Camera failed out of warranty, seller has closed down

rainio

Oh.
What if they say it's a circuit board malfunction, or just that it needs a new circuit board, would that be enough?
If I had to go to an independent repairer, do I ask him to assess the camera and write a report detailing whether the issue is "inherent", or is there something specific I must ask for (ie. that it was "not my fault"?)
Though if the Cc pays out apparently they ahould refund the fee for the assessment, I can imagine there would be a lot or hassle dealing with the cc company, and possibly not claiming the money. Makes you have second thoughts on paying for an assessment and continuing.

Thank you.

System

Just being pragmatic but the chances of a fault being 'inherent' and not appearing until 2.5 years after purchase are slim beyond belief. If the fault was inherent then it would appear a lot earlier.

ThumbRemote

!!!!!! wrote: »

Just being pragmatic but the chances of a fault being 'inherent' and not appearing until 2.5 years after purchase are slim beyond belief. If the fault was inherent then it would appear a lot earlier.

That's simply not true.

Inherent just means it's not caused by misuse. The majority of faults in products are inherent, they are down to the quality of the product itself. It's just in many cases the product has reached the end of its life so isn't worth chasing the retailer over.

arcon5

Technically if the retailer was a sole trader he is still personally reliable. Realistically you are unlikely to get anything.

System

Inherent just means it's not caused by misuse

No it doesn't. By your definition wear and tear can be classed as inherent.

Inherent means that there is a possible flaw at the manufacturing time which will make itself known in a reasonable time after manufacture.

A few definitions from various consumer sites

What is an inherent fault?

• A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted. The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

inherent fault – i.e. one that could be said to exist at the time of sale

Q1. What is an inherent fault?
A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted. The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

The last two are from government sites. and the first one from a consumer site is a direct copy from the government site

Do you notice a common them with all of them? - A fault present at the time of purchase

shaun_from_Africa

!!!!!! wrote: »

Just being pragmatic but the chances of a fault being 'inherent' and not appearing until 2.5 years after purchase are slim beyond belief. If the fault was inherent then it would appear a lot earlier.

A fault due to a manufacturing defect can sometimes take far longer than 2 1/2 years to appear.
I work as an aircraft electrical engineer, and where I'm currently working we have 5 helicopters that were all purchased from the manufacturer 3 years ago.
Last month, one of them had a problem with wires shorting together in a loom that is fitted to the landing gear and this was due to water ingress. Following the discovery of this, we had to check all of the aircraft and of the 5, 3 had the same problem.
The manufacturer has agreed to cover the replacement costs due to the loom being incorrectly manufactured as the sealing compound that had been used was not suitable for areas that get covered in salt water.

shaun_from_Africa

!!!!!! wrote: »

No it doesn't. By your definition wear and tear can be classed as inherent.

Surely if something failed due to wear and tear and this happened fairly early in the life of the item, it could be argued that either the item wasn't fit for it's intended purpose or that its durablity wasn't up to the standard required. (I realise that this will depend on the type of goods and the price paid).

If I had a DSLR that cost £600 and it failed in well under 3 years and this failure was due to something wearing out, I would say that it definitely was durable enough and that that unsuitable components were fitted during manufacture, making the problem due to a manufacturing error.

rainio

Well, initially I was not looking for a refund at all, just whether it is worth purchasing an extended warranty, but then various people mentioned I should try for a claim under SOGA.

I don't believe a camera has "reached the end of its life" after 2.5 years (if it has never been dropped, well cared for).

This problem has occurred in the same model after 16 months (discussed on camera forums). Usually, Sony could not repair them and a new model was given (under extended warranty).

Were those cameras also at the "end of their lives"?

If not, then one would think it is an inherent camera issue (burnt mother board, whatever).

re. "If the fault was inherent then it would appear a lot earlier."

But what would have caused the error then, if it was not due to user use? A random failed component? If so, and this occurred in a 16 month old camera, why could they reasonably claim but one could not for a 2.5 year old? Is there a "practical life span" for a camera? If so I'd say 2.5 years is not enough for a £600 piece of equipment.

If it was worth £2500 would you also give up and not claim for a partial refund or free repair?



I'm confused now as to what I should do.

I'll prod Sony and the CC company, but won't expect much.

frugal_mike

Goods have to last a 'reasonable' time. One contributing factor in determining reasonableness would be the cost, so more expensive items would normally be expected to last longer I imagine.

System

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

A fault due to a manufacturing defect can sometimes take far longer than 2 1/2 years to appear.
I work as an aircraft electrical engineer, and where I'm currently working we have 5 helicopters that were all purchased from the manufacturer 3 years ago.
Last month, one of them had a problem with wires shorting together in a loom that is fitted to the landing gear and this was due to water ingress. Following the discovery of this, we had to check all of the aircraft and of the 5, 3 had the same problem.
The manufacturer has agreed to cover the replacement costs due to the loom being incorrectly manufactured as the sealing compound that had been used was not suitable for areas that get covered in salt water.

Fair enough but I don't think helicopters come under SOGA. As a natter of interest what percentage of the total fleet of that type of helicopter was affected by this problem? In your case it sounds as though a narrow set of useage conditions that your helicopters are operating in brought the problem to light - I.E. salt water.

One can always find examples to contradict any statement. I stand by my statement that an inherent fault, especially in consumer goods rather than expensive machinery that is highly QA'd during manufacture and maintenance, will raise its head well before 2.5 years. After that point it is just a fail

I would love to know how you could prove a fault is inherent after so long
Metallurgy test on the metallic moving parts?
Testing a subset of the batch of all electronic components used in that device.
Pay for a design engineer to prove that the design was flawed from the outset?