We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Refund???
Dan_Drews
Posts: 3 Newbie
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.
0
Comments
-
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.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
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 notmake the most of it, we are only here for the weekend.
and we will never, ever return.0 -
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
0
-
societys_child wrote: »
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.
If you don't find joy in the snow,
remember you'll have less joy in your life
...but still have the same amount of snow!0 -
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.1K Spending & Discounts
- 248.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards