace / repair / refund your choice. this is very clear in the law as quoted above

Where you are getting confused is if the fault is one that develops subsequently – then things alter.

However its assumed to be an inherent fault for the first six months

so for the retailer to not have to replace the item they would have to show that the buyer had accepted it as satisfactory and that the fault was not an inherent one. difficult to do so.