Amazon Customer Service Staff Misleading Customers on Return Rights under ACL

Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 15:59
Last edited 29/11/2020 - 16:00

I just had the following online chat with an Amazon customer service rep:

Me:My iron is overheating and scorching clothes.
You are now connected to Nagendra XXX from Amazon.com.au
Nagendra XXX:Hello, my name is Nagendra XXX. I'll be glad to help you today.​​​​
Firstly, please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused by this situation.
Me:Hi - this is XXX. I am writing about this order: https://www.amazon.com.au/XXX
Nagendra XXX:Thanks for the order details
I have checked the order details and can see that the return window was expired on July 17, 2020. In this case you will have to contact the manufacturer to claim any sort of warranty.
However to help you I will make an exception and create the return label for you.
Me:???
Nagendra XXX:You can return the item back to us for the full refund.
Sounds good?
Me:Thank you for your help, but your information is incorrect. Under Australian Consumer Law I am entitled to seek a remedy from either the manufacturer - OR the supplier.
As you will see - this product was supplied by Amazon.
In any event, yes, please send a return label and we will return it.
For the refund.
Thank you.
Nagendra XXX:We are the supplier but not the manufacturer. In this case, you will have to contact Philips to claim the warranty.
However not to worry to help you I'm creating the return label for you right away.
Allow me a moment
Done
I have created the return label for you. You should be receiving an email with the label.
Once you return the item back to us full refund will be processed.
Is there anythin​g else I can help you with today?​
Me:Nagendra - I have no idea about your knowledge of Australian Consumer Law but I can assure you that as the product is faulty it fails the merchantable quality and fitness for purposes guarantees found in ss. 54 and 55 of the ACL. Those guarantees are made by the SUPPLIER, not the MANUFACTURER.
Nagendra XXX:As per our policies we will always ask the customers to contact the manufacturer as every item will have a manufacturer warranty.
Me:I have received the return label and will arrange the return. Thank you for your help. That is all I require today, however I would strongly encourage you to pass on to your managers that Amazon should not be misrepresenting their rights under the ACL to their consumers.
Nagendra XXX:However I will surely take your feedback and forward it to our concerned team. We will see if they can make any changes.
Thanks for bringing this to our notice.
Me:Good bye

I am concerned not only that Amazon staff seem to be misleading their customers, but that doing so may itself constitute misleading or deceptive conduct.
While it worked out ok for me this time, I am concerned that such a large company would be trying to pull this off and is likely burning other customers.
Is this dodgy, or am I just being crazy?

General Discussion

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace

Comments

  • hmac on 29/11/2020 - 16:09
    +26

    he just offered you a full refund. You can't ask for more than that. If you're not happy with it, i suggest raising a complaint with Amazon

    • Baysew on 29/11/2020 - 16:32
      +4

      …and not here!

    • terrys on 30/11/2020 - 09:48
      +2

      He was offered a full refund - after a blatantly false and misleading claim insuating that the O.P. was receiving a favour rather than their entitlement. It is an under-handed slimy little piece of salescraft that misrepresents the situation in order to create a sense of gratitude and obligation that many spivs in a live market would be too ethical to try.

      It's a little like car saleman in S.A. offering to "throw in three months registration" on used cars that are required to be roadworthy at the time of sale - and registration and insurance are reqired for a vehicle to be roadworthy.

  • skido on 29/11/2020 - 16:09
    +15

    kinda confused.. what outcome did you expect?

    Amazon offered a free return for a full refund, for an item that you've used for… 6 months

    they have gone above and beyond

    • terrys on 30/11/2020 - 09:39
      +2

      " above and beyond"

      Is that what meeting your minimum legal obligations is called now?

      • skido on 30/11/2020 - 10:47
        +6

        they usually need to inspect faulty goods before offering any remedy. The fact Amazon straight up offered a refund is already better than any other business I’ve experienced with

  • whooah1979 on 29/11/2020 - 16:10
    +8

    Nagendra XXX:You can return the item back to us for the full refund.
    Sounds good?

    A full refund sounds great. What is the problem with that?

