current pixel policy

[Clanger]

Interesting example from the DTI document linked to above is the sale of self assembly products (para 3.65). It states that if they've been assembled, and they would be damaged by disassembly, then they can be returned assembled.

It goes on to say that if the seller in that case considered assembling the product didn't constitute taking "reasonable care", then they'd have to make a claim against you for damages. They still can't refuse to refund under the regs. (3.47). They have to claim against you afterwards.

I think the key phrase that comes up over and over is taking "reasonable care" of the goods.

(3.44) also refers to being able to "examine and assess" the goods.

Basically, a company would have to persuade a judge that by switching on a screen you have not taken reasonable care of the goods to make a successful claim against you. If they refuse to refund, then they are in breach of the regs regardless of whether later you are deemed to have not taken reasonable care.

[Saracen]

Saracen.,

My quotes are from the DTI guide to businesses linked to above. It says:

"1.2 This guidance explains what these regulations are and provides
information on how you can comply with them."

It also says that it's to help Trading Standards advise consumers. And since Trading Standards are the ones who take the company to court - the court is the ultimate arbiter of what the regs mean in any situation - it would be unwise to argue with these, it seems to me. Note: Consumer Direct aren't always on the ball with this stuff.

Regarding what you can do in a shop. If you take this too strictly, then Argos (or any box shifter) where you just get handed a box and say 'goodbye', wouldn't have to comply with the regs at all since their shop mighten't even allow the opportunity to inspect and example of the product. Which clearly can't be right, and wouldn't be accepted by Trading Standards as complying with the intention of the regs.

In fact, it used to be advised by mags when buying a TV that you see it working first in the shop!

But now we don't have to because we have the DSRs, eh?

Trading Standards aren't the ones that would take a company to court over an individual breach. That would need to be the person alleging breach of contract. Trading Standards will deal with breaches of trading laws, or systemic issues, but not individual contract breaches.

And yes, those guidance notes are pretty suggestive, but as I said, it's evidence of how the DTI (etc) interprets the law and it isn't the DTI or TS that decides cases - it's the courts.

The point I'm making is that you said the first couple of quotes were "in the regs" ..... and they aren't.

And in fact the regs imply they go further:

"Unlike when buying from a shop, the first time that a
consumer will typically have an opportunity to examine goods
purchased by distance means is when they receive them. The DSRs
give consumers who buy by distance means more rights than
consumers who shop in person."

That's not in the regs. It is how they are intended to be interpreted, and probably how they would be, but it isn't the law - it's the DTI's interpretation of it.

Note this from the regs:

"The DSRs do not link cancellation rights with a supplier’s ability to resell items as new."

Again, that's the DTI, not the law itself.

Just because that's the DTI/Trading Standards view doesn't necessarily mean it's how a court would see it. After all, if the view of the prosecutor was how law was interpreted, we wouldn't need courts, would we? We could just let the police and/or DTI be judge and jury.

You're right, Clanger, in what the official government stance is, and you're right that that's how the DTI see it, and it's also very likely to be the view of a court. But it isn't "in" or "from" the regs - it's an interpretation of them.

[BobF64]

If i am honest, their manufacturing process is not perfect, even if its 99.99% perfect, that tiny defect can still mean a few dead pixels is acceptable, i have managed to fix a stuck pixel, and with my monitor garentee, i get a replacement screen if upto 5 pixels become stuck on over its 3 year warranty.

Thats why some retailers state on the website, and sometimes even the product page, that "some dead pixels may occur, this is normal for LCD screens", since that might help them negate the distance selling regulations because you knew there were minor "defects" before you bought it.

Im sure the DSRs are misused quite a lot, or at least people attempt to use it in ways it was not intended.

[Saracen]

So it does very much still seem to rely on the goodwill of the vendor then? Im sure that someone from scan will clear this up regarding their companies policy. My view is that if i'm not happy with an item then its not fit for purpose and I see no reason why it shouldn't be returned for an adequate replacement. Afterall you don't buy a monitor at full price and expect to potentially recieve what most people would regard as a 'second' if it has dead pixel(s). As I was aware that this was a bit of a grey area I think its worth clarification.

