Being stupid?

johnny monk

Active Member
I purchased a series 3 Apple Watch in October 2017, the sensors have since failed and obviously being over 12 months old I wasn’t expecting much when I spoke to very. I read up about consumer law and thought I’d give it a go. Long story short, they’ve agreed to give me a refund minus 20% “usage”.

I paid £360 for it. Now what’s confusing me is they have charged my account the 20% so I’ve got to pay that again and they’ve said they are refunding me £287 but with me paying that 20% back again am I right in thinking they are charging me 40%? Surely if they’ve charged me the 20% then they should be refunding me the £360?
 

Foster

Distinguished Member
£288 is £360 - 20% so that's what you should be refunded with you getting charged nothing.
 

deantown

Distinguished Member
There’s that many mistakes made by big Companies nowadays that I think a lot of them would go bankrupt if they gave full refunds for every mistake they make.
 

johnny monk

Active Member
I was arguing with them on a chat last night, got put through to different people but everyone I spoke to were adamant they were right and I wrong so started to doubt myself!
I’m going to have to ring them I think but so difficult to speak to as their English is terrible.
Thank you all
 

DJT75

Distinguished Member
£360 for a watch that last 22 months is not fit for purpose, has not lasted an acceptable length of time, and is therefore of inadequate quality. This should be replaced in full under consumer rights. They have no right to charge you "usage fees", your arrangement was not rental, it was a purchase. I would demand the 20% was credited and tell them you've been advised to seek a replacement.

If you get nowhere, take it into an Apple store, the manufactured it and it is not fit for purpose.

I had a camping chair I bought in July 2017 replaced the other day. It broke when someone sat on it. I figured 2 years was not an acceptable length of time and the retailer agreed. Warranty periods mean little really, if you push hard enough.
 

johnny monk

Active Member
£360 for a watch that last 22 months is not fit for purpose, has not lasted an acceptable length of time, and is therefore of inadequate quality. This should be replaced in full under consumer rights. They have no right to charge you "usage fees", your arrangement was not rental, it was a purchase. I would demand the 20% was credited and tell them you've been advised to seek a replacement.

If you get nowhere, take it into an Apple store, the manufactured it and it is not fit for purpose.

I had a camping chair I bought in July 2017 replaced the other day. It broke when someone sat on it. I figured 2 years was not an acceptable length of time and the retailer agreed. Warranty periods mean little really, if you push hard enough.
I had to take it to the Apple store last weekend to get it checked and get a report of what failed. They stated that as I didn’t buy it from them and it was over 12 months old they wouldn’t help me.
 

DJT75

Distinguished Member
I had to take it to the Apple store last weekend to get it checked and get a report of what failed. They stated that as I didn’t buy it from them and it was over 12 months old they wouldn’t help me.
sh*te company. Go with plan A then, this thing is not worth what you paid for it
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Panasonic HX800 TV + Sony HT-G700 Soundbar reviews, movie and TV show news and reviews
Top Bottom