Sale of Goods Act 1979: Fridge Freezer fault

Rich40w

Hi, My Samsung Fridge Freezer, purchased Dec 2007, has just packed up for the second time. First time was Aug 2008 and now same fault has occurred. I've sent a Sale of Goods Act 1979 letter to the retailer who has turned round and said effectively 'tough luck, pay us to fix it' and even though I cited the repair in August 2008, they are saying there was no fault within 6 months of purchase and they are not liable. I maintain that less than 4 years is not an accepted working life for a £499 appliance!
Any suggestions what further action I could take?
Thanks
Rich

somethingcorporate

Did you read any of the SOGA? or any of the guides online? or this website? or any of the dozens upon dozens of identical threads? or the FAQ at the top of the forum?

Given it is older than 6 months you need to prove that the fault was inherent.

Once you can prove this via an independent report you will be entitled to a remedy. This would either be a repair, replacement or proportionate refund. Given the price and age of your appliance I would expect a refund to be most likely and it would be a token amount <£100 I would estimate.

IamaConsumer

@ somethingcorporate,

I don't think that is right.

As I understand it, goods need to last a reasonable length of time.

That is separate from the 6 month rule you mentioned.

From moneysavingexpert:

DO take things back as quickly as possible If something's faulty, in other words it breaks the SadFart rules, returning it speedily is crucial.

• Within four weeks. You can usually still get a full refund as you're unlikely to be seen as having 'accepted' the goods. After that only expect exchange, repair or part-refund.
• Within six months. The shop must prove goods weren't faulty when they sold 'em – after that you must prove they were.

Now hopefully it won't confuse matters – but these time limits define when you should take faulty goods back and are totally separate to the 'reasonable length of time' bit in the SadFart rules – which defines what counts as faulty in the first place.

The question is - what is a reasonable length of time?

This may help:

The Sale of Goods Act doesn't define how long specific products should last, because different products have different life spans. But a survey by Which? of manufacturers into how long they believe different types of appliance should last made interesting reading. All of them said their goods should last five years or more.

That is from guardian money site - (can't post links a new member )

Also:

items which should last several years can still break down after this six month period. If the retailer or manufacturer’s warranty has run out, the shop is often quick to say there is nothing they can do before attempting to sell you an extended warranty. This is misleading. If you buy something which should last 7 years but breaks down after a year and a day, you can still claim it was of poor quality in reference to the durability aspect. In this respect it will help to know how long items such as washing machines or printers should last. You can get this information from the relevant trade association

That is from whatconsumer site


Form the first quote, it appears Which has already got that information - so 5 years appears a good rule of thumb.

wealdroam

IamaConsumer wrote: »

@ somethingcorporate,

I don't think that is right.

Somethingcorporate is right where he says...

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Given it is older than 6 months you need to prove that the fault was inherent.

Once you can prove this via an independent report you will be entitled to a remedy. This would either be a repair, replacement or proportionate refund. Given the price and age of your appliance I would expect a refund to be most likely and it would be a token amount <£100 I would estimate.

Maybe try reading MSE's Consumer Rights article, particularly the bit that says...

When goods are faulty, if you return them within six months then it's up to the shop to prove they weren't faulty when you bought them. After this, the 'burden of proof' shifts and it's up to you to prove they were faulty when you bought them.

Edited to add:
Just noticed that you even quoted the appropriate stuff...

IamaConsumer wrote: »

Within six months. The shop must prove goods weren't faulty when they sold 'em – after that you must prove they were.

somethingcorporate

It is right.

SADFART defines what is faulty, the SOGA 6 month cut off defines who's responsibility it is to prove the fault depending on the length of time from purchase.

As per wealdroam's post it is all in the MSE guides, you appear to have misquoted/misunderstood to support your assertion.

mattyprice4004

If you've misquoted to the retailer, it's likely they've laughed at the letter/call, and filed all relevant information under 'bin'.

Misquoting SOGA shows you're just spouting back something you've (mis)read on the Internet or from a friend, you need to be accurate in what you quote to them.

I'd also say you're out of luck, 4 years is probably reasonable in my eyes.

unholyangel

I think you've misunderstood. The phrase "reasonable time" usually refers to the period of acceptance. After "reasonable time" has passed, you are deemed to have accepted the goods and cannot demand a full refund.

As for the length if time it should last, the SoGA itself says that a number of factors are in play when deciding if something is durable.

(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.

So what is important is, does this meet the standards that a reasonable person would expect when buying an item of this kind for the price paid?


Somethingcorporate is right, if a fault develops within the first 6 months, it is assumed to be inherent and it is up to the retailer to prove otherwise. After 6 months, the burden of proof reverses and the onus is on the consumer to prove the fault is inherent. Which is usually dont via independent report - which if found in your favour would be refundable. However its always wise to speak to the retailer first as not all retailers will require one of these.

Until you can "prove" the fault is inherent, there is no breach of contract so no remedy is required.

SoGA does not cover normal wear and tear, damage caused by the consumer, misuse by the consumer etc. So to simply state that it hasnt lasted a reasonable length of time does not necessarily mean there has been a breach or that they are liable.

IamaConsumer

You may be right.

Are any of you lawyers practising in this field?

I think we need one of those for a definitive answer.

White goods/electrical items ( which we are discussing here ) - frequently break down after 6 months.

Often they have cost £200 or so.

It seems to me quite absurd if the law expects the consumer to go to the trouble and expense of getting an independent report to prove the fault was inherent.

If that is the case - then it may be better to always better to buy from a large retailer.

From the above posts it would seem they are less likely to insist on it.

somethingcorporate

IamaConsumer wrote: »

You may be right.

Are any of you lawyers practising in this field?

I think we need one of those for a definitive answer.

White goods/electrical items ( which we are discussing here ) - frequently break down after 6 months.

Often they have cost £200 or so.

It seems to me quite absurd if the law expects the consumer to go to the trouble and expense of getting an independent report to prove the fault was inherent.

We are right and we don't need a lawyer for a definitive answer. Not that there is such a thing in law anyway, otherwise you wouldn't have lawyers representing both parties if there was a definitive answer

It may seem absurd to you but the SOGA is very explicit and not remotely ambiguous about this. At 6 month the burden of proof changes from retailer to purchaser.

Edit: you edited your post during my post writing.

If you read some of the threads on this forum you will see that often the bigger chains can be the WORST when it comes to consumer rights.

IamaConsumer

So, in your professional opinion, is 5 years a reasonable time ?

It appears from post #2 that you think it should last more than the 4 years it already has.

At what point is it no longer worth bothering - given that the remedy would seem to decrease as time goes on?

somethingcorporate

I would suggest 5-6 years would be a reasonable time. I agree that it should last more than 4 years, plus the cost of any report to support the assertion that it was an inherent problem should be refunded by the company too.

We can only speculate but I would expect a refund somewhere in the region of £50-£150 (vague I know as these things really do need a court to decide on a case by case basis).

The issue really is whether it is worth investing in a report that may not agree the fault is inherent as it may cost you and then you still end up with a faulty item with no chance of a refund.

Tough situation. My practical suggestion would be to ask around some local independents to see what the liklihood of them agreeing the fault is inherent.

You have some very valid and useful questions by the way, with no real definitive answers!