We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
fix/ replace out of warranty?
Options
Comments
-
Wrong.
You can do a lot about it. And the onus is on the retailer to prove that it's wear and tear.
This just proves my original point about incorrect information being bandied around on this site !
From the BERR website:-
"In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years)." (My highlighting)
Definition of "inherently faulty" - from same site:-
"A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard."0 -
I have to humbly apologise, I was skim reading this thread this morning just before work started and misread it. I thought the discussion was about returning a faulty item within the first six months after purchase and on re-reading can see I got it all wrong.
Sorry for any confusion caused (I have self-flagellated myself with a copy of the sales of goods act).
Although I still disagree that after 12 months there isn't a lot you can do. If it clearly wasn't fit for purpose then I think the law is very much on your side (even if it does take a trip to the small claims court)0 -
Sorry for any confusion caused (I have self-flagellated myself with a copy of the sales of goods act).
Hope it was the up to date "as amended" version ! :rotfl::rotfl:
The problem with the SoGA, after 6/12 months you have to prove it wasn't fit for purpose.
If it only lasts for 18 months, that doesn't mean it wasn't fit for purpose. It presumably was, otherwise you would have taken it back before then.
The fact that yours lasted 18 months whereas Fred next door has one that is still going after 9 years means nothing in Court.
Your best chance is if you find (on the web or somewhere) that this particular item has a history of failing and lots of people have complained about it.
This is where buying form a smaller local trader may pay off. If you take you dead TV back to Argos after 13 months the assistant will say "sorry it's out of warranty, we've got a nice new one over there for £499.99 !" A small trader may show some "goodwill" and offer to look at it for you, and repair it for free or 50%. His incentive is that you come back to him for your next purchase.
MOST things are pretty reliable - but somebody will get the "Friday car "!0 -
I think there are often cases on here where people have an expensive item that clearly shouldn't have broken down after something like 13 months (e.g. TVs, washing machines etc.) and too many people are quick to say that if the warranty was 12 months you have no protection.
There are things I've bought that have failed relatively quickly but because of what it is or how much I've paid I don't bother - we bought a Tesco hand blender about two months ago, used it three times for blending baby food and now it's stopped working. Could I be bothered to take it back? Not really. It was a tenner and now we've just bought a brand name food processor instead. It would be easy to argue that for such a cheap piece of equipment we shouldn't have expected too much.
Now, on the other hand if my TV that I bought from Comet one year ago for £500 stopped working and I was told it was because of shoddy workmanship I would be back at the store tomorrow refuting their claims that I should have bought an extended guarantee. If I buy an expensive brand name TV that fails after a year it clearly isn't fit for purpose.
It's all shades of gray with the SOGA but if I think I have a leg to stand on I will stand on it!0 -
Now, on the other hand if my TV that I bought from Comet one year ago for £500 stopped working and I was told it was because of shoddy workmanship I would be back at the store tomorrow refuting their claims that I should have bought an extended guarantee. If I buy an expensive brand name TV that fails after a year it clearly isn't fit for purpose.
Who would be the source of the information that the TV died because of "shoddy workmanship" ? A man in the pub ?
Comet are quite correct in pointing out that after 12 months your TV has no warranty and that their extended warranty is a way to cover yourself against future problems. Whether their extended warranties are the best way of doing this is a matter of debate !
I said previously that I had just bought a new TV, this cost me well over £700. I was not prepared to take the risk so I bought it from a retailer who was offering a 5 yr warranty. I could have gone to another retailer offering the same TV for £100 less but wanted another £129.99 to extend the warranty to just 3 yrs. You pays your money !
I'm afraid that you still do not grasp the meaning of "fit for purpose". Just because an item doesn't last as long as you think it should does not mean it is "not fit for purpose".
If you buy a garden spade and use it for 3 months when the handle breaks, then you are entitled to a repair/refund/replacement. Unless - the retailer can prove that the item was not being used correctly !
If your spade breaks after 15 months you have no entitlement to anything - the spade was fit for purpose- you have been digging the garden with it for 15 months !
You do have a legal right to seek redress from the supplier of an item for up to six years after purchase, but you have to prove in court that the item was either of defective design or defective manufacture and that you used it strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
The retailer doesn't have to prove in Court that you used the spade to lever huge lumps of concrete out of your garden (which is not what it was designed for) - YOU could have to prove that you didn't !
If you could get a Materials Engineer to testify in Court that the handle of the spade was manufactured of an unsuitable type of wood (balsa ?) or was of insufficient size (big as a pencil !) to withstand normal digging use, then you might have a chance.
I know it is B****y annoying if the thing you bought 13 months ago gives up the ghost - but that is how the Law stands.
Have a read of this:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf
It is a dti booklet for traders stating what their rights are, as well as their customers. I find this booklet to be much more comprehensive and logical than all of the stuff churned out by other "authorities" trying to explain (usually) the shopper's rights and giving a false impression of them.0 -
hello sorry to bother but read your reply and wondered if you would know where i could sart to look to find a toy they may have a history of being unsuitable for end use regards0
-
moonrakerz wrote: »<snip>
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on both of our interpretation of the law. I do not know your qualifications on consumer law just the same as you don't know my qualifications on the subject.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards