Sale of goods act: 'repair within reasonable time'

The_Merlyn

So the EU consumer helpline who advised that I follow a a formal compliant process via registered mail and quote the directive were wrong?

wealdroam

The_Merlyn wrote: »

I didn't quote SOGA... I've added in to the conversation for those that might not be aware of the EU directive.... maybe I haven't made it clear in 1st sentence of my initial post?!

And there is no point in quoting the EU Directive at them either.
As mentioned above, an EU Directive is not law. You need to research the German law to be able to quote that at them.

You are wrong when you say "we all have equal rights no matter where we shop". Just one example - that directive you mention states something like "all users should be able to get a remedy from a seller for two years". UK legislation allows a consumer up to six years (and even that differs between England and Scotland) to seek a remedy.
You would however have been right if you said we all have at least those rights specified in the directive.

In other words, it could be that German legislation has implemented that phrase 'repair within reasonable time' as 'repair within 30 days', or something else.

Perhaps you should seek guidance from The European Consumer Centre.

wealdroam

The_Merlyn wrote: »

So the EU consumer helpline who advised that I follow a a formal compliant process via registered mail and quote the directive were wrong?

Apparently so.

unholyangel

The_Merlyn wrote: »

So the EU consumer helpline who advised that I follow a a formal compliant process via registered mail and quote the directive were wrong?

In order to give accurate advice, they would need to know how each and every country implemented each and every directive.

Here is one excerpt that gives an idea of how wildly it can vary:

Article 3(3) applies a proportionality test to determine whether the seller is obliged to accept a
particular remedy requested by the consumer. This has given rise to interpretation problems. It
is unclear whether this proportionality test applies only to the choice between “repair” and
“replacement” or whether it also may include other remedies (i.e. reduction of price and
termination of contract). Some Member States have chosen to clarify the scope of the test or
have introduced variations. For example, the German transposition applies the test only as
between “repair” and “replacement”; the Irish and UK laws expressly state that all remedies
could be taken into account. Luxembourg and the Czech Republic have not transposed the
specific elements of the proportionality test provided by the Directive.

ETA: it seems that germany did not transpose the reasonable time element (or at least if they did, they failed to communicate it to the EU)

The last paragraph of Article 3(3), which provides that repair or replacement should be
completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the
consumer, has been literally transposed by a majority of Member States. However, Slovenia
has provided for a broader protection, setting a specific time limit for the seller to comply
with the request for any remedy (maximum eight days). The Polish and Lithuanian laws do
not refer to the inconvenience of the consumer and need further clarifications. Germany has
not communicated a measure transposing this provision.

bris

The_Merlyn wrote: »

I didn't quote SOGA... I've added in to the conversation for those that might not be aware of the EU directive.... maybe I haven't made it clear in 1st sentence of my initial post?!

The EU directive is of no use to you in the UK.

neilmcl

bris wrote: »

The EU directive is of no use to you in the UK.

Try to keep up, I think the OP's well aware of this!

System

TBH the EU directive is of no use in any country. All it does is highlight to the retailer that you have read some words but do not understand them.