Sometimes we think consumer rights vary according to the type of product we purchase and also according to how much we spend.
While, for instance, we might complain and check out our legal rights if a home appliance goes wrong and the trader is hesitant to offer us the remedy we ask for, if a problem arises with buying a pair of shoes, we might think twice before complaining. This is especially so if the cost is relatively low.
In actual fact, consumer law applies to all products we purchase. Hence, any item of clothing or shoes should be as described or promised by the trader during the sale and must also be fit for its purpose.
For example, hiking boots should be tough and strong, and if a rain jacket is described as waterproof it should be exactly that. All this means that goods purchased must be free from defects, even minor ones. This includes goods bought during sales.
If these criteria are not met, our legal rights have been breached and we are entitled to a remedy: repair or replacement, or a part or full refund, claimed from the seller. The shop or retailer cannot brush off this responsibility by referring us to an agent or manufacturer, or by simply telling us it is no longer their responsibility.
The remedy we are entitled to varies according to the defect or problem arising with the goods purchased. If, for instance, the damage is minor and can easily be repaired, the retailer might opt for this kind of remedy.
When this is the case, it is important that the repair is carried out within a reasonable period of time and without causing any significant inconvenience to the customer.
If, however, the repair is unsatisfactory or other problems crop up with the product, we may insist on replacement. When replacement is not possible, we may ask for a refund of part of the price or revocation of the contract, which is full money refund.
These remedies can be claimed within two years from delivery of the product. Shops will often ask us to provide proof of purchase before actually accepting to refund us.
The best proof is undoubtedly the fiscal receipt, but when this is not available, even a bank or credit card statement should be enough.
Proof of purchase is particularly important when the damaged item has only recently been bought and we want to show that the damage was not caused by continued use or normal wear and tear. This is especially the case with clothing and footwear.
There are, however, specific situations where we might think or feel we are entitled to certain rights when, in actual fact, we are not. Cases in point are change of mind situations, whereby we realise we have chosen inappropriate clothing – wrong colour, size or style.
Even when a seller points out a specific defect at the time of sale, or it is a fault we can be aware of at the time of purchase, we cannot complain after the sale. This, however, does not exclude our right to complain should we discover there is something else which that is wrong with the product.
When we are legally entitled to a remedy, it is imperative that we complain immediately and that we do not waste time. Even though the law gives us two years to claim any form of redress, it also stipulates we must inform the trader about the lack of conformity in writing within two months from discovery of the defect.
Moreover, the law sets out the condition that if goods turn out to be faulty within six months of purchase, the trader must accept they were faulty at the time of sale or prove otherwise.
If, on the other hand, a customer is in possession of the goods for more than six months when the fault crops up, they can still ask for redress but it is up to them to prove that the goods were faulty at the time of purchase.
If our request for redress is rejected by the seller, or we do not agree with the solution provided, we should contact the Consumer and Competition Department on Freephone 8007 4400 and lodge a complaint.
Ms Vella is senior information officer, Consumer and Competition Department.
customer@timesofmalta.com
odette.vella@gov.mt