Study reveals online chat services of UK retailers offer inaccurate consumer rights advice

Non-profit consumer rights advocacy organisation, Which?, has conducted an investigation that revealed a concerning trend across significant UK retailers. The study investigates the online chat services of seven major UK retailers, including Amazon, AO, Apple, Argos, Currys, John Lewis, and Very. The study uncovered a concerning trend: all of these retailers were found to be providing inconsistent and frequently incorrect advice regarding consumer rights.

Over the course of several weeks, Which? sought assistance from these retailers' chat services for a range of defective electronic devices, such as printers, speakers and refrigerators/freezers. Consumer rights vary depending on the circumstances of purchase, but if a product develops a fault before it can reasonably be expected to do so, the retailer is obligated to address the issue.

Despite this, Which? discovered that in many instances, they were directed to contact the manufacturer instead. To ensure accuracy, the organisation made calls to the manufacturers using the provided numbers. Only Currys provided a list of 84 numbers for certain manufacturers, but these calls incurred additional charges, up to 74p per minute. The other retailers offered freephone numbers, eliminating the need for further fees.

In most cases, the products and services review company was able to communicate with live chat agents, except for AO and Very. AO suggested that their chatbot could provide faster responses, citing high call volumes during the study. However, the chatbot's options were constrained, and it did not consider the timeframe in which the defect had occurred. Under UK law, customers have the right to return an item and request a refund within 30 days of purchase. Despite this, AO's chatbot insisted that Which? should contact the manufacturer for a large item.

The Very Assistant chat conversation lacked the option to inquire about defective devices and instead directed users to the product support centre for manual retrieval.

During a month-long period, Which? attempted to contact John Lewis through live chat, but the service was inaccessible on six out of nine occasions. When Which? finally connected with a representative and inquired about a refrigerator that had stopped working after eight months, they were mistakenly directed to the manufacturer, leaving the impression that there was no recourse against the retailer.

The comapny experienced mixed results with the four remaining retailers but managed to engage with live chat agents at Amazon, Apple, Argos, and Currys. In one instance, Which? contacted Amazon regarding a smartphone over a year after purchase. The representative correctly stated that the phone could be returned for a refund within the warranty period. However, for an older item – an over three-year-old speaker – Which? was wrongly informed that there were no rights with Amazon once the warranty had expired.

An Argos live chat representative offered useful advice when asked about a defective electric blanket under six months old, mentioning that in-store experts would examine it for repair, refund, exchange, or replacement. However, the representative failed to explain the customer's right to return a cooker hood within the first 30 days and incorrectly stated that an expert visit was necessary for a cooker hood used for less than 30 days.

Currys also provided contradictory advice for the same product. Initially, when Which? contacted Currys about a fridge that had stopped working after four months, the representative advised them to contact the manufacturer for an "uplift number." However, when Which? reached out to Currys again, the representative claimed that the customer would be responsible for repair costs and a non-refundable fee if the fault wasn't covered by a guarantee or service agreement. In reality, the law mandates that the store must cover any costs related to verifying the fault within the first six months.

Apple, which manufactures and sells its own products, also presented conflicting recommendations. When contacted about a defective MacBook Pro purchased over six months ago, the representative provided helpful instructions for a free repair. However, for a faulty iPhone under 30 days old, Apple falsely claimed that there were only 14 days from the date of purchase to request a refund.

Lisa Webb, Consumer Law Expert at Which?, expressed dismay at the contradictory and often inaccurate advice provided by online retailers concerning consumer rights for defective goods. She emphasised that retailers must improve the design of their automated chatbots and ensure that their online support staff are adequately trained to provide accurate guidance. Webb also stressed that any retailer disregarding a customer's statutory rights would be in violation of the law.

Which? insists that all retailers should prominently display contact information, including phone numbers and online chat facilities, on their websites. Webb highlighted that customers should be able to promptly speak with a real person without ineffective interactions with chatbots.

A disturbing fact has been brought to light by the non-profit company's examination of the online chat services offered by significant UK retailers. Retailers must place a high priority on accuracy and make sure their automated chatbots are built to provide trustworthy advice. In order to minimise unsuccessful encounters with chatbots, companies should endeavour to make it easy for customers to connect with competent staff by prominently displaying contact information.