Faulty shower, lost small claim

Equaliser123

arcon5 wrote: »

Really? Despite op not providing any kind of evidence, expert or not, to support the argument that the goods are not as durable as a reasonable person would expect, you would have expected judgement in ops favor?

IMO I think judgement in ops favor could open the flood gates to baseless claims, with companies now worried they will be found against over issues which could be the result of wear & tear.

Yes. I've actually sat with DJ's in hearings and their deliberations and their starting point is that of the consumer. And what they would have expected.

Flood gates wouldn't open - don't forget this is unrecorded small claims court.

System

It was not a massively expensive product. You went to court and lost. Just give up and move on.

If you had won you would be annoyed if they refused to pay and wanted to go back to court. Just accept it.

malkie76

Scale has got worse in our area in the past few years - heavy rain throughout the year washing lime into the water supply.

We fitted a water softener (tablet one) about 6 years ago, and it's absolutely brilliant. You should get one fitted - expensive set up costs, but it will save your shower, hot water, washing machine, taps etc from breaking down. Also saves fuel costs for heating the water in the first place.

Sorry about your claim, but I think it's a fair result.

Aristotle67

I think you have a reasonable case here.

A purchaser is entitled to a reasonable expectation as to the durability of the goods under SoG s 14 (2). On the facts as I have read them (price etc) , I would submit you were entitled to have a reasonable expectation that the shower would last longer than it has done. The previous shower's longevity is further evidence of this (because it was a like-for-like product) and is a good basis on which to rely. If your judge is not prepared to consider this line of argument then I would argue he is going wrong in law.

Equaliser123

Aristotle67 wrote: »

I think you have a reasonable case here.

A purchaser is entitled to a reasonable expectation as to the durability of the goods under SoG s 14 (2). On the facts as I have read them (price etc) , I would submit you were entitled to have a reasonable expectation that the shower would last longer than it has done. The previous shower's longevity is further evidence of this (because it was a like-for-like product) and is a good basis on which to rely. If your judge is not prepared to consider this line of argument then I would argue he is going wrong in law.

Sorry but you need to read the thread. OP lost the case. I actually don't think the DJ got it right necessarily but at the end of the day the case has been lost.

Aristotle67

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Sorry but you need to read the thread. OP lost the case. I actually don't think the DJ got it right necessarily but at the end of the day the case has been lost.

Well, I am going on what the OP has written here:

benny1114 wrote:

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.

This suggests that it has to go back before the judge (perhaps the OP can confirm this?) and therefore the OP will have one more opportunity to persuade the judge. No match is lost until the final whistle and I think his case is very reasonable. I would advocate approaching it from the perspective of a point of law and not fact and argue that the principle of reasonable expectation as to durability is a point of law which the judge must consider. And if he does consider it the assertion that the OP was entitled to reasonably expect that the product would last for longer than two years and two months is a powerful one.

If the judge does not take this into account, there could be grounds for appeal on a point of law (not fact) as by not doing so I think the judge is going wrong in law.

unholyangel

Aristotle67 wrote: »

I think you have a reasonable case here.

A purchaser is entitled to a reasonable expectation as to the durability of the goods under SoG s 14 (2). On the facts as I have read them (price etc) , I would submit you were entitled to have a reasonable expectation that the shower would last longer than it has done. The previous shower's longevity is further evidence of this (because it was a like-for-like product) and is a good basis on which to rely. If your judge is not prepared to consider this line of argument then I would argue he is going wrong in law.

How do you know it was a like for like product?

More to the point, if my actions cause a fault in an item.....can I claim it hasnt lasted a reasonable length of time too? No, I cant because then it wouldnt be an inherent fault, it would be consumer misuse.

Equaliser123

Aristotle67 wrote: »

If the judge does not take this into account, there could be grounds for appeal on a point of law (not fact) as by not doing so I think the judge is going wrong in law.

That is really poor advice. Appeals from the Small Claims track of the County Court are very rare - and rarely upheld.

The costs of doing so (and the cost implications if the appeal is rejected) are disproportionate.

Aristotle67

unholyangel wrote: »

How do you know it was a like for like product?

More to the point, if my actions cause a fault in an item.....can I claim it hasnt lasted a reasonable length of time too? No, I cant because then it wouldnt be an inherent fault, it would be consumer misuse.

On the basis of what the OP has written throughout this thread, his faulty shower would appear to be a like-for-like product. Once again, perhaps he can confirm?

Of course, consumer misuse negates the argument as to the durability of a product and reasonable expectation and if that is what has occurred then the OP has no case. From what he has written I haven't seen any evidence of misuse.

There is a trend running through this thread that the OP should simply accept that showers will go wrong and will scale up; and that it would be unfair to hold the seller responsible for something over which he has no control (i.e. the water and limescale). Whilst that is not unreasonable, the law on Sale of Goods is such as to greatly protect the purchaser. It is not caveat emptor; it is caveat venditor.

As a matter of law, a purchaser is entitled under s14 (2) to a reasonable expectation as to the durability of his goods. On the facts as I understand them from what has been written, I do not believe his reasonable expectation has been met. And if the judge is not prepared to consider this, then I would submit he is making an error in law and would pursue the matter from that persepctive. That is how I would do it. Others may choose not to or to simply accept that they must live with the shower as it is; that is up to them.

equalizer wrote:

That is really poor advice. Appeals from the Small Claims track of the County Court are very rare - and rarely upheld.

The costs of doing so (and the cost implications if the appeal is rejected) are disproportionate.

They are rare as usually disputes are to the facts and when a judge makes a finding of fact there is no appeal. In my experience, some (and I stress the "some") DJs have been too concerned with trying to keep all parties happy and finding some middle ground, such as awarding half the amount of a claim. But that is another matter.

With respect, Equalizer, and I do respect your opinion (I agree with your comment earlier about how the OP may have been unfortunate to get this judge, but for an additional reason), if a judge is making an error in law then it is very important that his decision is appealed; and I am sure I don't need to explain why. Now, I am only going on what the OP has written (there may be more to this) but based on this I think the DJ is erring in law.

There is the drawback of cost and time and it would up to the OP to decide if he wants to take it to appeal. It would be his decision. I am merely saying that on what he has written I think he certainly has grounds for appeal. If the OP wishes to PM me, I will respond to him with my thoughts.

Equaliser123

But the judge is finding on the facts. There is no appealable point of law here.

The costs (and cost consequences) of an appeal are likely to run into thousands.

Simply not worth it.