Your problem will be in the definition of "fit for purpose", and it's a commonly misunderstood term.

The (amended) Sale of Goods Act refers to "satisfactory quality". That is an issue relating to, among other things, defects and faults, and durability of goods. If you were to try to reject a monitor because of dead pixels, it would be because it did not meet your definition of satisfactory quality not fitness for purpose unless you had specified in your offer that you required zero dead pixels, or you had specified some particular use for which that was a requirement.

Fitness for purpose is about the use to which you put goods you buy and whether they're fit for that purpose or not, not about faults. They can be in perfect working order, with no faults at all, and still not be fit for purpose.

For instance, if you bought a coat, need it be waterproof? It depends on the type of coat, and on what you may have said when you bought it. If you specified that you wanted a waterproof coat, and a shop sold you one that wasn't waterproof, it's not fit for purpose even if the coat itself isn't faulty in any way. It may be free from faults, and made entirely according to design and yet not waterproof. A light, cotton summer jacket designed just to keep out a light chill would be an example. That is an example of an explicit purpose, that is, one you explicitly specified, not one inherent in the nature of the goods.

But purposes may also be implicit. If, for instance, you're buying a raincoat, you don't need to specify that you'll be using it in the rain - it's implicit in the nature of the goods. And if it is completely porous, then it's not fit for purpose .... and probably not of satisfactory quality either.

So when assessing fitness for purpose, you are able to assert that they aren't fit even if the goods have no fault but simply don't do what you wanted them for if either :-

- you explicitly stated the purpose you required before buying, or
- the purpose they aren't suitable for should be expected by the seller, by virtue of the nature of the goods.

For example, if you have a Socket A motherboard and you tell a computer shop what board you have and ask for the fastest processor they have that will fit for £300 or under, and they sell you an Intel chip, then that chip would not be "fit for purpose" even though it's in perfect condition and works perfectly in a suitable motherboard.

On the other hand, if you walked in and said you wanted an Intel Q6600 without specifying what you're going to do with it, then you have no fitness for purpose claim because the shop had no reason to believe it wasn't suitable - it's your fault for not asking for the right product or saying what you wanted it for. In both cases, the Intel chip you'd been sold works perfectly - in one situation you have a case, and in the other, you don't.

If, on the other hand, the chip doesn't work when it's sold to you, you have a claim on the basis of satisfactory quality regardless of what motherboard you have (as long as you didn't damage it trying to fit it to the wrong board, of course).

So .... as for fitness for purpose and dead pixels, what will matter will be what, if any, you said when you ordered, and what the supplier could reasonably assume your purposes were from the nature of the goods. For most purposes, a couple of dead pixels aren't going to prevent a monitor being used for those purposes, and especially where they comply with accepted international standards relating to the number and placement of dead pixels, I strongly suspect you'd lose a case if you took one to court on that basis, regardless of what you (or I) might expect as consumers.

And, of course, if you buy the average standard monitor and try to specify that it MUST have zero dead pixels, then most bulk order businesses will simply decline to accept an order on that basis. Your small, local shop might be prepared to get monitors out of the box and check them before despatch, but I doubt many mail order businesses would.

[bibio]

Hi,just read that useful PDF supplied by Agent a little bit more.It is only mainly for advice etc,& alot is very grey.Main point is it all hinges on what you could expect in a Highstreet shop,alot of the other info all hinges on this,which could become a bit grey in alot of cases.But if you can view say a monitor in use in a Highstreet Shop,you can view the one bought under DSR in your home,how far you can try & test it,is prob debatable(what can you do/allowed to do in a shop?device dependant?).
Another thing a lot seems to be affected by whats in the retailers Terms & Conditions ie one example,with DSR you can cancel a order within 7 days,you get the cost of goods + cost of postage/delivery.But if its in the retailers Terms & Conditions,you will have to pay the postage to return the goods.But no restocking fee is payable under DSR.
A retailer can claim damages off you,if they can prove you have not taken reasonable care of the goods,touche


Cheers BOB

[Clanger]

Trading Standards aren't the ones that would take a company to court over an individual breach. That would need to be the person alleging breach of contract. Trading Standards will deal with breaches of trading laws, or systemic issues, but not individual contract breaches.

