Consumer Rights, Compensation, Refunds & the Australian Consumer Law

Shopping
, ,
62

It certainly is.
The lights are both 32 watt circular fluorescent tube type. They are becoming less common.

We made a decision that when we were needing to have electrical work done it was more cost effective to do as many work items as possible with the one call.

The lowest cost solution for you may be to purchase one new Oyster light of what ever style and type you choose. When the electrician arrives have the Oyster light with the damaged clips replaced with the new. The non working light should be repairable, whether the ballast or wall switch or something else.

For a little extra cost it would be possible to replace both. We’ve converted to all LED, and tried to avoid fittings that use built in or fixed LEDs. The exceptions are sealed down lights which have standard 230/240V plugs.

2 Likes
63

Mark, I agree that it may be more cost effective to replace both light fittings. They are both oysters and I wish to replace them with oysters. Clearly I need to focus on the type of fitting which will prove to be the most economical to repair/ replace.

1 Like
64

I would look at the LED oyster lights with replaceable bulbs…these will come in either cool white or warm white light tone. A good quality LED light should last many years…even possibly a decade or two and are far cheaper to run that fluorescent or traditional incandescent/halogen lights.

1 Like
65

We moved away from oyster lights to a combination of LED down lights and pendant/hanging style lights (standard LED bulbs) for inside. The verandahs have coach lights (standard LED globes) and Weatherproof LED mini flood lights.

The down lights have standard mains wall plugs and are owner replaceable. It’s important to ensure the sparky doing the first install does not cut the plugs off, or you will need them back if they ever need replacing. They are available in a choice of colour temperatures and styles. Some have screw mounts and others spring clips. The last batch we changed were under $50 each from one of the electrical wholesalers.

Most of our LED lights and bulbs are now 6 years old. I’ve only needed to replace the bulb in the WC recently (it’s left on all night, 20,000+ hrs) and two bulbs in an enclosed set of suspended lamps over the kitchen bench in all that time. I suspect these enclosed fittings were not intended for LED globes. I’m trying a different brand now, although we did get 5 years life out of them (7,000 hrs est). We’ve approx 36 LED lights all up. None of the fittings with built in/fixed LEDs have failed.

66

Thanks Mark. I will study your detailed email.

67

Breaking News: after getting quite frustrated that my reliable electrician cannot attend to replacing two fittings in the near future, not to mention I need to find the time to study ALL your valuable replies in detail (advising what fittings/bulbs to buy) prior to making the purchase of the replacements (and of course there are other goings on in my life), I decided not to go to NCAT to seek relief under the ACL inter alia for the reasons phb articulated, but instead to approach the ACCC with my file on the matter.

(As for NCAT, I am busy enough considering NCAT for a strata matter).

But before approaching the ACCC, I wanted to remind Bunnings, who as mentioned earlier offered me $50 as a goodwill gesture - to cover my cost of $250 for 2 fittings plus labour - after the importer, Brilliant Lighting told me to take a hike. As has been pointed out here and I agree, it is unlikely that I would obtain the full $250 from Bunnings. So I told Bunnings that while I acknowledge the offer of $50, that quantum is a paltry sum and asked for $150 in order for me to shut the gate on the matter. Today they agreed to refund me $150. Amen to that. As Bunnings agreed to $150 as a gesture of their goodwill, I will return to Bunnings to purchase the replacement fittings, as an expression of my confidence in the company.
Needless to say, at this time I will not prepare an investigative report for the ACCC on this experience.

3 Likes
68

Hi @Gabbymac LG doesn’t do itself any favours by making it so difficult to get warranty support for its products. I’m in the process of selecting a new dishwasher - and I’m after a relatively high-end unit so willing to spend more. One of the LG products was rated highly by Choice and appears to be a good unit. I vaguely remembered having a bad LG warranty experience around 20 years ago so searched for information on other people’s reviews on LG’s after-sales/warranty support. LG Australia seems to have a parlous reputation for failing to honour its warranty and having protracted delays in responding to consumer complaints. That makes me very wary of the LG brand for household products, despite the fact that their product seems to make a very good value proposition.

69

There are a number of aspects to be aware of:

  • some companies have inferior warranty service to maintain low prices
  • some companies have excellent products that are reliable, so warranty service is not ‘exercised’ and is fraught with bad service because it is essentially an exception not a rule so their systems are neither ‘polished’ nor responsive
  • some high price companies tout quality but do not provide any better, and sometimes worse, service or parts supplies than the ‘popular priced market leaders’. Search the community for ‘Asko’ as one example. Similarly check for other ‘high end’ brands here as well as on productreview, noting the latter posts are anecdotal and unhappy customers are more likely to post there than happy ones.

If you buy a value proposition LG and it fails you are way ahead of buying a high end ‘built for 20 years’ Asko that fails, no parts available, after 12 at double or more the price. If you had to replace the LG (or any highly ranked ‘popular priced value leader’) at say 10 you would also have the latest technology not a repaired old model. Also consider what you might do with the money saved on the initial purchase. You could bank it just in case, or ?

Some will be more concerned with sending the old one to the tip and would prefer to repair forever or as long as it could be made to limp along, but economics and the march of newer models matters more to others.

1 Like
70

Have you looked at Bosch?

Their products and service are both great.

I posted a comprehensive review of our new Bosch on the Choice website if you are a subscriber.

71

Other aspects are:

  • some are not geared up all that well to deal with warranty claims…as the Australian Consumer Law points consumers towards the retailer rather than the manufacturer/distributer for resolving any product issues.
  • Some experiences from the same company (retailer/manufacturer/distributer) can be very positive experience for some consumers, while the same contact point for others provides a negative experience. Positive and negative experiences can be driven by expectations of the consumer, the nature and response of the representative contacted, whether a resolution is initially offered and whether contact is easy or difficult.
72

A recent decision by VCAT is based on the tribunals reference to a ‘windfall’. The tribunal sided with the supplier, in this instance Qantas. :roll_eyes:

Does the same legal principle apply when any retailer/staff puts an incorrect (lower) price on a product or undercharges for a service?

VCAT said re Qantas,

This is not a situation where the respondent offered a benefit or service and failed to supply it. It was a windfall. As such the applicable law is that which applies to a benefit obtained in error or through a mistake. The mistake vitiates any intention on the part of Qantas to give the benefit to the applicant, and gives Qantas a prima facie entitlement to restitution.[1]

There are occasional anecdotes about customers sweeping up what appear to be bargains that are likely store errors. Is a consumer legally entitled to pay only the price for chuck steak if that’s what the tray of score 12 Wagyu has been labelled as? I’ve yet to see something so significant, or $200/kg steak in the Woolies meat section.

73

The right to a refund does exist, it has a conditional basis to activate that right. The Court/'Tribunal is not deciding on the right, they are deciding whether the fault is in fact meeting the criteria to enable the refund. Just because someone wants a refund does not mean a business needs to offer them carte blanche. If a dispute erupts that means that a business does not believe the fault requires the remedy and the consumer believes it does, then someone outside that dispute has to make a decision. Some businesses take an attitude that they will make a complainant take every step possible to achieve the right, this recalcitrance is perhaps what needs to be penalised or penalised more heavily and this penalising may achieve a better outcome when a business knows the penalty is worse than the fix.

Before the ACL made statutory rights for consumers, a consumer would have to fight under the implied conditions and warranties of the Trade Practices Act and about 20 State based laws (who would need a legal expert then just to ensure they were covered and by what law). Now a consumer only has to prove the fault meets the standard of a major fault for the right to become activated.

3 Likes
74

Getting off topic, but again, the ACL does not give a consumer the right to a refund. It gives a somewhat vague direction that a supplier of goods or services should provide a remedy in the case of defect.
One of those remedies could be a refund. The others would be repair, rectify, replace, whatever, but the consumer has no right under the ACL to choose what remedy except in specific circumstances which are covered by the law.
Those would be goods that are dangerous, or fail to perform as advertised. So repair or replace not really one of the options. Leaving refund.

1 Like
75

Getting off topic, but again, the ACL does not give a consumer the right to a refund.

This is not really a correct way to say this. Sorry if this seems pedantic, but the wording accuracy here is important and I’ll explain why below. Just because a right is circumstantial, does not mean it does not exist. There is a right to a refund under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) for a number of typical problems, such as if something breaks or is not fit for its intended purpose.

No, this does not mean all circumstances. The ACL, for example, does not cover ‘change of mind’. Or you may at first receive a repair, and if this fails, then you exercise your right to a refund. This may seem unclear or overly conditional, but the intent is to ensure the law works fairly across a huge variety of situations.

People or businesses do still break the law, which is where enforcement action comes in. Here is an example of a penalty to a businesses placing restrictions on our consumer rights.

So why is this important?

Because, in our experience, simply knowing and understanding those rights that we do have is a huge step forward if you ever need to use them. If people think, ‘well, nothing more I can do’, and give up when their rights are threatened, then it hurts everyone.

It not an easy situation when our rights are challenged, and it can be incredibly frustrating to fight those battles. But, if you know your rights when a business is telling you differently, and you are tough, ready and willing to negotiate, or to take tribunal or legal action, it has an impact at an individual level, to others and to how businesses operate.

It’s worth acknowledging that the law itself is also not perfect and in this regard CHOICE is actively seeking improvements in key areas.

8 Likes
76

Well you are just basically saying what I am saying. One does not have an absolute right to a refund. It depends on the circumstances. And the wording in the ACL does a pretty poor job of defining much at all when it comes to those circumstances.

Most often the remedy is determined by the supplier of the problem goods or services. Some may just give you back your money. Others will give a replacement. Others will repair. And others will just give you a credit. Up to them. And is then up to you to argue a case for a refund, because the ACCC nor any fair trading organization is going to do it for you.

