Camera Lens - out of Warranty?

karenpritchett

I bought a Nikon lens online just over 18 months ago. It has just stopped working.

I returned it to the online retailer using their RMA process. They now claim that it is outside of both their 18month warranty and the Nikon manufacturers 12month warranty.

From what I can see of the UK Sale of Goods Act and the EU Directive, I should be covered for
a. 24months manufacturers warranty and
b. 6years fit for purpose
The lens is not cheap (currently retailing at £690) and I would reasonably expect it to last more than 18months.

The retailer is now saying that they only have the responsibility to help repair the product on my behalf and that repair cost (parts & labor) are to be borne by me. They also say that it is for me to prove the lack of conformity, after six months and until the end of the six years.

As the lens WAS working for its first 18months and is now NOT working - how can I prove that this issue was the case from the beginning (which is what they have asked me to do)?

I don't mind whether the lens is replaced or repaired - and whether that is by the retailer or by Nikon - surely it is the retailer's responsibility to resolve this?

Anyone got any recommendations?

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

You need to show that the item was either not fit for the purpose, inherently faulty, not durable or not as described.

If you can prove one of the above the retailer is liable to repair/replace or refund.

Really you need to get it inspected by an engineer and get them to confirm one of the above at which point insist on repair/refund/replacement and reimbursement of the report cost.

karenpritchett

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

You need to show that the item was either not fit for the purpose, inherently faulty, not durable or not as described.

If you can prove one of the above the retailer is liable to repair/replace or refund.

Really you need to get it inspected by an engineer and get them to confirm one of the above at which point insist on repair/refund/replacement and reimbursement of the report cost.

Fantastic - thanks

Pssst

Presumably its an AF lens of plastic construction? Has it had a bump on the front as this tends to knock the gearing out a little and it can sometimes be teased back into place?

Esqui

karenpritchett wrote: »

From what I can see of the UK Sale of Goods Act and the EU Directive, I should be covered for
a. 24months manufacturers warranty and
b. 6years fit for purpose

a. No
b. Yes (with some buts)

karenpritchett

Pssst wrote: »

Presumably its an AF lens of plastic construction? Has it had a bump on the front as this tends to knock the gearing out a little and it can sometimes be teased back into place?

OK Thanks - lets hope it is that

withabix

Esqui wrote: »

a. No

Sorry Esqui, but you are wrong...


Automatic 2 year warranty under European Law:

So how does the EU rule change things?

The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'
As with UK law, a seller is not bound by the guarantee 'if the (fault) has its origin in materials supplied by the consumer'. But the EU rule does not require the buyer to show the fault is inherent in the product and not down to their actions. The EU rule also says buyers need to report a problem within two months of discovering it if they want to be covered under the rule.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

withabix wrote: »

Sorry Esqui, but you are wrong...


Automatic 2 year warranty under European Law:

So how does the EU rule change things?

The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'
As with UK law, a seller is not bound by the guarantee 'if the (fault) has its origin in materials supplied by the consumer'. But the EU rule does not require the buyer to show the fault is inherent in the product and not down to their actions. The EU rule also says buyers need to report a problem within two months of discovering it if they want to be covered under the rule.

You need to find out the difference between that and a warranty.

withabix

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

You need to find out the difference between that and a warranty.

There is no difference. The words warranty and guarantee are interchangeable in this situation.

There is also no burden of proof on the consumer after 6 months under this law.

superscaper

withabix wrote: »

There is no difference. The words warranty and guarantee are interchangeable in this situation.

There is also no burden of proof on the consumer after 6 months under this law.

No they're not. The EU directive is implemented in the UK as the Sale of Goods Act. Both the directive and the SOGA concern the conformity of goods by the seller (i.e. retailer) (1) not the manufacturer. Here "guarantee" is certainly not interchangeable with manufacturer warranty (2) and is not necessarily the same thing. Also the burden of proof is the same in the directive and the SOGA (and yes I've read the entite SOGA and EU Directive) (3), the only difference between the EU Directive (which is not a law but a "directive" for the countries to implement it as domestic law) and the SOGA is that SOGA give longer, better protection.

1999/44/EC:
(1) = Article 2 Section 1, Article 5 Section 1 - 5...
(2) = Definitions (9)
(3) = Article 5 Section 3

Esqui

The "no" was to 24 months manufacturers warranty. Whether you call the EU directive a warranty, guarantee or complete waste of time given that the SOGA gives you above and beyond that is a different matter entirely