Well, in answer to the question: "who enforces the regs?", everywhere I've seen, including the DTI document we're talking about, explicitly says local Trading Standards enforce them through the courts. In fact Consumer Direct tell you to go to Trading Standards if you've got a dispute in relation to the DSRs. So unless you can elaborate, I think you're wrong on this.

And yes, those guidance notes are pretty suggestive, but as I said, it's evidence of how the DTI (etc) interprets the law and it isn't the DTI or TS that decides cases - it's the courts.

You seem to me to be splitting hairs somewhat. By "the regs" I've clearly referred to the linked DTI document. That claims to say what the regs are, and to advise in interpreting them. You are technically correct that I shouldn't have said "the regs say" when referring to some of these interpretations. But they're hardly arbitrary interpretations when it's the advice given by the government to the statutory body charged with enforcing them, and the courts are supposed to take a view of what the intention of the laws are.

I've already stated that the court decides on the specifics of the case.

That's not in the regs. It is how they are intended to be interpreted, and probably how they would be, but it isn't the law - it's the DTI's interpretation
You're right, Clanger, in what the official government stance is, and you're right that that's how the DTI see it, and it's also very likely to be the view of a court. But it isn't "in" or "from" the regs - it's an interpretation of them.

OK, I can see you're point. I will attempt to be more rigorous in future! But I think it's more point scoring than helpful or practical here. Did you just fancy going a few rounds?

[Saracen]

Well, in answer to the question: "who enforces the regs?", everywhere I've seen, including the DTI document we're talking about, explicitly says local Trading Standards enforce them through the courts. In fact Consumer Direct tell you to go to Trading Standards if you've got a dispute in relation to the DSRs. So unless you can elaborate, I think you're wrong on this.

Okay.

Trading Standards primary role is in enforcing standards. For instance, they enforce the Weights and Measures legislation. When you go into a supermarket and buy, for instance, loose veg that's charged by weight, you'll take it to the checkout, it gets weighed and you then pay according to that weight.

But how do you know the weight is right? Well, because there's an international definition of a "kilogram". IIRC, it's a reference weight kept in a environmentally controlled lab in Paris. From that, other countries calibrate a national reference weight, and from that, regional reference weights are calibrated, and from that, local (County, usually) Trading Standards departments have a metrology lab, which is used to calibrate weight sets actually used by people that verify that the scales are accurate.

Scales will be checked and sealed when they're installed, and a certificate completed to show compliance with the Weights and Measures legislation. That test will not only include calibrating the scales, and verifying that they are accurate to within the maximum permissible error limits defined by legislation, but that the whole system, including the POS software in the cash register, works as expected. It checked weights at a series of points between minimum and maximum value, linearity and hysteresis, repeatability, and so forth, does product lookups to compare shelf-edge pricing and the system's price lookup table, and the checksum of the software, as well as the CE certification and type approvals. All that is an example of the duties of Trading Standards, at least in relation to weights and measures.

TS can then drop in to any store and inspect their scales, and paperwork. They should have a copy of that certificate giving the date of the verification, and who did it, and even the reference number of the weight set used by whoever the authorised body doing the verification was. They can check that the seal is intact, for instance, and hasn't been tampered with. And if they find that it has been tampered with, then it will be Trading Standards that might prosecute.

There are a whole raft of functions like that that are Trading Standards responsibility, in relation to a variety of pieces of legislation, but it's about ensuring that the system works, not about individual's cases. So that's the type of situation in which Trading Standards "enforce laws".


On the other hand, when it comes to getting refunds for individual products, TS will generally give consumers pointers in the right direction, advise on what their rights are and how to go about things, perhaps including pursuing your own legal action, but they don't pursue traders over individual breaches on behalf of consumers. They enforce the DSR in that they have a statutory duty (as they are an "enforcement authority" as defined by the Regs) to pursue traders that breach their duty in order to prevent future breaches, but not to pursue restitution for individual consumers.

Take a look at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website.

Q2. Will Trading Standards or Consumer Direct get me my money back?

