Consumer Rights of redress for installed goods

wealdroam

frugalfran wrote: »

I haven't yet found any definition of 'disproportionate.'

Disproportionate is defined in The Sale of Goods Act.

Section 48B(4) says...

(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

bris

It's not, the UK already has consequential loss as part of SOGA. It covers all the above and more.

frugalfran

I'm feeling very humbled and grateful that a poor 'one star' is getting such knowledgeable replies and help from all the many starred MSE-ers!
The thing I'm wondering now is whether retailers selling goods that need installation - carpet, boilers, white goods, tiles etc etc - know of their liability and obligations, or whether they think 'replacement' merely involves delivery of the replacement carpet, boiler etc. I wonder whether the trade associations have informed them and if the retailer's liability insurance covers it all.

frugalfran

Can I throw this quote into the discussion, which is from the judgement of the ECJ case? This was a case in Germany where the rights to removal did not automatically include removal, delivery and installation of the replacement item. This would seem to quantify 'proportionality' very specifically.... would it apply / be applicable in the whole of the EU now?

"In the present case, the request for subsequent performance by delivery of tiles free from defects is such a case of ‘absolute lack of proportionality’, since it would oblige Weber to pay, in addition to the cost of the delivery, assessed at EUR 1 200, the cost of removing the defective tiles of EUR 2 100, a total of EUR 3 300, exceeding the threshold of 150% of the value of the goods free from defects, on the basis of which the proportionality of such a request is a priori evaluated."

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=85085&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2901508

rustyboy21

OP.... I feel that as a reputable retailer who also installs products, that my fellow retailers/ installers are aware of their responsibility of making sure that if goods are exchanged, then the site they are placed in is made good.

I have never just left a consumer with the goods and walked away without them being fitted correctly and I cannot see a carpet co a boiler installer leaving them either. I think the vast majority of installers are in a similar viewpoint.

The difference is if the goods where not installed by the retailer, IMO why should the retailer be charged with refitting the goods, if they did not install them. That should be with the installer, as you have a contract with him, not the retailer.

BTW, I don't know whether it is just me, but I find it awkward that you change your font in every post. It appears that there are single posters replying, not multiple posts by a single person.

Most disconcerting ! lol

Do you actually have an issue with reagrds to this law, or is it a general discussion topic? If you have a case, then please tell us what s going on, you will find you will get more responses from that , instead of a hypothetical case.

mo786uk

The Directive mentioned above was implemented in the UK but we did not need to implement every aspect as some of it was already in UK law.

As emntioned above, consequential loss will cover the issue that seems to have arisen in one of the cases - i.e if a wahsing machine explodes in your kitchen due to a manufacturing fualt then you will have recourse against the manufacturer anyway.

frugalfran

....the seller is obliged either to remove the goods from where they were installed and to install the replacement goods there or else to bear the cost of that removal and installation of the replacement goods. That obligation on the seller exists regardless of whether he was obliged under the contract of sale to install the consumer goods originally purchased.

That is exactly the point of the legislation, that the retailer, whether OR NOT they have installed the goods, is responsible for their 'replacement' which includes removal of the defective goods, and installation of the new goods, or to bear that cost. I also feel it slightly unfair , but presumably they can get recompense from the manufacturer. The problem is much bigger where there is a much longer supply chain.
(PS will change the fonts as requested when I have a spare moment - sorry, point taken)

bris

frugalfran wrote: »

....the seller is obliged either to remove the goods from where they were installed and to install the replacement goods there or else to bear the cost of that removal and installation of the replacement goods. That obligation on the seller exists regardless of whether he was obliged under the contract of sale to install the consumer goods originally purchased.

That is exactly the point of the legislation, that the retailer, whether OR NOT they have installed the goods, is responsible for their 'replacement' which includes removal of the defective goods, and installation of the new goods, or to bear that cost. I also feel it slightly unfair , but presumably they can get recompense from the manufacturer. The problem is much bigger where there is a much longer supply chain.
(PS will change the fonts as requested when I have a spare moment - sorry, point taken)

Not in all cases it's not, if the buyer arranges their own installation the remedy can shift to them, not the retailer.

If a customer arranges for the item to be installed themselves, then the agent they appoint is responsible for any problems from the installation, not the retailer. However, the customer may be able to claim against the retailer that the item was not fit for purpose if the installation instructions had serious shortcomings . The customer then has the same rights as outlined above

frugalfran

Bris - I agree: where the goods have not been properly installed then the fault lies with the installer. Where the instructions for installation are faulty and have been followed, I understand, as you do, that the retailer is liable - although the fault originates with the manufacturer.

As you say, and as in the case at the ECJ, the tiles were mostly laid before the problem became apparent (uit seems they were manufacturing faults) , and the washing machine had to be installed before it could be used and the fault became apparent, then it's not the installer, but the retailer who is responsible whether or not they were in any way involved in the installation - providing that installation was done properly and in no way contributed to the fault.

It just seems to me that both customer and retailer can be caught up (as remedy lies with the retailer not the manufacturer) in something that may present large problems with retailers being liable for accepting 'faulty' goods and, unknowingly, selling them or for shortcomings in the instruction / installation manuals. That's quite a large liability!

frugalfran

Just a final note on the above, in case anyone is still reading! As suspected by various readers and posters, there was a personal issue in what was also an interesting academic point. We had paid and had laid a tiled floor which we then discovered had a manufacturing fault in 96% of the tiles. (The tiler could not have been expected to see this as he was busy with other aspects of the floor - the manufacturer's quality control system should have found them.)
Finally, after three months, we have a settlement where the retailer has implicitly accepted that they have a responsibility for the tiles even after they have been laid.
Being gluttons for punishment we have been looking for tiles for another room, and have been shocked by the point-of-sale statements and terms and conditions on invoices and receipts which state that the company accepts no liability for laid tiles and that all tiles must be examined within (e.g) 36 hours of delivery after which the retailer has no liability. (I believe such statements are illegal.)

Ours was, I think, an unusual case, but one that has lessons for many customers who have goods installed or who install them themselves and then discover them to be faulty.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread, and especial thanks to our local Trading Standards department to whom the issue was referred by the national help-line (which was also very supportive and professional.)
I must stress again that we are not talking here of when a customer changes their mind about tiles, or does not like how the tiler has laid the tiles: the fault must lie in the tiles themselves - which it seems despite modern quality control procedures can still somehow escape to the retailer.