Success! New dryer

shaun_from_Africa

Here's another snippet from the link kindly provided by Quentin.

Requesting a repair or replacement

If a customer has accepted the goods and is requesting a repair or replacement because the goods are faulty, the onus on who is required to prove the problem depends on how long ago they purchased the item.
Under six months – the customer does not have to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If you disagree it is up to you, the retailer, to prove the item did conform to contract (or that the fault did not exist) at the time of sale.
Over six months – you are entitled to ask the customer to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If they are able to do this they are entitled to a repair or replacement.

bb999

Quentin, We all know you're wrong, you probably know you're wrong, so why not just admit you're wrong?

Flyboy152

And there seems to be, yet again, people ignoring the principle of durability and the point that the goods should last a reasonable amount of time.

George_Michael

I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone disagreeing with the fact that goods are expected to be durable and have a reasonable life.

All people have been stating is that as clearly stated in the SOGA, after 6 months the retailer can ask the consumer to prove that the goods didn't fail through misuse and that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect.

Quentin

bb999 wrote: »

Quentin, We all know you're wrong, you probably know you're wrong, so why not just admit you're wrong?

Fairly pointless point!

Who are "we"?

The OP now knows that Asda (not the manufacturer) is the correct place to take this to.

The OP now knows that when Asda told him once his warranty expired they could do "nothing" was just a try on.

The OP now knows that the SOGA makes the retailer responsible for up to 6 years.

The OP does not have to present evidence that the fault is not self inflicted.

He needs to go back to Asda and ask for a manager who knows about SOGA.

If Asda won't take the customer's word that the 1 year 2 week old machine is faulty, then they both need to agree how this is to go forward, and if independent inspection is required, who will pay for it, will their decision be binding etc.

But most people would agree that a tumble drier has a longer expectation of life than 1 year 2 weeks!

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone disagreeing with the fact that goods are expected to be durable and have a reasonable life.

All people have been stating is that as clearly stated in the SOGA, after 6 months the retailer can ask the consumer to prove that the goods didn't fail through misuse and that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect.

There are several posts alluding to a myth the SOGA is not relevant in this case.

Quentin

George_Michael wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone disagreeing with the fact that goods are expected to be durable and have a reasonable life.

All people have been stating is that as clearly stated in the SOGA, after 6 months the retailer can ask the consumer to prove that the goods didn't fail through misuse and that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect.

No.

In post #2 the OP was wrongly advised:

normally after a yr it reverts to manufacturers guarantee

post #6:

as it currently stands, the retailer doesn't have any SOGA responsibilities

post #8:

As it stands ASDA has no obligation to help

etc etc

arcon5

Quentin wrote: »

post #6:



post #8:



etc etc

except these posts are correct. In ops case, the retailer has chosen to not offer a remedy and op has not satisfied the need to proof that the fault is inherent, meaning op needs an independant report before the retailer is obligued to help.

If ops case was different (ie fault developed in less than 6 months or op had the report) then the posts would have been different. And people would be encouraging op to enforce their rights as the product hasn't satisfied the SoGA by lasing a reasonable time.

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

And there seems to be, yet again, people ignoring the principle of durability and the point that the goods should last a reasonable amount of time.

nobodies ignoring anything. At this stage op needs to prove the fault which has meant the goods haven't lasted a reasonable time is inherent -- then the retailer is obligued to offer a remedy.



How is this topic still being disputed! The relevant part of the legislation has already been posted!!!

tomwakefield

Quentin wrote: »

The OP does not have to present evidence that the fault is not self inflicted.