Faulty shower, lost small claim

Benny1114

Had a case in front of a judge in the small claims court that went against us.


I purchased an electric shower and had this fitted at a cost of £270. This particular model comes with an anti-scale device and a two year anti-scale guarantee. After two years and two months the shower scaled up and the water produced was either scalding hot or freezing cold, rendering the shower unusable. The seller refused to do anything and so I brought an action alleging breach of s14 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act.


I maintained the shower was not of satisfactory quality under s 14 (2). There was an issue with safety (scalding hot water) and at £270 the shower was not bottom of the range. I argued that the price and the durability of the product are factors to be considered in determining satisfactory quality. I argued that the previous shower (same make and model, and same price) did not scale up for almost five years which was quite satisfactory, but meant that this current product could not be satisfactory. I argued that the two-year guarantee serves to increase the expectations of the buyer who is entitled to expect a better quality product than if there was no guarantee. I further argued that because the product scales up two months after the guarantee expires, rather than during the guarantee period, this does not make the product satisfactory. I further pointed out that no other appliance in my home which uses water has had to be replaced after two years. For example, the washing machine has lasted for over ten years without problems.


The judge did not agree. He felt I had not shown there was something wrong with the shower. I felt I had and that the fact that scalding water was coming out of it was sufficient for this. He thought not. He wants me to contact the manufacturer. I pointed out I had no contract with the manufacturer; but that did no good. I do not understand why the judge wants me to raise it with the manufacturer. Surely the dispute must be with the seller as it is he with whom I contracted?


The seller acknowledged the scaling up of the product and the judge took the view that this was not the fault of the seller. This would mean that I have to accept that a shower, even with an anti-scale device fitted, is going to scale up at some point. I can accept that; but surely not after just two years and two months? I don’t expect it to last forever, but surely it should last longer than that, considering the price paid and the fact that the previous like-for-like shower lasted more than twice that length of time?


Any thoughts?

nomoneytoday

Either buy a new one, or appeal at a higher cost.

bod1467

Benny1114 wrote: »

Any thoughts?

What dialogue did you have with the seller, to try and reach an amicable position, prior to going to court?

cockaleekee

Cut your losses and buy some industrial descaler - problem solved for less than £20.

somethingcorporate

Do you have any proof that the fault was inherent?

Hintza

bod1467 wrote: »

What dialogue did you have with the seller, to try and reach an amicable position, prior to going to court?

Is that really relevant now that a judgement has been given (just trying to get an inkling into your thinking bod).

When I was in London I'm surprised anything got beyond a year, so glad we live in a soft water area.

Benny1114

bod1467 wrote: »

What dialogue did you have with the seller, to try and reach an amicable position, prior to going to court?

I sent four letters to him and, in fairness, he replied to each of these but his position remained unaltered; it went wrong out of guarantee and so he could do nothing about it. I advised him that action would be taken if the matter remained unresolved.

Benny1114

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Do you have any proof that the fault was inherent?

Only the fact that it went wrong after two years and two months. The seller inspected it and advised that the problem was that the unit was scaled up inside and it was not practical to replace the parts.

I was presuming that the fact that this unit lasted less than half the time of the previous unit (and there are only two of us in the property; we are not a family of six using the shower several times a day) would be sufficient to establish that this unit had to be faulty and, thus, unsatisfactory.

CoolHotCold

Sorry, but you were always going to loose with a semi competent judge.

You failed to follow the SoGA and all the seller had to do is turn up in court and say "It is not our job to prove it works to contract outside of 6 months"


You fundamentally failed and to be honest you deserve to lose because you failed to do any research into the law (Not what you think should be law)

(You deserve to lose rather than the seller because the seller carried out his obligations under the SoGA whereas you did not)

Benny1114

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Sorry, but you were always going to loose with a semi competent judge.

You failed to follow the SoGA and all the seller had to do is turn up in court and say "It is not our job to prove it works to contract outside of 6 months"


You fundamentally failed and to be honest you deserve to loose because you failed to do any research into the law (Not what you think should be law)

Well, I did quote the SOG Act. I used s14 (2) and referred to the requirement for "satisfactory" quality. s 14 (2) emphasises that the "price" is to be considered and also that factors such as "safety" and "durability" are relevant in determining whether or not there is a breach of s14 (2). I made strong representations on these matters and how they applied to this product.

I think it is a bit rich to say I deserved to "loose" as I failed to do any research into the law. I provided a copy of the CA decision in Rogers v Parish in support of a warranty or guarantee increasing the expectations of the buyer.

The case has not yet been lost, it has been adjourned as the judge wants to give me the chance to contact the manufacturers. I do not follow this as I do not have a contract with the manufacturer.

cockaleekee

Benny1114 wrote: »

Well, I did quote the SOG Act. I used s14 (2) and referred to the requirement for "satisfactory" quality. s 14 (2) emphasises that the "price" is to be considered and also that factors such as "safety" and "durability" are relevant in determining whether or not there is a breach of s14 (2). I made strong representations on these matters and how they applied to this product.

I think it is a bit rich to say I deserved to "loose" as I failed to do any research into the law. I provided a copy of the CA decision in Rogers v Parish in support of a warranty or guarantee increasing the expectations of the buyer.

The case has not yet been lost, it has been adjourned as the judge wants to give me the chance to contact the manufacturers. I do not follow this as I do not have a contract with the manufacturer.

You have missed the absolute basic requirement though - you have not demonstrated that the shower was inherently faulty.

I think the judge is being very generous, and giving you the opportunity to find a remedy to your problem.