Refund???

Dan_Drews

I bought a kitchen mixer tap from B&Q on 20 March 10 for £90. It has recently developed a leak from the body of the tap but B&Q say they will not replace it and if I have a problem that I should contact the manufacturer. Is it unreasonable to expect a tap to last for more than 3 years? I have the receipt.

unholyangel

It firstly comes down to whether the fault is inherent or not.

If the fault has been caused by say misuse or overuse....you wouldnt be covered. And after 6 months, its up to the consumer to prove the fault was inherent.

McKneff

Contact the manufacturer, B&Q aren't liable this far down the line, it would probably be easier and quicker anyway. They may come up with a good will gesture, you never know.

And yes I would certainly expect a tap to last more than 3 years but as above, you would have to pay for a report to see if the fault was inherent or not

frugal_mike

McKneff wrote: »

Contact the manufacturer, B&Q aren't liable this far down the line...

Surely B&Q are the only ones who ever will be liable, since they are the ones OP has a contract with? The manufacturers owe him nothing unless its in warranty.

neilmcl

McKneff wrote: »

Contact the manufacturer, B&Q aren't liable this far down the line

Really! You been on this site for long enough to know that this simply isn't the case.

SuperHan

McKneff wrote: »

Contact the manufacturer, B&Q aren't liable this far down the line, it would probably be easier and quicker anyway. They may come up with a good will gesture, you never know.

If anything, it's the manufacturer who isn't liable this far down the line.

B&Q are 'liable' for 6 years from the date of purchase.

arcon5

SuperHan wrote: »

If anything, it's the manufacturer who isn't liable this far down the line.

B&Q are 'liable' for 6 years from the date of purchase.

No they are not. That is simply the maximum time a case can be brought against them (statute of limitations).

It needs to be determined how long a reasonable person would expect a product to last based on price and description, then they are liable for that period of time. After that the product would be considered to have lasted a reasonable time and merely wear and tear.

societys_child

I'm guessing it just needs a new cartridge - less than a tenner

martinthebandit

societys_child wrote: »

I'm guessing it just needs a new cartridge - less than a tenner

Yep, I would be guessing the same thing, as to if it should last longer than three years before it need replacing? I don't know but that's one of the drawbacks of buying things on looks instead of practicality.

SuperHan

arcon5 wrote: »

No they are not. That is simply the maximum time a case can be brought against them (statute of limitations).

It needs to be determined how long a reasonable person would expect a product to last based on price and description, then they are liable for that period of time. After that the product would be considered to have lasted a reasonable time and merely wear and tear.

Yes, I know.

That's why I put liable in inverted commas. I just meant you can try to hold them liable for that period of time. Success is a different matter