As I say this is my first post on here but I need some help on two counts.
First, the Hornby Arnold HN3003 Brighton Belle I bought two days ago is faulty. The coach table lamps do not work. The cab directional lights do, and the actual train runs fine on my layout. On returning it to my local retailer he phoned Hornby who, apparently, commented... "oh not another one !".  I left it for return.
This however brings me to my second point.
My retailer said to me that Hornby's sequence of action on matters like this is "return, repair, replace, refund."
Is this legally appropriate or is this the retailer saying to me that I can't have my money back for bringing back faulty goods? I thought there was a sale of goods act that entitled you to a refund if you returned faulty goods.
If I bought a tv from Currys and it was faulty then I could get a refund, or authorise a repair. I wouldn't be beholden to the tv manufacturer telling me what I could or couldn't do.
It seems to me that once bought then I am stuck with Hornby's decisions, according to my retailer.
What happens if the second one or a repaired one is faulty, it goes on forever.
The galling thing as well is that Hornby are quoting a month's turn round on "stage one", repair.
I'm the best part of £200 down, no train to play with, at the mercy of what Hornby decide to do.
Or is the retailer conning me?
Have any of you similar experiences or can offer advice on this one. I must admit I've never heard of a process like this before. Can the likes of Hornby dictate how it will happen?
Also, have any of you had this faulty light problem with the Brighton Belle and how was it resolved.

Just to ad... I am not DCC just good old fashioned gas powered dc.

You have a contractual right to reject faulty goods. They cannot insist on returning it for repair under the guarantee. As they always say, "your statutory rights are not affected". The only problem is, most shop assistants are not aware of what that means.

(A further point is that if you reject the goods as faulty and they are unable to replace them with a non-faulty version, they you are entitled to find your non-faulty version elsewhere and if it costs more, then you are entitled not simply to the refund of the price you paid, but to the difference between the price you paid for the faulty one, and the price you were obliged to pay for the non-faulty one. Your contract was for the supply of non-faulty goods at a stipulated price. This remains true even if you paid a discounted rate. They are not entitled to say that you are only entitled to the refund of the discounted rate you paid. In paying the price they were asking on the day, you have performed your side of the contract; and their contractual obligation is then to supply you with non-faulty goods. If they are in breach of that contractual obligation, then you are entitled to look to them to put them into the position you would have been in had they not been in breach of contract. Again, most shop staff are unaware of this, too; and the costs of enforcing it are generally disproportionate. But shops are not entitled to invent their own version of the law of contract; and "Oh, you bought it in the sale, so we only have to refund the price you paid" is not a correct statement of the English law of sale of goods.)

Welcome to the forum, Badgercote

PGN has summed it all up far better than I could have done.
Stand your ground, and let us know how you get on please?

Of no practical help here, but maybe useful to note:

If you buy via the internet, or mail order, you are covered under "Distance Selling Regulations" which allow you up to 7 days to return an item (with a few exceptions) for refund, for ANY reason, faulty or not.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/distance-selling-regulations

Welcome to the forum Badgercote, just sorry you've had to join us with a tale of woe.  Create yourself a thread in the Welcome and Indtroduction and let us all know a little bit more about you and what you model etc.

Hello Badgercote the words Not fit for purpose spring to mind, £200 is a lot of cash to lay out and if your Loco could not be replaced there and then you have your statatory rights.

Any way welcome to this friendly forum.

As others have said, the consumer legislation is on your side, absolute right to insist on refund on faulty goods.  Your contract is with the retailer, not Hornby (unless you bought direct from Hornby).

Further, if you paid on a credit card (not debit), then "Section 75" of the Consumer Credit Act comes into play on purchases between £100 and £30,000. With that, not only is the retailer liable to give you a refund, but also your card issuer.  (You only get the money once, can't get twice the money).   So, if retailer fails to honour their obligations, turning to (or even threatening to invoke) the card company will get results.   If you do involve your card company, when you call them, use the magic words "claiming refund under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act" and suddenly the call centre script changes to be much more helpful.   The card company will get their money back from the retailer, but that's not your concern.

