'The EU ‘goods must last a minimum two years’ rule is a myth' blog discussion

tifo

it's up to 3 years (or maybe 5 in Scotland) from discovery but you only have 6 years from the purchase to make a court claim and if its over this, you would need to use s.32 of the Limitation Act.

CoolHotCold

ketteringjimmy wrote: »

There is a little known EU ruling that does indeed give a MINIMUM 2 year guarantee on ALL consumer goods in the UK and not the 1 year that is fobbed off onto UK consumers. For clarity read page 7 of the following;

ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/guarantees/index_en.htm

This is 2 years on ALL consumer goods, irrelevant of the price paid or of any manufacturers 12 month guarantee, this MUST be honoured by the retailer as your legal contract exists between you and the retailer.

The next time you have a guarantee complaint take a copy of the 28 page eu document with you to prove your rights to a 2 year MANDATORY guarantee.

You only have 6 years if you can prove the item did not last a reasonable length of time, the burden of proof is upon you and you may have to take the case to court.:cool:

Nope, retailers follow SOGA, though the EU adds some protection to SOGA it still says the same thing

"3. Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity." from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML
Doesn't actually say what should happen outside of the 6 month rule, and retailers (and the brilliant grey area of law) assume that the SOGA supersedes the EU rules so the onus is on the customer to prove.

But like all retail Law, its dark, murkey and designed to be confusing.

tifo

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Doesn't actually say what should happen outside of the 6 month rule, and retailers (and the brilliant grey area of law) assume that the SOGA supersedes the EU rules so the onus is on the customer to prove.

Why does SOGA supersede EU law? For example, if EU law says 2 years and SOGA doesn't, why can't we use the EU law (which member states have an obligation to incorporate into their own laws)?

PaulHUK

Strapped wrote: »

And what if the goods are, say for arguement's sake, a fashion item not designed to last as long as two years? Surely the result of this directive is not that everything sold to consumers must last at least 2 years? :undecided

It has to be clear at the point of purchase (when the "contract" is made between the buyer and seller) that the item has a limited lifetime. If the buyer can reasonably expect only 1 year or 18 months that that is what they can expect.

Interesting point about "Fashion Item" though. The Sales Of Goods Act (and any other law I could care to mention) does not make reference to the term "Fashion Item" so it has no meaning in law. A bit like "Sold as seen"... I have to laugh to myself in shops that display that sign - it means nothing whatsoever.

PaulHUK

Toiletduck wrote: »

Hia,

Ive used this to obtain compensation from Ebuyer for a HP Laptop that failed after 18 months but which came with a 12 month warrenty. They dont want to know until you quote this legislation, the term you have to use to get thier attention is the "Sale of Goods act". They suddenly took notice when I mentioned this over the phone.

For laptops there is an excellent website here

http://www.nvidiadefect.com/

I used it to obtain my own refund, it has detailed step by step instructions on what to do when a laptop fails outside of warrenty. Although im sure much of it applies to generic electrical goods.

Andy

Warranties are interesting arn't they! The SOGA is a very complicated piece of legislation really. I know Martin's blog is trying to simplify but you can lose some interesting nuances. Like the 4-ish weeks deemed to have accepted the goods.

If I was to buy a "New Gas BBQ" in a sale in September and it rained every weekend until it was then too cold to BBQ... If I put the BBQ together next May or June on a nice day, and I found it was faulty the first time I tried to use it.... Then I could, under SOGA, be deemed NOT to have accepted the goods.

Toiletduck is dead right above. Warranties are manufacturer additions to SOGA rights. Always use your SOGA rights first and fall back on warranty if needed. Falling outside of warranty does not mean you have no means of redress for a faulty laptop for example.

And never ever buy an extended warranty without checking what extra rights you get for your money - sometimes it's zilch but other times it's a good deal (e.g. personal accident damage cover... that can be worth having sometimes )

System

tifo wrote: »

Why does SOGA supersede EU law?

