How does this not infringe consumer law?

[OhNoAPacer]

Myself and my partner recently purchased a Nintendo Switch 2 from Smyths toy store as a gift.

We were informed and indeed given a sheet outlining the following.

If the itemised found to be faulty within 30 days then Smyths will deal with it, after 30 days you need to go to Nintendo.

My understanding is that the contract is with the retailer, so how are Smyths managing to do this?

 

[styles]

That's the law matey: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-ri...g0YuEy#can-i-get-a-refund-on-a-faulty-product

You have 30 days from taking ownership of a product (this could be the date of purchase or the date it was delivered to you - whichever is later) to claim a refund if it is faulty

After this time you have to give the retailer an opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a refund.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's the law matey: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-ri...g0YuEy#can-i-get-a-refund-on-a-faulty-product

The law contradicts what the OP was told, if you look closely.

Smyths' own policy is in line with the law. From their site:

If an item is deemed faulty following inspection and returned within 30 days of purchase, we will offer an exchange or a refund. After 30 days, we may offer to repair, a gift card to the value of the item or a replacement of the same item (subject to stock availability).

 

[OhNoAPacer]

That's the law matey: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-ri...g0YuEy#can-i-get-a-refund-on-a-faulty-product

Yes refund under 30 days but they are stating that after 30 days you can't return to them at all but have to deal with Nintendo.

 

[transportphoto]

Perhaps the OP, @OhNoAPacer, could share a scan of the leaflet? I’m curious that a national retailer would produce something like this - is it something which has been put together locally?

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Perhaps the OP, @OhNoAPacer, could share a scan of the leaflet? I’m curious that a national retailer would produce something like this - is it something which has been put together locally?

Unfortunately I don't currently have the leaflet but I will see if I can obtain a picture of it.

 

[STINT47]

Regardless of what the OP may have been told or given on a leaflet it does not override the law.

In the event of this reaching court the leaflet would be rejected by the court.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Okay the wording on the leaflet is not quite as I was lead to believe.

It states that from 0 to 30 days if you' return the item to the store they will test it and if faulty replace.

Over 30 days to 1 year if you return it to the store they will test it and if faulty return it to Nintendo on your behalf for repair.
They also state that after 30 days you can return it to Nintendo yourself and give contact details for Nintendo.

Certainly they are pushing for you to use the Nintendo warranty but it looks like they are staying just the right side of the law.

Of course things don't suddenly become 'tough mate' in law if an item fails 1 day after the warranty expires, but that is a whole other issue.

 

[Fokx]

It's quite common especially with games consoles for the retailer to do the above.

Even with John Lewis, they usually have an additional years warranty but after 30 days this will be sent to the manufacturer for testing, repair or replacement.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

It's quite common especially with games consoles for the retailer to do the above.

Even with John Lewis, they usually have an additional years warranty but after 30 days this will be sent to the manufacturer for testing, repair or replacement.

Yes but as originally communicated by the assistant in the shop, and as I mistakenly thought the leaflet said, was that after 30 days it wasn't the repair not replace issue, as is the law, but that after 30 days they weren't responsible at all.

It is abundantly clear however that they would really really really not have you bother them after 30 days but go straight to Nintendo.

 

[styles]

Yes but as originally communicated by the assistant in the shop, and as I mistakenly thought the leaflet said, was that after 30 days it wasn't the repair not replace issue, as is the law, but that after 30 days they weren't responsible at all.

It is abundantly clear however that they would really really really not have you bother them after 30 days but go straight to Nintendo.

My guess is that the attendant just misspoke or misunderstood the policy to be honest. Even I missed the detail that you were being diverted directly to Nintendo, rather than the shop dealing with Nintendo on your behalf, when I read your post too quickly. And I've got experience of taking companies to 'small claims' (MCOL now).

I don't think there's a grand agenda from Smyth's Toy Store to try and break the law.

 

[Silver Cobra]

It is abundantly clear however that they would really really really not have you bother them after 30 days but go straight to Nintendo.

What they want is irrelevant, as far as the law is concerned. Your contract is with the retailer and not the manufacturer, so hence any matters involving product faults/manufacturing defects are dealt with through the retailer, whether they like it or not (for the reasonable life-span of the product, which the law says is up to 6 years).

As a regular listener of my local BBC radio station's consumer advice programme, it's quite surprising how many companies/retailers don't seem to understand the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.

Sadly this also extends largely to the general public as well. A lot of people are not aware of their rights under consumer law, and hence end up accepting being 'fobbed off' by retailers in these situations.

 

[Sun Chariot]

It is abundantly clear however that they would really really really not have you bother them after 30 days but go straight to Nintendo.

How so? Your post 8 tells us that the store leaflet states two options are available to a customer:

"Over 30 days to 1 year if you return it to the store they will test it and if faulty return it to Nintendo on your behalf for repair.
They also state that after 30 days you can return it to Nintendo yourself and give contact details for Nintendo".

Those statements, each one as balanced as the other, do not scream for the customer to do it all on their own. What leads you to conclude that?

 

[OhNoAPacer]

How so? Your post 8 tells us that the store leaflet states two options are available to a customer:

"Over 30 days to 1 year if you return it to the store they will test it and if faulty return it to Nintendo on your behalf for repair.
They also state that after 30 days you can return it to Nintendo yourself and give contact details for Nintendo".

Those statements, each one as balanced as the other, do not scream for the customer to do it all on their own. What leads you to conclude that?

The fact that they have a leaflet specifically for Nintendo definitely implies that the redress for faulty Nintendo products, after 30 days, is with Nintendo.

 

[Sun Chariot]

My understanding is that the contract is with the retailer

At a point of purchase, yes. However, Smyths' stated policy (and your options) for a faulty product, is compliant within the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The fact that they have a leaflet specifically for Nintendo definitely implies that the redress for faulty Nintendo products, after 30 days, is with Nintendo.

You bought a Nintendo. They gave you a leaflet explaining options available to you if the Nintendo product develops a fault. Why would they give you a leaflet not for Nintendo?

I'm still not making the connection here. So:
Have you also purchased any other brand(s) of higher-value electronic goods from Smyths?
If yes, are you saying that Smyths offers a different returns / repair policy for other brand(s), in a scenario of "faulty after 30 days"?

 

[dosxuk]

It may well also be the case that Nintendo would rather deal direct with warranty issues. It's likely to be faster to deal direct too. And for those who definitely want to deal with the retailer, they still can, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.

 

[Sun Chariot]

It may well also be the case that Nintendo would rather deal direct with warranty issues. It's likely to be faster to deal direct too. And for those who definitely want to deal with the retailer, they still can, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Exactly. I think this is "empty vessels make most noise".