The business will set the way they deal with issues, usually with their terms of sale and warranties, but so long as they provide a remedy, they are complying with the ACL.

1 Like
77

Related but not specific to existing thread: I just bought a $30 vodafone recharge voucher from my least favourite retailer, Woolworths, which I was near, so I popped in.

Least favourite because IMHO they offer poor customer service and very rarely offer refunds when compared to Coles and Aldi. Most of their stores in my experience offer exchanges only.

After asking for the $30 voucher and establishing Woolworths sell only one version of the $30 voucher, the cashier asked me was if I was the guy who called up earlier about the recharge voucher. I replied that I did not.

Anyway I paid the $30 and got two slips of paper.

Walking, en route to my car I saw one was a receipt for $30 and the other was the usual voucher (which I have purchased many over the years) but this one had at the top in bold
$30:00 Topup
Was Successful

I returned to the cashier and queried why mention is made that the top up was “Successful” when I have not inputted the voucher number into my phone. I could not have as the phone was at home.
She could not explain why “successful” top up was mentioned. It has not been so stated on previous vouchers as far as I recall. (I did not say but realised only when driving home that “successful to up” may be what I saw on a receipt when I topped up at a Vodafone store and had staff do the top up for me via their computer).

I asked to speak to the manager.
A young woman soon arrived and I explained the situation.
She said all Woolworths does is sell what Vodfone offers them to sell. Woolworths has no control over
the product or the wording on the voucher I received.

I asked her if I bought a Sunbeam appliance at Bing Lee which proves to be a lemon, do I have to return the item to Sunbeam or do I pony up to a cashier with my receipt and ask for a refund? Will that cashier or store manager send me to Sunbeam?

She said nothing.
I said that of course when I return the item to Bing Lee, on the spot I would receive a refund. “Does Woolworths stand by what it sells, yes or no”?
She replied - whilst pointing her camera in my face - that Woolworths does stand by SOME products not all, and not telephone vouchers.

I asked her for a refund and she said “no”.
I said the wording on the voucher indicates that it has been used. Of course there is the chance that it hasn’t been used. But what happens if I input the voucher number and get diddly squat credit ie an indication that it has been used. Would I then get a refund?
She indicated that would be my problem Not Woolworths’. I would need to speak to Vodafone to sort the matter out.
My question is: am I being unreasonable wanting a voucher that clearly indicates it has not been used as I don’t have the half day to devote to arguing this matter with Vodafone or NSWFT if after inputting the voucher number and being made aware that the voucher indeed has been already used or alternatively, if a clear unambiguous voucher cannot be given to me am I entitles to refund from Woolworths?

78

I would, in your circumstances, see if the voucher worked or not. If it did it is a bad on vodaphone. If it does not the Wollies manager should be called out with a copy of the ACL showing the retailer owns sorting the problem, not vodaphone. How would it know your number to apply a top up, for example? So in the first instance I would attribute it to ‘the voucher has been successful’ despite the [probable] misleading wording.

As I have posted in other topics my local Woolies had a period where the manager was, to be kind, over-employed having no concept of customer service, role or responsibilities. Things improved over time after I made complaints with examples via Woolies’ FB page.

1 Like
79

Thanks for the quick feedback. I am inclined to agree with you.

80

Have you tried the voucher for a recharge or checked recent recharge history? Did you give your mobile number as part of the voucher purchase process?

The wording ‘$30:00 Topup Was Successful’ could also have a different meaning to your interpretation, such as the $30 prepaid card has been successfully processed by Vodafone and is ready to be added to a prepaid plan.

No, at this stage it is a change in mind. You are only making assumptions about what has happened.

Until you try to use the voucher or check your recharge history, you don’t know what has potentially happened.

If you find something is amiss from doing the above, ring Vodafone.

81

@PhilT and @phb
Thanks for the wise advice.
Sorry for the delay in responding, but only recently I tried to charge up the prepaid phone with the $30 credit. I kept getting conflicting information from Vodafone as to whether I will loose any unused credit if I recharge before the expiry date ie. and lose any unused credit.
So I waited until the day of expiry and on that day recharged the mobile phone.
First attempt: seemed successful but something was odd. It indicated that my 28 days’ recharge was in progress (i.e I began inputting the voucher numbers). Trouble is, I had a 180 days expiry plan or did until I inputted the voucher and wanted to keep to the 180 days plan. I quickly existed that screen and returned to it the next day. After all, I could not change from the 28 day expiry listed on my screen.

Second attempt: this time after keying in the voucher numbers I was offered to choose b/w 28 days (with data from memory) or 180 days expiry (without data, from memory). I chose 180 and my recharge was approved.
Lesson: next time, for the same price, I will go to a Vodafone store for a recharge or do it online.

@PhilT The points made about Woolies are SO true.

3 Likes