12.1.4 Supplier is unresponsive or does not heed consumer requests

A situation that consumers occasionally find themselves in is that when the consumer has problems with goods or services and contacts the supplier or manufacturer, they are given the impression that the supplier or manufacturer is not prepared to do anything. The consumer may need the goods urgently (e.g. a car for work) and so gets the goods repaired elsewhere at their own cost.

Where the failure can be remedied (i.e. a minor fault) the consumer can require the supplier to remedy the failure under section 18(2). Where a supplier refuses or neglects to do so, a consumer can have the failure remedied elsewhere and claim the cost from the supplier. The consumer can also reject the goods. However the supplier must first be given the opportunity to remedy the minor fault.

There is a thin line between a supplier categorically refusing to provide a remedy (which a consumer can then act upon under section 18), and a supplier through their conduct towards the consumer giving the impression that they are not prepared to do anything but falling short of refusing to provide a remedy. The same issue applies equally to manufacturers under section 27(2), and to suppliers of services under section 32(a).

A solution could be to define “refuses” to mean actual refusal (i.e. by letter, in person, telephone call etc) as well as refusal by other conduct which does not explicitly convey a refusal (i.e. impression given, inferences made, non-acknowledgement of consumer).

This amendment could best be used at a Disputes Tribunal hearing where the actions of the supplier or manufacturer could demonstrate the refusal. Broadening the definition of refusal would make it easier to demonstrate that the supplier had refused to remedy a failure, and counter any arguments that “they were doing their best” when in reality were stalling in the hope the consumer would give up seeking redress.

Questions