Faulty shower, lost small claim

Benny1114

cockaleekee wrote: »

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

Yes, I see what you are getting at here.

I thought the fact that it was producing scalding water was sufficient to establish that it must be inherently faulty (grounds of safety). I felt that the fact that it has "scaled up" as confirmed by the seller was also sufficient because the previous like-for-like shower (same model/manufacturer) did not scale up for almsot five years and that for this to happen after less than half this period of time had elapsed demonstrates that it must be faulty (durability) and that the antiscale device must be defective. I was coming from the persepective that if it is not inherently faulty, why didn't it last as long as the previous unit which cost the same (price)? My expectations on purchasing this model was that it was reasonable to expect it would last a similar length of time; certainly for longer than less than half that length of time.

cockaleekee

Benny1114 wrote: »

Yes, I see what you are getting at here.

I thought the fact that it was producing scalding water was sufficient to establish that it must be inherently faulty (grounds of safety). I felt that the fact that it has "scaled up" as confirmed by the seller was also sufficient because the previous like-for-like shower (same model/manufacturer) did not scale up for almsot five years and that for this to happen after less than half this period of time had elapsed demonstrates that it must be faulty (durability) and that the antiscale device must be defective. I was coming from the persepective that if it is not inherently faulty, why didn't it last as long as the previous unit which cost the same (price)? My expectations on purchasing this model was that it was reasonable to expect it would last a similar length of time; certainly for longer than less than half that length of time.

I can see your line of argument but it really is a tenuous one. You have established that the item is faulty, no one is disputing that, but from that point onwards much of what you are saying is irrelevant. The fact that one shower lasted five years does not mean another one should, it only points to the fact that it *may* be reasonable to expect a shower to last that long.

Go back to the beginning, and establish that the shower is inherently faulty. There are a few ways you can do this - see if the manufacturer will acknowledge there is a problem, see if there are numerous reports (online) of people having the same problem, or get an independent professional to inspect the item.

I still think the simplest solution would be to remedy the fault yourself. If you go to a local plumbers merchants they will be able to recommend something that will sort it.

cockaleekee

I've just asked a plumber for you - he recommends Fernox DS3 Limescale Remover. He would not classify what you have described as an inherent fault, just one of those things that will happen over time.

Looksguywalker

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)

I'll likely get flamed for this comment.

The SoGA is a bit more complicated than the difference between the words loose and lose. Y/N? Do you know the difference?

Looksguywalker

Benny1114 wrote: »

Yes, I see what you are getting at here.

I thought the fact that it was producing scalding water was sufficient to establish that it must be inherently faulty (grounds of safety). I felt that the fact that it has "scaled up" as confirmed by the seller was also sufficient because the previous like-for-like shower (same model/manufacturer) did not scale up for almsot five years and that for this to happen after less than half this period of time had elapsed demonstrates that it must be faulty (durability) and that the antiscale device must be defective. I was coming from the persepective that if it is not inherently faulty, why didn't it last as long as the previous unit which cost the same (price)? My expectations on purchasing this model was that it was reasonable to expect it would last a similar length of time; certainly for longer than less than half that length of time.

Another thing to consider is the water quality. Has it changed since you installed the new shower. It's antiscale not no scale. No doubt it was building up during the two year guarantee and has manifested itself just outside the guarantee period.

bris

The judge would be aware of the fact you did not try all avenues to resolve the problem. The fact you took the seller straight to court without first involving the manufacture to resolve the problem has clearly gone against you. Even although your contract is with the seller the judge doesn't hold them liable in this case so you lost.

This goes to show that it isn't always easy just to go to a small claims court because you believe the item hasn't lasted a reasonable time. The procedures need to be followed and if necessary experts advice sought, you didn't do any of this.

Looksguywalker

cockaleekee wrote: »

I've just asked a plumber for you - he recommends Fernox DS3 Limescale Remover. He would not classify what you have described as an inherent fault, just one of those things that will happen over time.

Yep. A bit of research would have saved the OP much. But hindsight is a wonderful thing!

I was told my 30 year old boiler was obselete and parts were no longer available by a gas safe engineer and I needed a new one @ 3k ish.

Part sourced on the internet and fitted for £85. Heating restored!

A couple of weeks on I've checked and there is not one part of my boiler that is not cheaply available.

arcon5

Okay... you missed a crucial part of the Sales of Goods Act...

48A
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
(4)Subsection (3) above does not apply if—
(a)it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

It is the responsibility of the consumer to prove the goods are faulty after 6 months. A judge would have been looking for some kind of evidence from yourself that the shower did not conform to contract. This is usually done by obtaining an independent report by a specialist. You only need to prove this based on the balance of probabilities, but all you went there with was your own speculation and opinion as to durability.


Whether you tried all avenues or not is not really relevant. Not contacting the manufacturer would not act in their favor since you have no contractual relationship with them. If the judge felt your pre-court protocol was unreasonable it's likely any action would be minus court costs, rather than merely making a judgement in favor of the other party.

bod1467

Hintza wrote: »

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

bris sort-of got my line of thinking. I was wondering if the OP had explored the proper avenues of resolution BEFORE proceeding to court action.

But all this is hindsight - OP would have been better coming here to ask for opinions a lot sooner, and certainly before starting any court action.

cockaleekee

Looksguywalker wrote: »

Yep. A bit of research would have saved the OP much. But hindsight is a wonderful thing!

I was told my 30 year old boiler was obselete and parts were no longer available by a gas safe engineer and I needed a new one @ 3k ish.

Part sourced on the internet and fitted for £85. Heating restored!

A couple of weeks on I've checked and there is not one part of my boiler that is not cheaply available.

The internet is brilliant for getting parts. My dad is a plumber and used to rely on the local Plumb Center (their spelling, not mine! ), but they always had to order the stock in. I offered to look online for him and found what he needed available for next day delivery, and a third of the price. He gets most of his parts online now.