I bought a £799 laptop from Currys five months ago. After 70 days it developed a catastrophic keyboard fault. It was collected for repair and returned a week later. Within seconds of powering it up, I discovered another major fault. Again, it was returned to Currys and I was offered a replacement. I asked for a refund but was told that, as I had had the laptop for more than 30 days, I must fill out an online form. I did so.
The only response I received was that the laptop had been repaired and was being returned. I didn’t want it returned. I was advised to make a complaint and, for the next month, was passed between departments that gave conflicting information and told me to wait for callbacks. Eventually, I was informed that under the Consumer Rights Act, a laptop must “develop three faults to trigger an alternate resolution”.
I was told the case could not be escalated further and that I was free to seek the support of a third party. I asked what had caused the second fault and was then told that I had to submit a subject access request to find out.
PF, Hemel Hempstead
It’s hard to tell whether poor training or cunning policy fed you such nonsense. Under the Consumer Rights Act, a retailer must give you a refund if a repair is unsuccessful within six months of purchase. After that, the onus falls on you to prove a fault was there when you bought it. That’s where the aforementioned third-party expert may come in.
You were well inside the six-month period, so that advice was irrelevant. The 30-day claim was a red herring. Customers can reject faulty goods and demand a refund within 30 days of the transaction – after that period, the retailer has one chance to repair before refunding or replacing. Currys had already had that chance when it cited the 30-day rule, so it didn’t apply to you.
It’s dismaying a big retailer is fobbing customers off with this baloney. Naturally, Currys mugged up on its legal responsibilities when I quizzed it and backtracked at dizzying speed. It has now offered a refund and promised an “internal investigation” into its agents’ cluelessness. It says: “We acknowledge the process has been far from ideal, and well below the standards we hold ourselves to.”
Email [email protected]. Include an address and phone number. Submission and publication are subject to our terms and conditions