On 21/04/17 12:35, tim... wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 20/04/17 11:19, tim... wrote:
Not for the first time, nor for the second, do I find that my (from a
very limited sample) recent purchase is either CFU or fails within a few
months of buying it.

Why do people swear by this means of shopping

Things may be cheap(er) but if they are useless and you have limited
(practical) means to get redress, what's the point?

Gimme the pound shop any day, at least I can take things back :-)

tim




I buy from Amazon (direct - as in I almost always choose the
"despatched by Amazon" items) because:

1) The delivery is bullet proof. If I'm out, they leave the product
where I tell them to;

2) Or I can choose locker or one of the collection points;


This isn't about delivery. It's about the quality of the product

3) I can read the reviews. I've not been let down much but doing it
that way - I've had more duff purchases from bricks and mortar stores;


Most reviews are posted within 48 hours of the purchase

how many sites allow you to go back and say "after six months this
product stopped working"


4) Returns are simple for the first month;

5) They sell things that would be impossible to get in my nearest
large town and I don't have to waste all day driving and parking.

Yep, that's why I have bought the items this way.

But I still think that I am entitled for them not to fail after 5 months.

This of course does not apply to Amazon market place sellers, only
stuff dispatched by Amazon. Nor ebay - who I do use for the odd weird
and small thing.


Big purchases like TVs and washing machines, I do tend to go to John
Lewis or a specialist Miele place as the price is usually better and I
can have a good look at it first - so fair's fair.

The problem is with no-name products

I wouldn't even consider buying a no-name TV, mail order. I might just
buy it in a high street major.

I wouldnt buy it period without having read online many many positive
reviews.


tim





--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp