EU legislation helps get up to 6 years cover for faulty goods

[aviator]

There was a piece on TV recently about how EU legislation finds its way thru to help the customer.

Basically it seems that we all have up to six years, depending on product and hence life, where we can claim for manufacturing defects. E.g. if a TV goes wrong in 2 years then there must be some manufacturing defect since a TV should last much longer - and a claim is possible.

That at any rate is how I read the stuff!

Link to Government site on sale of goods

This would have a definite impact on boats which are notorious for defects and would have potentially covered me for my turbo replacement last year after 600 hours. At any rate it would have caused me to look at MTBF and lorry use - it was Volvo which is basically a lorry block!!

I also had a fridge go which was less than three years, again replaced but would have been more enquiring if I had known about this stuff.

Something for MBM to write about definitely.

 

[gjgm]

This isnt new, of course, and it doesnt imply a 6 year warranty at all.
My, perhaps crude, understanding is, that to be successful, you would have to prove (not easy and very expensive) that the fault was inherent.
I guess the response would be that your problem was within acceptable tolerances (say 1 in 1000). Where clearly many people are experiencing the same problem (say ram seals on legs), its probably in the manufacturers interest to fix it.
Depends on the product, I suppose, but with the onus on you to prove its not an islolated instance- I cant help thinking that success depends on the provider of the goods deciding not to fight you.

 

[aviator]

I don't think you read the government website. Of course it is not new but what they are saying is that goods must have a reasonable useful life. So its no use saying that a TV has a limited life of say 2 years and thus out of guarantee with failing at 2 years. The onus may be on the user but the advice seems clearly one of 'is it reasonable that xxxx only lasted 2 years?' If not then there must have been a defect.

The thrust of the TV and radio coverage was that a) this was something useful that EU legislation has done b) very few people know their rights and fight for them. It was also pointed out that even fewer resellers knew and that the onus is on the reseller to resolve the problem.

So if this isn't a warranty then I have no idea what is.

Fortunately in this case (only!!!) the government DO seem to know.

 

[gjgm]

I did read the site, and I think in the past Gludy had some ambitious thoughts on the matter too /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I still say the sticking point is for you to prove the defect was inherent. So if your TV goes wrong after 2 years, you would have to argue that one of the components was bound to fail within a reasonable life (6 years say!). I dont think its enough that a component DID fail, and thus my point that you need multiple failures to have a case.
So, yes, its better consumer protection, but only to the extent that if something is made (ie, they ALL, or MANY were made) inadequately, you have a case. It doesnt protect you for a (one off) failure.

I m happy to be wrong on this /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[nimbusgb]

Wouldnt it be nice if the manufacturers of goods were up front about what would be needed to keep an purchase going for 5, 10 or 20 years?

We have an American style double door fridge freezer that has survived moves from joburg to Cape town and back again and then joburg to the UK and another move within the UK. It still works as good as the day we bought it. It is now pushing 20 years old. A tumble drier recently expired at around 14 years old and survived two growing kids and all their laundry.

Used within normal limits white goods should keep on ticking for 15 years at least. manufacturing new stuff costs CO2, a hell of a lot more than it might cost to maintain running an older , perhaps slightly less efficient appliance. ( that goes for cars too /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

 

[grumpy_o_g]

[ QUOTE ]
So, yes, its better consumer protection, but only to the extent that if something is made (ie, they ALL, or MANY were made) inadequately, you have a case. It doesnt protect you for a (one off) failure.


I m happy to be wrong on this


[/ QUOTE ]


Be happy then /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

It doesn't matter whether it was a design fault, a one-off faulty component, poor workmanship or whatever, if it doesn't do what it says on the tin you have a right of redress at any time up to six years after it was purchased. This actually applies whether you're selling to a consumer or another business but the huge difference is that you can override the Sale of Goods Act in a contract between two businesses to a large extent. A vendor can put whatever he wants in a contract between him and a consumer and the consumer can sign it and it won't matter - the Sale of Goods Act will override it.



The traders Guide link is a much more detailed write up - Traders Guide - it also reinforces exactly what I learnt and experienced as a buyer.

Here's a few more key points


The Goods should perform as any reasonable person would expect - you should expect a better quality finish in a Sunseeker/Fairline/Princess than a Bavaria because it costs more and is marketed as being at the upper end of the market. Both should be perfectly functional as boats though and even a brand that has value for money as a theme could be expected to have an element of luxury about it as any sports cruiser is a luxury item.

Goods have a reasonable life - a 1980 boat would be expected to have many minor faults that may not have been known about - minor stress cracking or a cupboard that won't stay shut in a sea are probably reasonable and, if you didn't spot them when you bought it, it's your problem.

If you buy something second-hand you have exactly the same right of redress against the manufacturer as the original purchaser, even if you buy privately. The only difference is there's no contract of sale with a business so you only have right of redress for faulty goods and only against the manufacturer. If a cylinder punches a hole in the block two years after you bought a year old boat then, provided the engine is original fit and the use and maintenance has been reasonable, the boat-builder (not the engine manufacturer) has to fix it and redress you for any inconvenience caused.