Trading Standards and Consumer Direct are there to advise you on your legal rights so that you may exercise your rights, possibly as far as court. Neither Service has the power to demand a refund from a business. Even where Trading Standards decide that it is appropriate to investigate a business, which could lead to court action, the primary purpose of this action is to stop the business from trading in an unfair or illegal manner rather than obtain a refund for the complainant.

If you have a situation with an individual trader over an individual order, such as a refund you insist they owe you and they insist they don't, them it's a civil dispute over a contract. That, unless the contract is large, is going to be a case for the small claims track of the County Court, ajnd that's something you'll have to pursue.

[Saracen]

....

You seem to me to be splitting hairs somewhat. By "the regs" I've clearly referred to the linked DTI document. That claims to say what the regs are, and to advise in interpreting them. You are technically correct that I shouldn't have said "the regs say" when referring to some of these interpretations. But they're hardly arbitrary interpretations when it's the advice given by the government to the statutory body charged with enforcing them, and the courts are supposed to take a view of what the intention of the laws are.

I've already stated that the court decides on the specifics of the case.



OK, I can see you're point. I will attempt to be more rigorous in future! But I think it's more point scoring than helpful or practical here. Did you just fancy going a few rounds?

It's not just point scoring.

I said originally that you were right on almost everything, and the ONLY thing I didn't agree with was that some of those remarks were in the regs and were interpretation, not regulation. Even then, I clearly stressed that the interpretation was almost certainly correct, but just that it was interpretation not the actual DS Regs.

The only thing, Clanger .... a couple of those quotes that you attribute to the DSR itself aren't, unless my memory fails me badly, in the DSR itself. They're in various government depart (DTI, BERR, etc) guidance on the DSR. And those departments aren't the final arbiter of what the DSR. It's almost certainly a correct interpretation, but it's an interpretation of the intent of the Regs, rather than actual legislation

The difference is that if it's in the Regs (that being the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, just for absolute clarity) then it would have been LAW. As it's in guidance and opinion from departments, it isn't law. People read things on sites and tend to take them as stated, and it's the kind of thing people could then assume is law. It isn't, unless it's specified in legislation, or until a court says it is.

So it might be hair-splitting to you, but it helps prevent people reading this thread from mistaking guidance notes for law.

....

You seem to me to be splitting hairs somewhat. By "the regs" I've clearly referred to the linked DTI document. That claims to say what the regs are, and to advise in interpreting them. You are technically correct that I shouldn't have said "the regs say" when referring to some of these interpretations. But they're hardly arbitrary interpretations when it's the advice given by the government to the statutory body charged with enforcing them, and the courts are supposed to take a view of what the intention of the laws are.

I've already stated that the court decides on the specifics of the case.

Since you accuse me of point-scoring and hair-splitting, and wanting to go a few rounds, let's look at that. Your original post, the one that I picked you up on re: one point is repeated in full below.

Quite right Agent! The whole point of the Distance Selling Regulations is that you can try out goods as you might in a shop. And in fact the regs imply they go further:

"Unlike when buying from a shop, the first time that a
consumer will typically have an opportunity to examine goods
purchased by distance means is when they receive them. The DSRs
give consumers who buy by distance means more rights than
consumers who shop in person."

The seller is also required to provide a FULL refund including original delivery costs, and cannot charge re-stocking/administrative fees.

Note this from the regs:

"The DSRs do not link cancellation rights with a supplier’s ability to resell items as new."

Companies can't refuse to refund. They can only take action for damages if the goods have not been treated with "reasonable" care.

Worth noting that many companies' terms and conditions blatantly contradict the DSRs. Funny thing is, they have to provide certain "required information" about your rights, in a durable medium (written, email, fax but not website). The 7-day cool off period doesn't begin until they do, or until after 3 months:


"if you do not give the required written information at all (or give it
after the three month period mentioned above), the consumer’s
cancellation rights will end after three months and seven working
days from the day after the day the consumer received the goods."

Where did you clearly refer to the DTI document? The only hint I can see is that "Quite right, Agent", and he'd referred to it. You didn't. You just quoted from it and referred to it as "the regs" which it wasn't. The point at which you "clearly referred to the linked DTI document" is post #12, AFTER the post (post #11) in which I pointed out that it wasn't the regs.