    • hmac on 29/11/2020 - 16:11
      +5

      Nothing, it is a perfect outcome. OP just feels a little entitled. They didn't just send OP to Philips, they gave a full refund

      • whooah1979 on 29/11/2020 - 18:38

        The only thing I care about is getting my refund. Anything else is the ACCC problem.

  • robbyjones on 29/11/2020 - 16:16
    +11

    Someone complaining that getting offered full refund on item is misleading customer service, there's 30 seconds of my life i'm never getting back.

    • terrys on 30/11/2020 - 09:41

      "there's 30 seconds"

      If your time is that precious, you may have a vested interest in ensuring that retailers don't fob you off and let you spend the time chase up the manufacturer instead of their having to do it.

  • JimmyF on 29/11/2020 - 16:16
    +2

    Me:My iron is overheating and scorching clothes.

    Then adjust the temperature setting so it doesn't?

    am concerned not only that Amazon staff seem to be misleading their customers

    They are stating the facts

    I have checked the order details and can see that the return window was expired on July 17, 2020. In this case you will have to contact the manufacturer to claim any sort of warranty.
    However to help you I will make an exception and create the return label for you.

    Amazons automatic return window has passed, so they have created a return label for you.

    • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 17:05
      -4

      When the 'silk' setting is still burning cotton, the problem is not with the setting.
      It is not a fact. The ACL is not limited by the 'return period'.

      • JimmyF on 29/11/2020 - 17:19
        +4

        It is not a fact. The ACL is not limited by the 'return period'.

        The first fact is Amazon AUTOMATIC return period has expired. This is the one you can do yourself without them doing it.

        The next fact was they raised a return for the item without question and before you tossed around ACL rights.

        The next fact is even after getting a return, your got on your high horse and tossed around ACL rights etc. You already got a return.

        The next fact is, even after all this, you had to post on the internet.

        ACL even for in store returns is not Automatic. Each return and reason is reviewed on a case by case. For example if you dropped and broken your iron and then claimed it no longer works under ACL. Yeah that isn't ACL.

        • skido on 29/11/2020 - 17:24
          +2

          exactly this. They're supposed to inspect faulty goods first but Amazon did it without asking for anything. Once the returned item is scanned by auspost, Amazon processes a full refund even before it arrives to warehouse. If someone complains about this process, then I really don't understand what level of customer service they expect. This return process is better than any other store I've experienced with

  • iNeed2Pee on 29/11/2020 - 16:18
    +10

    Bruh, you are being offered a full refund….

    Your making a fool posting that. They have gone above and beyond for something that is not in a return window period.

    • TilacVIP on 01/12/2020 - 20:15

      effing world gone mad, when being offer a full refund isn't enough. SMH!!!

  • apsilon on 29/11/2020 - 16:27

    I'll skip the fact you're getting a refund….

    Amazon staff are global, it's not unusual for them to not be familiar with laws not local to them. There was a story a few weeks ago where an Amazon CS rep insisted Northern Ireland wasn't part of the UK and therefore they couldn't watch something on Prime. People make mistakes. It's the end result that matters.

  • dizzle on 29/11/2020 - 16:27

    I can assure you that as the product is faulty it fails the merchantable quality and fitness for purposes guarantees found in ss. 54 and 55 of the ACL. Those guarantees are made by the SUPPLIER, not the MANUFACTURER.

    And I can assure you that the supplier has the right to inspect the goods or have them inspected by the manufacturer. If you really want to push your rights, you can wait 4 weeks for them to provide a resolution more to your liking. Or they may inspect the item and say you dropped the it and damaged it.

    Oh wait, they offered you a full refund straight away? I'd still push it to make sure they quote from a booklet next time instead of misspeaking and offering you exactly what you're after anyway.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2020 - 16:44
    +1

    I know where you are coming from but the actions were lawful.

    It sounds like they have the correct policy but poor CS rep training.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2020 - 17:44
        +3

        Their action is to provide you with a refund.

        (Did not neg.)

        • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:16
          +1

          Yes, the refund was lawful - but it was also a legal obligation. The misleading consumers part is not lawful.
          Honestly, why would 6 people have negged my comment?

          • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2020 - 18:23
            +2

            @Almost Banned: Because there are words and there are actions.

            You are saying that their action was unlawful and you're qualifying that by saying that it is the action of saying the words.

            That's disingenuous.

            • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:32
              +5

              @[Deactivated]: Not at all. The ACL makes conduct unlawful. Saying words is not only conduct, it is exactly the type of conduct that the ACL is aimed at, and which the sections on misleading conduct address.
              Is putting up a sign saying 'no refunds', but then giving refunds when you want to, not a breach of the ACL?
              Of course it is. No-one would claim they haven't breached the law because they actually did give out refunds, despite the sign. Because they know that for everyone who claimed their lawful rights, there will be many who don't because of the illegal sign.
              In some ways this is a particularly egregious breach because it takes advantage of people who are ignorant of their rights.
              It is not an act of grace to give a consumer their legal rights, and trying to make out that you are doing them a favour when you are complying with the law is what is truly disingenuous.

              • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2020 - 18:35

                @Almost Banned: I'm not saying it is unlawful, I clearly stated their policy, ie. The action of refunding is the correct one. The words coming from the CS reps are not.

                You can have a rep that is following the correct actions but typing a whole lot of BS as a result of poor training.

                In the case above, nothing about the policy needs to change. They just need better CS training.

                • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:39

                  @[Deactivated]: Why do you think the CS's response did not reflect Amazon's policy?
                  My starting place would be to assume it did, and that the policy was flawed.
                  Of course, it may be that their policy is lawful and the CS is talking rubbish, but I suspect it's not.

                  • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2020 - 18:58
                    +1

                    @Almost Banned: It is a fair assumption if they did not immediately and voluntarily offered to provide a refund.

                    • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:59
                      +2

                      @[Deactivated]: They offered the refund at the same time they told me they didn't have to.
                      That is misleading and therefore unlawful.

                      • jimbobaus on 29/11/2020 - 20:17
                        +1

                        @Almost Banned: They are under zero obligation to refund you.

                        Their only obligation is to remedy the fault. Which if they wanted could of included repair or replacement.

                        • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 20:20
                          -2

                          @jimbobaus: Yeah - that's wrong.
                          The fault was that an iron couldn't regulate temperature. That is a major fault.
                          That means that the consumer is entitled to a refund or replacement. It is the consumer's election which.

                        • terrys on 30/11/2020 - 09:43

                          @jimbobaus: I can see you're not a lawyer. This one has been done to the death in the forum over many years. The O.P. does not have a minor fault, and can aks to have it repaired, rpalaced or refunded.

                          • jv on 01/12/2020 - 14:27

                            @terrys:

                            and can aks to have it repaired, rpalaced or refunded

                            And if you read the post, they were offered are refund right away by Amazon…

      • jimbobaus on 29/11/2020 - 20:16
        +2

        A no refund sign is very lawful provided it does exclude your rights under the ACL.

        No change of mind refunds etc

        Also you are not automatically entitled to a refund when something is faulty. You are entitled to a remedy which can include repair or replacement.

  • askme69 on 29/11/2020 - 16:48
    +5

    Come on OZB you are all missing the point.

    Yes he got a refund but initially waa not getting one and had to contact the Manufacturer. Under ACL it's the retailers responsibility, not palm it off to the manufacturer.

    The OP os looking at the BIG picture for all of us.

    PS: you would hope eventually retailers would stop selling crap that breaks if they have to keep dealing with customers, although online has passed the buck a little as it's harder for the consumer.

    • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 17:02
      -7

      Either people here are being willfully obtuse, or their reading comprehension needs work.
      No part of my post was complaining about the refund.
      Every part of my post was complaining that Amazon is trying to mislead customers by telling them lies about their consumer rights to seek a remedy from the supplier of the good and instead directing them to the manufacturer.
      I really despair about the people on this site sometimes - they seem to think it is ok for a global behemoth to lie to customers and ignore the law.

      • JimmyF on 29/11/2020 - 17:30
        +2

        No part of my post was complaining about the refund.