It is not an EU law but a directive that must be incorporated into a state's law.

If a shop knows what they are on about they will laugh you all the way out of the door if you attempt to claim you have rights under EU law

PaulHUK

!!!!!! wrote: »

It is not an EU law but a directive that must be incorporated into a state's law.

If a shop knows what they are on about they will laugh you all the way out of the door if you attempt to claim you have rights under EU law

Very true. Transposed or incorporated. In reality the SOGA more than implements the EU requirements. The EU would not taje the UK to court in connection with this matter (unlike current proceedings relating to internet service providers intercepting our communication so they can sell advertising or claimed anti virus/malware systems... see another thread I've posted on)

Nerogk

PaulHUK wrote: »

Warranties are interesting arn't they! The SOGA is a very complicated piece of legislation really. I know Martin's blog is trying to simplify but you can lose some interesting nuances. Like the 4-ish weeks deemed to have accepted the goods.

If I was to buy a "New Gas BBQ" in a sale in September and it rained every weekend until it was then too cold to BBQ... If I put the BBQ together next May or June on a nice day, and I found it was faulty the first time I tried to use it.... Then I could, under SOGA, be deemed NOT to have accepted the goods.

Toiletduck is dead right above. Warranties are manufacturer additions to SOGA rights. Always use your SOGA rights first and fall back on warranty if needed. Falling outside of warranty does not mean you have no means of redress for a faulty laptop for example.

And never ever buy an extended warranty without checking what extra rights you get for your money - sometimes it's zilch but other times it's a good deal (e.g. personal accident damage cover... that can be worth having sometimes )

I would say nearly all retailers would say no if you tried to return these goods as you have a reasonable period of time to establish if a manufacturing fault was present at the time of purchase or the goods didn’t conform to contract. However if you tried to exercise your right under soga most retailers would make a decision based on damage limitation i.e. losing your custom as the legal costs and replacement costs are a drop in the ocean to these major retailers. I totaly agree with ext warranty tho must check small print!!!

PaulHUK

Nerogk wrote: »

I would say nearly all retailers would say no if you tried to return these goods as you have a reasonable period of time to establish if a manufacturing fault was present at the time of purchase or the goods didn’t conform to contract. However if you tried to exercise your right under soga most retailers would make a decision based on damage limitation i.e. losing your custom as the legal costs and replacement costs are a drop in the ocean to these major retailers. I totaly agree with ext warranty tho must check small print!!!

You're incorrect though... There is no 4 week timeline which would apply. On that BBQ point I'm quoting a Trading Standards Training Officer. The retailer may try to refuse, but in law they would be wrong and a claim via the small claims court would win because this is about the balance of probability and the court would find the customer's claim to be reasonable in the specific circumstances. End result: retailer would be paying costs AND the refund, so any retailer who knows their stuff will settle before court :j Acceptance of the goods is more complex than "4 weeks" and the example quoted is an easy one to refer to if you ever find yourself in a similar situation. Another one would be: You buy some new bath taps, 3 months later your bathroom is fitted and a tap has a problem. You have not acceoted the goods because it is 3 months since they were purchased. You can reject them now at 3 months, but only because of the circumstances which, like the BBQ, would be considered reasonable in a court.

briloujica

Regardless of what the law may state, if large retailers choose to ignore it, what can the consumer do? I purchased a TV for over £1,000 from Comet, but largely on the basis of what was being said on TV by Martin at that time decided not to take out extended warranty. The TV developed a fault, which admiittedly I didn't report till 32 months after the date of sale. I had some evidence that it was probably a manufacturing fault but Comet refused to accept any other opinion. Trading Standards advised me to get third party opinion. Third party expert confirmed a manufacturing fault but Comet still refuse to accept this opinion as valid so I am no further on. Trading Standards suggest taking legal action, but warn me that Comet are likely to put up big fight to protect the concept of extended warranty. Any advice?