So, when you've so clearly pointed that out AFTER my post, how is it splitting hairs? You think I'm psychic and knew what you're going to post in reply to my post when I made it?

If you'd made it clear that was from the DTI guide, I wouldn't have said a word about it, but you said, TWICE, that it was from "the regs".

And then ....

.... I've already stated that the court decides on the specifics of the case.

Yup. But where? Oh yes, again, post #12 AFTER the post in which I pointed out that those departments weren't the final arbiter. Again, how can I be splitting hairs before you said it?

[Blackbadger]

Hmm maybe another way at looking at it for monitors, is that the specifications advertised say the screens resolution is for example 1650*1050, if you have dead pixels the screens resolution is not as advertised.

Maybe this way of thinking is a bit picky, however your supplier wouldn't accept £198 for a something advertised for £200 as it's close enough. They demand the full exact amount specified, you are entitled to the full exact specification in return.

[Clanger]

Take a look at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website.

OK, good, I've not seen that before. I now agree you were right on that.

So in practice, you're probably better off referring it to them, they might act against a company, but you will probably end up using, what.. the small claims court to get your money back?

Regarding my referring to the DTI document (or not): Really, I thought it was pretty obvious when Agent had just quoted from it, and his last line was linking to the document, that my saying "the regs" was referring to that document - as opposed to the usual guesswork that appears on the net over this; most people don't even know that document exists(!), or any idea of what rights we have. You know this!

And although I've conceded that I shouldn't say "the regs", when I actually mean the contents of that document, I will say it's important to note this:

"1.2 This guidance explains what these regulations are and provides
information on how you can comply with them. It also signposts
various parts of the regulations."

I.e. it purports to say what the regs actually are. And since the regs *themselves* have to be interpreted by the court to apply to any instance, even they don't tell us what the law is going to do in practice - that's what the judge makes of them.

Yup. But where? Oh yes, again, post #12 AFTER the post in which I pointed out that those departments weren't the final arbiter. Again, how can I be splitting hairs before you said it?

With all due respect, I think this is getting a little silly. But FWIW, "splitting hairs" was concerning my loose reference to "the regs" when I should have said "the DTI guide to the regs", but thought that was obvious. That document is pretty familiar to me, so I am aware of what it really is even though I (obviously) didn't make the distinction clear.

And again, I would think everyone knows that the court decides on the specifics of the case. In fact I can't even remember properly - I may have even said that in my original post but removed it when deleting a load of unnecessary elaborations. That obviously saved time then! Or maybe I didn't... To be honest I don't really care. LOL

No offence intended Saracen, - although I can do that stuff too- I was just joshing with you about the "point scoring". As usual these things don't come over well on the net.

[Saracen]

....

So in practice, you're probably better off referring it to them, they might act against a company, but you will probably end up using, what.. the small claims court to get your money back?

Yup, probably. As long as the amount is, IIRC, £5k or less, then it usually will end up in the small claims court .... though, splitting hairs, it's actually the small claims track of the County Court. It's a bit more complex than that, but essentially, you fill in the County Court claim form, and which track it gets assigned to is the prerogative of the court. It'll depend on a number of factors, but the most common are the value of the claim, and whether there's anything about the case that makes it too complex for the small claims track. For instance, if there's personal injury involved, that'll usually elevate it out of the small claims track. So, perhaps, you bought a faulty monitor that caught fire and injured someone. But, the vast bulk of the time, yes, it'd be what's usually called the small claims court. That way, you don't need legal representation, things are kept pretty informal and therefore relatively cheap, but there are restrictions on the amount of and nature of expenses you can get back.

It's still worth reporting breaches of the DSR, etc, to Trading Standards, though, because they build an overall picture, and like to know who's playing fair and who isn't. It might not help the individual directly with a given case, but it helps keep traders playing within the rules, which indirectly helps us all in trying to avoid having these problems in the first place.

Regarding my referring to the DTI document (or not): Really, I thought it was pretty obvious when Agent had just quoted from it, and his last line was linking to the document, that my saying "the regs" was referring to that document - as opposed to the usual guesswork that appears on the net over this; most people don't even know that document exists(!), or any idea of what rights we have. You know this!