        But isn't this what you wanted?

        Every part of my post was complaining that Amazon is trying to mislead customers

        The first thing the agent said to you was

        Nagendra XXX:Hello, my name is Nagendra XXX. I'll be glad to help you today.​​​​

        The second thing they said was they are giving you a full refund. Before you started on your ACL quest.

        I really despair about the people on this site sometimes - they seem to think it is ok for a global behemoth to lie to customers and ignore the law.

        No we are not seeing any issue like you think there is.

      • jimbobaus on 29/11/2020 - 20:25
        -1

        You are also spouting incorrect statements.
        You are quick to use it but legit have no idea.

        • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 22:47
          +1

          Please tell me one thing I said that was incorrect.

    • payton on 29/11/2020 - 17:22
      +7

      Yes he got a refund but initially waa not getting one

      OP was offered a refund pretty much from the get-go, unless OP had removed portions of the chat script.

      Me:Hi - this is XXX. I am writing about this order: https://www.amazon.com.au/XXX
      Nagendra XXX:Thanks for the order details
      I have checked the order details and can see that the return window was expired on July 17, 2020. In this case you will have to contact the manufacturer to claim any sort of warranty.
      However to help you I will make an exception and create the return label for you.
      Me:???
      Nagendra XXX:You can return the item back to us for the full refund.

      OP got offered full refund, without having to do the usual legwork required for warranty .. ie posting evidence of fault, doing some basic troubleshooting.
      OP didn't even need to explain about the problem or argue for it. Immediately offered the best resolution they can ever hope for, and the free return postage label already provided too.

      OP could have ended the chat there but noooooo, it went three times longer due to OP wanting to educate the Amazon CS Rep, and was quite snarky while doing that.

  • SBOB on 29/11/2020 - 17:22
    +5

    I have no idea about your knowledge of Australian Consumer Law but I can assure you that as the product is faulty it fails the merchantable quality and fitness for purposes guarantees found in ss. 54 and 55 of the ACL. Those guarantees are made by the SUPPLIER, not the MANUFACTURER

    Oh, youre one of those people…
    Quoting ACL laws to a customer service representative , including section numbers.

    How's that law degree dream working out for you?

    Offered a refund within seconds, because Amazon's customer service generally goes beyond any ACL requirements, but obviously felt like that having a whinge….and the fact you had those section numbers already on hand….chef kiss

    • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:14
      -5

      Been fine for the last eighteen years or so.
      How's your dream of being a professional Ozbargain simp working out?

      • SBOB on 29/11/2020 - 18:44
        +2

        How's your dream of being a professional Ozbargain simp working out?

        And it's not even school holidays yet….
        I thought we only saw such high quality debating retorts when it was school holidays :/

  • brokenglish on 29/11/2020 - 17:26
    +4

    This is why we cant have nice things.

  • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:11
    -2

    Ok, here's my last attempt.
    Excerpt from the transcript:

    I have checked the order details and can see that the return window was expired on July 17, 2020. In this case you will have to contact the manufacturer to claim any sort of warranty.
    However to help you I will make an exception and create the return label for you.

    This is untrue and unlawful. The iron was malfuntioning. A consumer does not have to make a claim to the manufacturer. They have a right to recourse from the supplier. There is no exception necessary.
    Amazon should not be misleading people about their entitlements under the law. It is illegal to claim that you do not have a right to return defective goods to the supplier.

    If you are happy to be misled about your rights, good luck to you.

    • skido on 29/11/2020 - 18:42
      +7

      omg. these agents are located in India, getting paid $10 or less an hour? give them a break. they read off a script and offer system provided solutions based on specific issues.

      You can return the item back to us for the full refund.

      why don't you focus on the outcome? the agent mentioned it even before you started pulling up ACL stuff. seems like you're the only one upset here over. I suggest you contact amazon Human Resources and request them to provide better training if you're really that concerned.

      • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:45
        +1

        If the CS rep is following Amazon's policy, then the policy is unlawful and needs to change.
        If the CS rep is talking off-script and is the only one doing it - then you are probably right and I need to settle down.
        I suspect that it is the former. If others think it is the latter - fine.

