Washing Machine Died - Repair/Replace under SoGA

George_Michael

neilmcl wrote: »

Under normal circumstances a PCB shouldn't fail within this period unless it is inherently faulty, and within the balance of probabilities unlikely to be caused by the the end user.

The SOGA doesn't state or imply that the consumer can rely on balance of probabilities when it comes to a fault more than six months from purchase, just that the burden of proof is on them.

After the first six months (and for up to six years) – the retailer is entitled to ask the consumer to prove the item was faulty when they bought it. If they are able to do this they are entitled to a repair or replacement.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02239/SN02239.pdf

One of the common causes for washing machine faults is the appliance not being correctly levelled on installation, something that can cause more vibration than it was designed for and excess vibration can easily cause early failure of any electronic circuit board.

neilmcl

George_Michael wrote: »

The SOGA doesn't state or imply that the consumer can rely on balance of probabilities when it comes to a fault more than six months from purchase, just that the burden of proof is on them.

It doesn't need to explicitly state this. It's a civil law statute, the balance of probabilities will always be the standard of proof required.

George_Michael

neilmcl wrote: »

It doesn't need to explicitly state this. It's a civil law statute, the balance of probabilities will always be the standard of proof required.

If that is the case, why do Trading standards state otherwise?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Eae0V0AFNYIJ:www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/glos/con1item.cgi%3Ffile%3D*ADV0036-1011.txt+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 if you intend to reject goods for a full refund, you may need to prove that they are faulty. If you are seeking repair or replacement within the first six months after purchase, it is the trader who must prove the goods 'conformed to the contract' (were not faulty) at the time they were sold to you. If you are claiming repair or replacement more than six months after purchase, the burden of proof is back to you. Please see our 'Buying goods - your rights' leaflet for more information.


Expert opinions - what you need to know
If the trader does not accept any of the evidence you present in support of your claim and you remain in dispute, you may need to obtain an expert opinion to establish what the problem is, how it was caused, what it will take to sort out the problem and who is to blame.


What should the expert's report contain?
You should make sure that your expert includes the following:

• a full breakdown of the nature of the problem
• what is the cause or likely cause of the problem and why (for example bad workmanship, inherent defect, faulty components)
• what needs to be done to put the problem right
• the cost of corrective work
• if relevant, photographs, diagrams, plans, etc. should also be included
• the person giving the opinion should also give details of their qualifications, credentials and experience

I'm sure that if everything in the SOGA relied on the balance of probability, TS would have mentioned this instead of stating that the consumer is required to prove an inherent fault by obtaining an independent inspection and report.
In theory, yes, civil law generally rests on the balance of probabilities, but in reality, proof of an inherent fault will often be required.

neilmcl

Before you start throwing out quotes from TS you really need to understand the difference between "burden of proof" and "standard of proof". Yes, the burden of proof is on the OP (I haven't said otherwise), however the standard of proof required (as with all civil law statute) is based on the balance of probabilities.

George_Michael

Burden of proof or standard of proof, it is a fact that many retailers will not simply accept the argument that on the balance of probabilities the goods should not have failed but instead will insist on an independent report showing an inherent defect.


The difference between my opinion and yours is that mine is based on what actually happens in real life and yours appears to be based on what should happen in an ideal world but often doesn't.

supermonkey

Thanks for all the replies, much food for thought.

The machine was approx £400, so whilst maybe not top end, it was certainly not a budget machine.

I would certainly expect it (and the components within) to last longer than 4 years. I guess if a part went that was easy / cheap to replace I wouldn't grumble that much but the PCB is likely to be a couple of hundred.

The machine has had moderate use - no more than the average household.

The problem is, even if the retailer accept the engineers report, their statement on the intrinsic value of the machine may indicate that they won't repair, replace or refund.

agrinnall

supermonkey wrote: »

The problem is, even if the retailer accept the engineers report, their statement on the intrinsic value of the machine may indicate that they won't repair, replace or refund.

If that does turn out to be their response then perhaps you could get an independent valuation done, and if they refuse to accept that then you can use it to make a Small Claim.

CoolHotCold

supermonkey wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies, much food for thought.

The machine was approx £400, so whilst maybe not top end, it was certainly not a budget machine.

I would certainly expect it (and the components within) to last longer than 4 years. I guess if a part went that was easy / cheap to replace I wouldn't grumble that much but the PCB is likely to be a couple of hundred.

The machine has had moderate use - no more than the average household.

The problem is, even if the retailer accept the engineers report, their statement on the intrinsic value of the machine may indicate that they won't repair, replace or refund.

Chances are, if they are forced to, they'll give a proportionate refund, So there are 72 weeks in 6 years, which is about £5.5 per week, you've used it for 4 years, meaning 2 years left, which £5.5 x 24 = £132 is what you may realistically expect back.

unholyangel

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Chances are, if they are forced to, they'll give a proportionate refund, So there are 72 weeks in 6 years, which is about £5.5 per week, you've used it for 4 years, meaning 2 years left, which £5.5 x 24 = £132 is what you may realistically expect back.

They don't have to be linear/proportionate refunds though. Its not uncommon in electrical goods especially for items to lose a large portion of their value in the first year.

OP, have you tried seeing if you can source a 2nd hand model of your machine from elsewhere and what that price would be? You could realistically use that to show the machine does have value.Of course they might still ask you to prove the faults inherent but you won't know until you try.

lincroft1710

The value of a 4 year old washing machine is probably around £50, so that's all you're likely to get, if anything.