Shop was wrong to insist on repairs

My neighbour, who is ill and elderly, bought a €60 paraffin heater from a local supermarket and it did not work. She took it back but the only option given was to send it for repair, which would take at least six weeks and meanwhile she has no heating. Surely this is unreasonable? R.D.

An expert from consumer rights body UFC-Que Choisir said if you buy something, the Code de la Consommation (Consumer Code) states it should be fit for purpose (ie. it should offer une garantie légale de conformité).

A heater that does not heat is not fit for purpose. If you take it back within six months there is a presumption that the item was sold faulty. The shop should offer a choice of replacement or repair unless they can show the cost of one option (eg. replacing it) would be “obviously disproportionate” compared to the other. This would not apply to a €60 heater.

What is more, a reimbursement should be given where the solution offered will take more than a month (or cause major inconvenience) which is the case here. Should the shop not comply, your friend could sue for damages (dommages et intérêts) and for the difficulty (préjudice) they have caused her, through the local juge de proximité. It would be advisable to remind the shop of the law, preferably by recommended post (lettre reccomandée avec avis de réception).

You could also send a duplicate to UFC-Que Choisir and note in your letter to the shop that you are doing so. The relevant sections of the code are articles L211-9 and L-211-10 and are on www.legifrance.gouv.fr in English and French. You could also alert your local fraud office, the DGCCRF.