The facts of the case

A man bought a CCTV system for his private residence from a local company. After it was installed, the system malfunctioned several times. Every time the consumer reported the problem, the seller inspected the system and undertook the necessary repairs or replaced parts free of charge. Seeing that problems kept recurring and considering that the guarantee period was running out, the consumer informed the trader that he no longer wanted the CCTV system and subsequently claimed a refund of €489.70, representing the amount of money paid for the system.

According to the consumer, that fact that the system malfunctioned so many times means it was not of satisfactory quality and so not fit for its purpose. On the other hand, the trader argued that the system had been installed nearly two years ago and that he always honoured his legal obligations by providing a free repair or replacement of parts to try and solve the reported problems. Furthermore, the trader said that the last time the system malfunctioned, the consumer did not allow him to check what the problem was.

The tribunal’s considerations

The tribunal noted that the dispute concerned a product that the consumer claimed was not fit for purpose because of the several repairs carried out following installation. It also considered the trader’s defence that he always provided the necessary repairs.

The tribunal observed that it was not acceptable that after purchasing a CCTV system, for one reason or another it turns out not to work properly. In fact, the consumer claimed that, at one point, the system was almost completely changed. This was confirmed by the company.

Furthermore, the tribunal noted that, after almost two years, the system still has various technical problems. This was confirmed by the trader, who admitted that he cannot understand what the problem is because while the system worked well at his premises, for some reason it did not work when installed at the consumer’s house.

The tribunal’s decision

After taking into consideration the above facts and arguments, the tribunal stated that whatever the source of the problem, as per the Consumer Affairs Act, the trader was responsible to ensure that the system sold to the consumer functioned properly. Hence, for these reasons, the tribunal decided to uphold the consumer’s claim and ordered the trader to refund him the amount of €489.70.