And this is the key one that seems to cause most confusion - Burden of Proof.

For the first six months the vendor has to disprove any claims you make about any faults, not fit for purpose, etc. After six months the only difference is that you have to prove there is a problem if the vendor disputes it.

Say you buy a huge bottle of bleach that is advertised as killing 99% of household germs. The bottles big enough to last you a year and we'll assume bleach doesn't go off over time.

For the first six months after purchase, if you say it's not killing 99% of household germs, the vendor has to prove it is. After that six months it still has to kill 99% of household germs and you have EXACTLY the same rights of redress but now you have to prove that that it isn't killing the germs. If the vendor says "yes, it is" and you can't prove it isn't you are on your own.


There's one caveat to all the above of course which is that you have the problem so, if you have a useless vendor, you have to make them do something - perhaps even take them to court - and they usually have much more money and many more lawyers than you do (who said Volvo??).

 

[aviator]

The burden of proof may be on the user but the test is still of whether the goods are fit for purpose. As is said above how long do you reasonably expect a piece of equipment to last?

I think this is essential stuff on boats where they are a) expensive b) high levels of expectation.

So a hull guarantee of say 2 years would be no defence if a fault developed in 5 years. A TV failing in 2 years these days is not a reasonable situation etc etc.

The point about claims and lawyers is simply that the claim is against the seller, not the manufacturer. As the example in Victoria's blog said a simple threat to go to county court was enough.

I originally raised this because there IS so much confusion and suggested that MBM make an investigation and write an advisory article.

This is critical stuff for those who strain every financial muscle to buy a boat only to be saddled with the lottery of the darned thing keep working. The other side is that servicing must be carried out which is completely reasonable also, although sometimes not obvious to boating folk (read the blog about the guy whose engine exploded and now thinks he will change the primary fuel filter every year!)

I would really like to know this stuff.

How long should injectors last? Lorries seem to go on for ages so why the advice from engineers to change around 800 hours or so.

How long should boat fridges last? These are considerably more expensive that domestic types so presumably built for the marine environment.

When I design a bit of electronics kit I have to bear in mind reliability. Customers just don't expect failure and in some cases failure is not acceptable - eg components used for space have to be radiation hardened.

This is real stuff and very current and thus worth discussing,

Richard

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/victoriaderbyshire/2009/05/that_piece_of_eu_legislation_y.html

 

[maybh1]

When we replaced our washing machine I mentioned to the salesman that it had served us for 12 years of quite heavy use.

His reply - "Well, don't expect this one to last more than 2 or 3 years"

Built to fail?

May
xx

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I think we're agreeing but don't forget fit for purpose is only one of the tests and is probably the least relevant after 6 months. That's because there is effectively an assumption that the goods were fit for purpose when sold (or you would have complained in the first six months) and therefore some thing has changed/broken so the focus will be on remedying that.

One of the other key tests is appearance. If the veneer on all your furniture discolours or de-laminates after a year or so your boat's still fit for purpose but you would have a very strong case that the appearance was not acceptable.

You're right about the "how long should it last" thing but it's much harder to define what is a reasonable expectation in a comparatively esoteric application. In your example of the injectors the engine manufacturer will bring in loads of exceedingly plausible expert witnesses. You are unlikely to find a court that is knowledgeable about marine engines, so, unless you can bring at least three or four equally plausible expert witnesses to back to back up your case, each approaching it from a slightly different angle, you'll be unlikely to win.

What you can do of course is make it easier for them to fix your problem than continue to dispute it, which is what this law really does. The manufacturer will do everything possible to avoid admitting there's a problem in court and, unless there's individual egos involved will usually avoid letting it get that far unless you insist or they think you will be shown to be totally wrong (not just found against).

 

[aviator]

The whole business of consumer rights in matters like this are a nightmare for most people, conditioned into the mould of the 12 month warranty and buying extended warranties, many useless in the end.

The Guardian had a bit about this at the weekend where even a CAB advisor said the Guardian article advice was 'insipid'. If these people cannot get a common, standard set of rules for us plebs we have NO chance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/may/30/your-shout-readers-letters

This is why I suggested that MBM did an article to advise users of the real situation including stuff like MTBF which is definitely part of any product design cycle. Hopefully not an 'insipid' one!!

This is not a manufacturer bashing exercise but especially with boating we need a reasonable expectation of life. Just because an item is mechanical it should still last a certain time and in the case of engines and electronics certainly so. Of course fair wear and tear has to be taken into account, so in the case of my turbo example maybe 1,600 hours would be a better figure for expected life - I am guessing of course - but 600 hours is NOT acceptable. </Rant mode>

Well time for the water. Lovely weather here at Swanwick and off for three weeks of boating. Bliss.