        • skido on 29/11/2020 - 18:48

          Amazon's return policy for faulty goods is in line with ACL. might just be a rep thing

          If you identify a faulty item:

          • within the relevant return window for that item, you can return the item to us using the Online Returns Centre; or
          • outside the return window for that item please contact us as you may still be entitled to a refund, replacement (where available) or repair.

          https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=…

          • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:50
            +1

            @skido: That is the page I used to initiate the return.
            This line

            outside the return window for that item please contact us as you may still be entitled to a refund, replacement (where available) or repair.

            is not inconsistent with the CS's response, which unlawfully initially directed me to the manufacturer.

            • skido on 29/11/2020 - 18:55
              +1

              @Almost Banned: their policy says you can contact them for a refund, replacement or repair for a faulty item outside of the return period. Therefore, it is not a policy issue. The rep may have provided an inaccurate response but you're making a huge deal out of a tiny issue, in which you've received a satisfactory outcome for. Like I said, if its still of concern to you, contact amazon and lodge a complaint

              • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 18:58

                @skido: But that is precisely what I did.
                I had an issue, and I contacted them for a refund. They then told me that I needed to go to the manufacturer. That is unlawful.
                I am yet to see anything that suggests that what happened is not precisely what Amazon wants to happen.

                • skido on 29/11/2020 - 19:00
                  +4

                  @Almost Banned:

                  They then told me that I needed to go to the manufacturer.

                  And they immediately offered the free return for a full refund following that.

                  i'm getting HelloPam vibes from blaircam. Anyone else??

                  Might be Pam's hubby..

                  • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 19:07

                    @skido: Yes, they eventually did the right thing. But they attempted to mislead me at the same time.
                    I am truly suprised at how ok the Ozbargain community is with this - but I guess I shouldn't be.

                    • f38r1 on 29/11/2020 - 20:43

                      @Almost Banned: Why don't you just sue them instead? They gave you a refund, what else do you want? Get a life mate. Geez…

  • robbyjones on 29/11/2020 - 19:08
    +5

    If the point of your post was to educate other potential consumers that Amazon have dodgy retail practices, not in line with Australian consumer law, then for me you failed miserably. All you did for me as a consumer was make me more comfortable with a purchase from Amazon as they refund without a hassle.

    • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 20:11
      +2

      Then I hope that Amazon always decides to 'make an exception' whenever you want to return a defective item.
      For me, I'd rather depend on compliance with the law than corporate goodwill.

      • robbyjones on 29/11/2020 - 20:15

        I don't disagree, however I will always take the easy path if offered. If not then make sure you know your consumer rights and don't rely on the retailer to either do the right thing or know their obligations under Australian law.

  • f38r1 on 29/11/2020 - 19:17
    +3

    OMG this kind of entitled ppl is the one who screw up the entire refund system ! You got your refund, get over it!

    • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 20:10

      Please help me understand. Am I 'entitled' because I wanted the refund the law obliges them to give me, or because I expect them not to mislead consumers while doing so - something the law also obliges them to do?
      You seem to be suggesting that if I see a large company misleading consumers, but I don't happen to be misled, I should just move on and let others get screwed. Nice.

      • whooah1979 on 29/11/2020 - 20:19
        +1

        The retailer offered a full refund in their third reply. Anything after that is just fluff.

        • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 20:21
          -2

          Then you agree that the misleading statements before the offer of a refund are material?

      • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2020 - 21:56
        +1

        I don't think it wrong that you are a little cheesed by the CS's response and many of the replies here but you are also failing to see that the first solution provided is both lawful and the outcome you sought.

        I don't think you are "entitled" but you are indeed making a big deal out of some minimum wage worker's lack of training.

        I suspect that if you repetitively harass or make snarky remarks at the CS reps, especially those that have provided you with a satisfactory outcome, Amazon would just ban to you. It would certainly be within their right to refuse you service.

        • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 22:27
          +1

          themirror's response below seems to suggest that my experience is not an isolated incident where an Amazon CS just gave the wrong advice. As I suspected, it seems to either be the policy, or common practice.
          The solution has never been the source of my concern. I have always simply wanted to let people know that Amazon CS reps are misleading people about their rights.
          I did this because I wanted people to know their rights, and to be alert for this type of activity by Amazon, and others.
          People seem to think I should be grateful that Amazon gave me the response I was lawfully entitled to, and ignore the fact they tried to mislead me at the same time. I am concerned by that, and I am concerned that so many people on this site seem to find nothing wrong with it.
          If we don't insist on our consumer rights, do you think retailers will just give them to us? This site is replete with examples of posts of people who have been fobbed off by retailers playing this same trick. Just because this time worked out ok for me doesn't mean that consumers should not be aware that this behaviour is unlawful.
          When the next forum post comes up complaining that someone tried to return an item to a retailer, only to be told to go to the manufacturer, what sort of response do you think they'll get?

          • [Deactivated] on 30/11/2020 - 16:28
            +1

            @Almost Banned:

            People seem to think I should be grateful that Amazon gave me the response I was lawfully entitled to

            I think the consensus is that you don't need to be grateful or ungrateful. Indifferent would be the correct response.

            If we don't insist on our consumer rights

            Your consumer rights was a refund. It was offered without coercion.

            What you are now insisting on is for them to read you the correct ACL. I am not sure if that is covered under the ACL. The correct remedy was offered. That's all that matters.

            Just because this time worked out ok for me doesn't mean that consumers should not be aware that this behaviour is unlawful.

            Giving you incorrect consumer advice is not unlawful unless the person you are speaking to is a lawyer.

            Again, the actual action of providing a refund is all that is material. That they did correctly and therefore is lawful.

            When the next forum post comes up complaining that someone tried to return an item to a retailer, only to be told to go to the manufacturer, what sort of response do you think they'll get?

            Then the retailer would be acting unlawfully and we would all be in support of litigious action.

            They're not doing that now so you are preemptively being upset. That's the worst kind of upset.

            • Almost Banned on 30/11/2020 - 16:54

              @[Deactivated]:

              Giving you incorrect consumer advice is not unlawful unless the person you are speaking to is a lawyer.

              Again, the actual action of providing a refund is all that is material. That they did correctly and therefore is lawful.

              This is absolutely wrong and is a good example why people who are not lawyers should not give legal advice. Low-level call centre employees in foreign countries absolutely can engage in misleading conduct on behalf of the companies they represent.

              Telling me that I cannot get a refund from the supplier but need to go to the manufacturer is misrepresenting my rights under the ACL in exactly the same way as 'no refunds' signs misrepresent the law, and claims that you are not entitled to relief because a product is out of the express warranty period also misrepresent the law - and neither of them need to be made by a lawyer.

              See http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2019/1456.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(%222019%20fca%201456%22)

              • [Deactivated] on 30/11/2020 - 17:05
                +1

                @Almost Banned: You are referring to a case which is irrelevant and as such, I believe your understanding of the law may not be any greater than mine.

                The case which you refer to clearly outlines LG's disregard for the ACL and has denied the consumer protections afforded under the ACL.

                Amazon has not denied you your right to a refund.

                Unless you are disputing the fact that you got a refund without even having to coerce them, you are solely making claims that the ACL has been breached because you have been advised incorrectly regarding the contents of the ACL by an employee who has correctly dispensed the remedy required under the ACL.

                Low-level call centre employees in foreign countries absolutely can engage in misleading conduct on behalf of the companies they represent.

                Their conduct of providing you a refund when asked?

                This is absolutely wrong and is a good example why people who are not lawyers should not give legal advice.

                So don't take their advice! Accept the refund and move on.

                • Almost Banned on 30/11/2020 - 17:10

                  @[Deactivated]: You only need to read point 3 of the 6th paragraph of the overview section to see that LG bore the costs of the repairs.
                  Low level call centre employee in the Philippines told two customers that their tvs would not be covered by warranty because the express warranty period had expired. Notwithstanding that, LG did actually cover the repairs.
                  LG was still found guilty and a penalty was imposed ($80,000 for each).
                  Now, tell me exactly how the case is irrelevant to my situation?

                  • [Deactivated] on 30/11/2020 - 17:21
                    +1

                    @Almost Banned: Read paragraph 9.

                    Did the Amazon CS rep deny you a refund at any time? Did the CS rep misrepresent the ACL by contradicting or denying the existence of the ACL or simply were not aware of the law you were referring to?

                    Do you see how the two cases are different or does the similarity that both cases involve the ACL and eventual lawful remedy sufficient for you to claim relevance?

                    • Almost Banned on 30/11/2020 - 17:32

                      @[Deactivated]: I read [9] - so what? It summarises the Full Federal Court's findings in relation to the two instances in which the ACCC's complaint was upheld. Specifically the claims by LG CS staff that because the item was out of the express warranty period that they would not assist.

                      In my case the Amazon CS denied that I was entitled to a refund, and instead tried to tell me that I was limited to seeking a remedy from the manufacturer. They then claimed they would make an exception and give me a refund anyway.

                      That is virtually identical to the LG CS claiming that they could not do anything to assist the two customers in the case because the tvs were out of express warranty - but then paying for the repairs anyway.

                      The misleading statements of their Filipino CS staff cost LG $160,000.

                      Regardless of whether they actually provided the remedy the simple act of making a false and misleading claim in trade or commerce about a consumer's statutory rights was enough for a penalty to accrue.

                      If you don't see the similarities then there's nothing more I can do for you.

                      • [Deactivated] on 30/11/2020 - 18:25
                        +2

                        @Almost Banned: LG - CS staff denied warranty and denied the application of ACL. Consumer pursued further and received remedy.

                        Your case - first thing CS did was provide the remedy. First thing. Then you brought up the ACL because of a generic response provided by the rep. The rep did not at any point show any understanding of the ACL by either denying its applicability or contradicting it.

                        Are any of the above claims incorrect?

                        You brought up the ACL, the staff seems baffled and you are pressing on.

                        You fail to see the difference between being offered a remedy immediately and having to pursue a remedy. You seem to a rep which denied the application of the ACL to a rep oblivious to it.

                        If we were to exercise your standards of legal awareness, we would need lawyers to work in CS.

                        Seriously, your arguments can all be related to being cheesed of at a rep's ignorance of the ACL. If I agreed with your argument, we should pursue every company as soon as any rep shows any signs of ignorance of the ACL and refuses to repent on the spot.

                        • Almost Banned on 30/11/2020 - 18:37

                          @[Deactivated]: Is any part incorrect? Yes - this part

                          first thing CS did was provide the remedy.

                          as was apparent from the transcript I posted.
                          After the opening pleasantries the first thing the CS did - and before a refund was offered - was claim:

                          the return window was expired on July 17, 2020. In this case you will have to contact the manufacturer to claim any sort of warranty.

                          That statement is not only wrong, but unlawful. Other comments on this thread indicate the response was not an isolated incident.
                          As I said in my original post, it worked out ok for me this time - but this conduct is not ok.
                          As for 'pursuing a remedy', the conduct is unlawful on its own. Eventually complying with the law is an issue for penalty - but once the statements were made the offence was complete. You cannot just take it back by providing the remedy. As LG found out.
                          There is no need to have lawyers working in CS roles (although with the amount of law grads being pumped out of universities nowadays you probably have some). You just need to train your staff that they cannot act illegally - kinda like every other job.

                          • [Deactivated] on 30/11/2020 - 18:40
                            +1

                            @Almost Banned: Wow. You have conveniently omitted the last part of the first response made by the Amazon CS.

                            …to claim any sort of warranty.
                            However to help you I will make an exception and create the return label for you.

                            It's within the same response and before you had to pursue any further.

                            That's very disingenuous.

                            I will stop trying to change your mind as you were willing to omit part of Amazon's response just to draw similarities to a case I have clearly demonstrated the key differences to.

                            Again, very disingenuous.

                            • Almost Banned on 30/11/2020 - 18:46

                              @[Deactivated]: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

                              Let me explain to you as simply as I can.

