shredder1
Established Member
Agreed and I am very happy to enforce my rights. However all sides have to play the game. An offer of a repair is a perfectly acceptable response at first instance outside of the statutory 30 day period. After such a fix failed, could not be delivered, was not possible in a cost effective manner or could not be delivered in an acceptable timescale a further discussion about remedy should take place. Clearly then a good will offer to replace the product or refund seems reasonable.
Furthermore to expect that repair to be undertaken or completed on site in what is obviously a retail environment is not realistic. The manufacturer (or their contractor) is going to have to make the repair and that is going to take a little bit of time to facilitate.
Being told what the law says, being offered a perfectly acceptable remedy, refusing that remedy, having a paddy and stropping off is, in my mind, childish.
PS it is also possible ( and i don't suggest that the OP would do such a thing) that the shop have had issues with people buying expensive coats, wearing them a couple of times in the cold, damaging them while claiming faulty manufacture and asking for a refund. It happens all the time.
Thats a bit harsh mate, I didnt "have a paddy and stropping off is, in my mind, childish", I simply took direct action, the fault was obvious, regardless of what any legislation allows, does it not make economic sense and create good will to simply replace a faulty item there and then and not inconvienience your customers further, I didnt even recieve an apology.