Sale of goods act: Faults that develop after two years

bris

The SOGA is pretty misleading tbh, even though it goes on about lasting reasonable time, 6 years etc, after 6 months we need to fight hard to prove it.


The fact that it's faulty is one thing, proving it was faulty from new is an entirely different ballgame. There isn't very many engineers out there who can actually tell why a modern gadget has failed due to the complexity of it.


Some will fight harder than others and get a "goodwill gesture" through perseverance but the vast silent majority will simply give up.


And don't forget they also have the reduced refund for time you have had it which pops up on here regularly, so even when we do win, it's not worth it in the end.


So in reality our SOGA really doesn't do that much for us.

vtc6

bris wrote: »

The SOGA is pretty misleading tbh, even though it goes on about lasting reasonable time, 6 years etc, after 6 months we need to fight hard to prove it.


The fact that it's faulty is one thing, proving it was faulty from new is an entirely different ballgame. There isn't very many engineers out there who can actually tell why a modern gadget has failed due to the complexity of it.


Some will fight harder than others and get a "goodwill gesture" through perseverance but the vast silent majority will simply give up.


And don't forget they also have the reduced refund for time you have had it which pops up on here regularly, so even when we do win, it's not worth it in the end.


So in reality our SOGA really doesn't do that much for us.

Thanks.

Are those two things related:

1. The fault being inherent from new
2. And lasting reasonable time?

Ie if the item doesn't last does that have to be due to the inherent fault? Or would a sturdy item that simply failed quickly still be covered?

I've found now that this phone model is very cheap now, £150, so not worth the struggle, but I'd still like to know.

JJ_Egan

vtc6 wrote: »

Thanks.

Are those two things related:

1. The fault being inherent from new
2. And lasting reasonable time?

Ie if the item doesn't last does that have to be due to the inherent fault? Or would a sturdy item that simply failed quickly still be covered?

I've found now that this phone model is very cheap now, £150, so not worth the struggle, but I'd still like to know.

No it does not need an inherent fault to fail after a few years .User damage or water ingress are two that may stop a phone lasting .Inherent would be something more like a bad batch of chips or poor solder joints .


The expectation is not 6 years that's really just the amount of time you have to pursue a claim in law .