Yes, providing people bother to look back at Agent's post, see the link he gave and read it to realise where your quotes came from. But do you really think everybody does do that?

As I said, you're right on virtually everything you said, including that the official view is that the DSR should be interpreted that way .... and very probably would be. The ONLY reason I pointed out that it wasn't the actual Regs is that if it had been, it would be categoric that that was the case, but being guidance notes, it is probably correct but you can't rely on it for sure. If people rely on what gets said here and start quoting that as being the Regs when having an argument with a retailer, for instance, then all it says to the retailer is that the customer isn't actually as sure of things as they think they are. I've always found that the best bet with retailers, if it gets as far as what your rights are, and hopefully it doesn't, is to know what they are, but also to know what they aren't.

...... And since the regs *themselves* have to be interpreted by the court to apply to any instance, even they don't tell us what the law is going to do in practice - that's what the judge makes of them.

Erm, yes, up to a point. As with most legislation, the DSR is couched in fairly mixed terms. There are parts where it is VERY specific, and parts where it's worded so as to deliberately give courts scope. For instance, it clearly stipulates that the ONLY deduction the company can make in relation to getting goods back after cancellation is the direct cost of recovery if the buyer doesn't send them back at his own cost, and clearly spells out what the seller must do even to deduct that (i.e. put that right in the contract), and that that right doesn't exist if the goods can be rejected by virtue of other contract terms, like your Sale of Goods Act rights. It also stipulates that, after cancellation, the refund must be made ASAP and "in any case" with 30 days of the date of cancellation.

In some points, there's pretty clear limits on the judge. But in others, like what "reasonable care" means, it's clearly open to the judge to determine if a given level of care shown by the consumer is "reasonable", and nobody actually defines quite what it is, largely because it can vary so much from one case to another. It's like how much force you can use to defend yourself .... "reasonable" force can be used. Bit quite how is that defined? It isn't. There's been judicial decision after decision on it, for decades, going right up to the House of Lords. There's now some pretty clear criteria and precedents .... right up to the point where a senior-enough court overturns them or sets new precedent. Quite how we, private individuals, are supposed to know what's "reasonable", in either context, is not clear.

With all due respect, I think this is getting a little silly. But FWIW, "splitting hairs" was concerning my loose reference to "the regs" when I should have said "the DTI guide to the regs", but thought that was obvious. That document is pretty familiar to me, so I am aware of what it really is even though I (obviously) didn't make the distinction clear. ....

It is indeed getting silly. You're aware of it, and so am I. I just wanted to be sure everyone else was aware of the distinction.

.... No offence intended Saracen, - .....

And none taken. I certainly hope we can, erm, discuss things without anyone taking offence. It is, after all, what a discussion forum is for ..... even if it goes a bit adrift from pixel policy.

[Splash]

Hmm maybe another way at looking at it for monitors, is that the specifications advertised say the screens resolution is for example 1650*1050, if you have dead pixels the screens resolution is not as advertised.

Maybe this way of thinking is a bit picky, however your supplier wouldn't accept £198 for a something advertised for £200 as it's close enough. They demand the full exact amount specified, you are entitled to the full exact specification in return.

Nope, a dead pixel is still a pixel in the same way that a dead parrot is still a parrot, even when it has ceased.

The use of millions of transistors to create an electric field around liquid crystals can lead to the unwanted side-effect of dead/stuck-on (sub)pixels, arising from transistors not working correctly and thus not applying the correct voltage (or at all) to the LCs. LCD manufacturers generally claim that a non-perfect screen, that is, one with a small number of erroneously behaving pixels is a by-product of keeping LCD costs down. Recently, though, advances in manufacturing have allowed certain manufacturers to offer a zero bright-dot policy, where the display will be replaced if it ships with dead pixels.

The only way you're going to be guaranteed a dead-pixel free monitor is to buy a class 1 panel, or one of the Dell ultrasharps. For more info do a search for ISO 13406-2

[rabbid]

Asus used to do some guaranteed no dead pixel as well, dont know if they still do.

And I would not like a dead parrot with a panel either