- Nigel

Badgercote,

Your contract is with the retailer, not Hornby.  It's his problem to fix your issue; if that gives him a problem dealing with Hornby - that's not your issue.

If you aren't happy, he is obliged in law to refund you; tell him you reject the item and want a full refund or fully working replacement.  You do not want a repaired item, but one working properly from the start ...

If he raises a stink, tell him you'll take it to the local Trading Standards, Which! (the old Consumers Association) and (if you used a cc) your credit card company ... you'll not win a friend, but OTOH his attitude should not be allowed to impact you, and there are other retailers at the end of the day - and likely cheaper, if you're prepared to wait (some of us on here managed to get the BB @ £120 earlier this year ...)

Quote from: Geoff on August 14, 2015, 07:03:14 PM
Hello Badgercote the words Not fit for purpose spring to mind

They may spring to mind - but that is actually the wrong legal concept altogether.

"Not fit for purpose" is the complaint where you have described to the retailer the use to which you wish to put something, and ask for the retailer's recommendation; the retailer has made a recommendation; you have purchased the item in reliance upon that recommendation; and the item which the retailer recommended turns out not to be suitable for the purpose which you described. (It is also necessary that it is reasonable in all the circumstances for you to rely upon the retailer's recommendation.)

I have regular problems with my wife over this, who seems to think it is somehow inappropriate ever to ask a retailer anything. I'll start to explain what I want in order to get the retailer's recommendation, and she'll butt in and say "I keep telling you that what you want is product X" ... and once she's said that, it's impossible to get the retailer to make a recommendation. She thinks she's being helpful. What she's actually doing is depriving us of a potential remedy in the event that product X is the wrong product. Most frustrating ...

Quote from: PGN on August 14, 2015, 09:59:05 PM

I have regular problems with my wife over this, who seems to think it is somehow inappropriate ever to ask a retailer anything. I'll start to explain what I want in order to get the retailer's recommendation, and she'll butt in and say "I keep telling you that what you want is product X" ... and once she's said that, it's impossible to get the retailer to make a recommendation. She thinks she's being helpful. What she's actually doing is depriving us of a potential remedy in the event that product X is the wrong product. Most frustrating ...

I believe gaffer tape is 'fit for purpose' in such situations

Quote from: newportnobby on August 14, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
I believe gaffer tape is 'fit for purpose' in such situations

Maybe so ... but I remain to be convinced that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to rely upon your recommendation ...

Is there not a precedent that once you've accepted the offer of a return/repair you can't then reject the goods. ie you may get your refund eventually but only after they've gone through all there preferred hoops.
I remember they always used to talk about that in Which? in relation to cars, so it may be different.

I didn`t know that you could buy it from a retailer,i thought Hornby only did a direct sale through their website.

  Hmm,you live & learn!!
            Ray.

Quote from: PGN on August 14, 2015, 09:59:05 PM

Quote from: Geoff on August 14, 2015, 07:03:14 PM
Hello Badgercote the words Not fit for purpose spring to mind

They may spring to mind - but that is actually the wrong legal concept altogether.

"Not fit for purpose" is the complaint where you have described to the retailer the use to which you wish to put something, and ask for the retailer's recommendation; the retailer has made a recommendation; you have purchased the item in reliance upon that recommendation; and the item which the retailer recommended turns out not to be suitable for the purpose which you described. (It is also necessary that it is reasonable in all the circumstances for you to rely upon the retailer's recommendation.)

I have regular problems with my wife over this, who seems to think it is somehow inappropriate ever to ask a retailer anything. I'll start to explain what I want in order to get the retailer's recommendation, and she'll butt in and say "I keep telling you that what you want is product X" ... and once she's said that, it's impossible to get the retailer to make a recommendation. She thinks she's being helpful. What she's actually doing is depriving us of a potential remedy in the event that product X is the wrong product. Most frustrating ...

I stand corrected but when I have had a product that did not work has it should I reminded the retailer not fit for purpose and they always either offered money back or replacement.