                              Telling someone that they do not have the right to seek a remedy for breach of a consumer guarantee from a supplier, and must instead look to the manufacturer, is a breach of the ACL.
                              Claiming that they do not have to help you, but on this occassion they will make an exception and do so, is misleading and a breach of the ACL.
                              Providing the remedy after misleading a consumer as to their rights is still illegal under the ACL - just as with LG.
                              It is no defence that the person doing the misleading is poorly paid, based in a foreign country, or a low-level member of staff - just like with LG.

                              That's it. I can't make it any simpler.

  • SnoozeAndLose on 29/11/2020 - 20:23

    I think ACL did not say that supplier and manufacturer need to bear the cost for return of the item back to the supplier or manufacture for repair and refund.

    Amazon is doing a good faith to give you the return label for you for free.

    • Almost Banned on 29/11/2020 - 22:29

      that depends on the item.
      In this case the ACL suggests I might have to return at my cost, but once the fault is confirmed, the supplier needs to pay the reasonable costs.

      • SnoozeAndLose on 30/11/2020 - 06:43

        Can you point out where in the ACL suggested? I can ask for return that I made to Jabra.

        And if they don't where do you raise this with? Fair Trade? ACCC? For $10-$20?

        Thanks

  • themirror on 29/11/2020 - 22:06
    +3

    I'm on OP's side on this one. I've had the same response with a faulty toaster. Toaster outside return window, contact the manufacturer, however we'll make an exception.

    Amazon should be handling the warranty directly -refund, replacement or repair. Giving a refund as an exception makes it sound. like they're doing a goodwill gesture.

    • terrys on 30/11/2020 - 10:00

      Indeed. Spiv behaviour such as creating a sense of expectional service and consumer respect using lies and misdirection is a behaviour that may seem trivial at first, however I have a sneaky feeling that, given the responses in this thread, it has become normalised and will increase until the next decennial enquiry by independant commissions appointed by Rupert, Twiggy and Gina's venal muppets and the regulations tweaked again.

  • djk on 30/11/2020 - 10:53

    Clearly they had no idea, just ask for supervisor. Unless you are very unlucky the supervisors usually know how to and have authority to resolve issues. You can also give feedback about the staff members lack of adequate training. If you do it by chat you have written evidence of them acting unlawfully.

  • lint on 30/11/2020 - 11:12

    From my experience, Amazon chat support is really crappy at providing accurate information, but good at providing refunds or credit for poor experiences.

    They probably use the same teams for Amazon Australia as they do US and other English-speaking countries hence they just follow their script and probably have no knowledge of ACL at all.

    Maybe you could file a complaint with the ACCC that they're giving false or misleading information in relation to the ACL. It might encourage them to train their team better.

    • apsilon on 30/11/2020 - 11:31

      I believe you're correct, the team is global. You can tell many of them English isn't their first language and they often don't pick up some things so it's best to keep it simple. Most times they appear to just be following a script or at least steps. I also believe Amazon doesn't bother with warranties, at least up to some dollar value, as the few times I've had an issue they've just offered a refund instead. Probably easier for them than worrying about the logistics of tracking warranty returns and status.

    • f38r1 on 30/11/2020 - 13:44

      I also find they are highly inconsistent. You could get different outcome for a same case if you talk to different CS.

  • OzHunterNSW on 30/11/2020 - 11:54

    Get back to me with a synopsis of your complaint

    • HeWhoKnows on 01/12/2020 - 14:21
      +1

      OP got a refund!

      I think thats his complaint ??????

      I wanna put in a complaint about OP wasting everyones time here

      • jv on 01/12/2020 - 14:23

        I wanna put in a complaint about OP wasting everyones time here

        Start a new Forum post about it…

  • HeWhoKnows on 01/12/2020 - 14:19

    I dont see any problems here.
    Amazon offered a refund

    What else does OP want?
    OMG

    Some people here are so unreasonable and irresponsble to boot

    A complete WASTE OF TIME

    Just leave us alone OP
    You got a refund mate

    Thats it
    SIGN OUT

  • jv on 01/12/2020 - 14:29

    What else does OP want?

    To change their username to 'blairkaren'…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join