Is Argos acting legally?

steampowered

daytona0 wrote: »

I see what your argument is (1/3 reduction for 2 years use, so 3/3 reduction would be 6 years use) but...

Consumer would be entitled to a remedy of some sort after 5 years and 364 days! Can't be offering a £0 refund for a successful SOGA claim just before the 6 year time frame!

It is more likely that the retailer has knocked off a larger chunk for year 1, and then subsequent years have smaller reductions. This would allow for the bed to have a predicted life of longer than 6 years.

The six years limit is a procedural limit on filing a claim with the court, which applies to all types of claim. It isn't a SOGA thing about how long goods are supposed to last.

I see the point you are making about knocking off a larger chunk for earlier years. But personally I struggle to see how Argos could say you get more use out of a mattress in year 1 than you do in year 3. I wouldn't fancy Argos' chances running that argument in front of a judge in a small claims hearing in the Op's local county court.

I personally would be asking Argos for more money. Argos' offer suggests the expected average life of a mattress is 6 years and I don't think that's reasonable.

Also, the Op could claim for the cost of having a mattress delivered and installed. That's an additional cost they bear as a result of the mattress being faulty. More leverage to use to get Argos to give a better settlement.

Rainbowgirl84

steampowered wrote: »

Their offer of 67% sounds a bit low to me.

If you had the mattress 2 years, that would suggest you could only expect a mattress to last 6 years. The normal life of a mattress is longer than that - google says 8-10 years.

You are assuming the depreciation is linear. It could be that it's 20-25% in the first year and ~10%/year subsequently.

takman

Mishomeister wrote: »

Let me explain my logic behind it. I have bought the goods which I reasonably expected to last 8-10 years without the replacement.

The report states that this was indeed manufacturing fault.

By getting only partial refund it would not put me in to the same position I would've been before the purchase of the faulty goods as now to buy a replacement bed I would need yo use more money of mine in addition to this partial refund.

Should've they not sold me the faulty bed from them I would've not had to spend this money

They don't have to put you in the same position as before you bought the bed. The entire idea is to put you in the position you would be now if they bed wasn't faulty.

So you can take the 67% refund and buy a secondhand bed less than 2 years old. If you choose to add extra money to buy a brand new bed then that is your choice.

takman

steampowered wrote: »

The six years limit is a procedural limit on filing a claim with the court, which applies to all types of claim. It isn't a SOGA thing about how long goods are supposed to last.

I see the point you are making about knocking off a larger chunk for earlier years. But personally I struggle to see how Argos could say you get more use out of a mattress in year 1 than you do in year 3. I wouldn't fancy Argos' chances running that argument in front of a judge in a small claims hearing in the Op's local county court.

I personally would be asking Argos for more money. Argos' offer suggests the expected average life of a mattress is 6 years and I don't think that's reasonable.

Also, the Op could claim for the cost of having a mattress delivered and installed. That's an additional cost they bear as a result of the mattress being faulty. More leverage to use to get Argos to give a better settlement.

You are completely misunderstanding how depreciation works. It is nothing to do with how much use the bed has got it is how much the bed is worth.
If you buy a second hand bed that is a year old is will be considerably cheaper than a new one. If you buy a second hand bed that is 3 years old it will be cheaper again but not by much!.

So for example a new bed might be £250. Then after a year sold second hand for £150. Then sold again after 3 years for £100.

steampowered

Rainbowgirl84 wrote: »

You are assuming the depreciation is linear. It could be that it's 20-25% in the first year and ~10%/year subsequently.

takman wrote: »

You are completely misunderstanding how depreciation works. It is nothing to do with how much use the bed has got it is how much the bed is worth.

The key legal point is that the Op should be in the position he would be in had Argos sold him a mattress which was satisfactory quality.

If Argos want to go down this road, I think it is up to Argos to prove that the Op could buy a non-faulty mattress of similar quality and similar age (including delivery costs as the Op should not be left out of pocket) for the amount they are offering.

I am not entirely convinced that mattresses depreciate as quickly as cars do. Perhaps they do, I simply don't know enough about the sale price of second hand mattresses. If Argos want to impose something other than straight line depreciation I think the burden of proof is on Argos to explain to the Op how they came up with that figure. A judge would certainly expect Argos to explain their numbers if Argos were taken to small claims track.

I think the key point is that there is a bit of room for negotiation. Op doesn't have to accept the first number Argos gives. He could ask for 80% plus delivery costs and see what they say.

peachyprice

Rainbowgirl84 wrote: »

You are assuming the depreciation is linear. It could be that it's 20-25% in the first year and ~10%/year subsequently.

I would fancy it's 25% after the first night when it immediately becomes a used mattress.

takman

steampowered wrote: »

The key legal point is that the Op should be in the position he would be in had Argos sold him a mattress which was satisfactory quality.

If Argos want to go down this road, I think it is up to Argos to prove that the Op could buy a non-faulty mattress of similar quality and similar age (including delivery costs as the Op should not be left out of pocket) for the amount they are offering.

I am not entirely convinced that mattresses depreciate as quickly as cars do. Perhaps they do, I simply don't know enough about the sale price of second hand mattresses. If Argos want to impose something other than straight line depreciation I think the burden of proof is on Argos to explain to the Op how they came up with that figure. A judge would certainly expect Argos to explain their numbers if Argos were taken to small claims track.

I think the key point is that there is a bit of room for negotiation. Op doesn't have to accept the first number Argos gives. He could ask for 80% plus delivery costs and see what they say.

Well the OP can try and negotiate as much as they want they are either going to stick to their price or give them more so it's always worth a try.

But if they don't negotiate and the OP decides the offer is not acceptable Argos can't be forced to provide detailed evidence of why they came up with that price unless he takes it to court. Even then if he does it don't think they will have any problem finding 2 year old mattresses at less than 67% of their retail price. If anything I think they could reduce that offer further.

naedanger

takman wrote: »

Well the OP can try and negotiate as much as they want they are either going to stick to their price or give them more so it's always worth a try.

But if they don't negotiate and the OP decides the offer is not acceptable Argos can't be forced to provide detailed evidence of why they came up with that price unless he takes it to court. Even then if he does it don't think they will have any problem finding 2 year old mattresses at less than 67% of their retail price. If anything I think they could reduce that offer further.

The second hand value of an item is not the amount the retailer needs to refund. It is something like the purchase price reduced for the amount of usage the customer has already had. (And it would have been easy to specify the second hand value if this had been the intention.)

I think the onus will be on the retailer to justify why anything other than spreading the total purchase price evenly over the normal life expectancy of the item is reasonable. (And in the op's case I think the retailer would struggle.)

However if the mattress was cheap then I could see Argos successfully arguing that six years is the normal life expectancy of such a cheap mattress.

agrinnall

The depreciation on the mattress could be as much as 100% after the first night's use (or even more than 100% as I had to pay for the council to take it away), when I donated a bed to a charity last year they advised that they were completely unable to take any mattress (although I've since heard of another charity that will consider taking them).

ThumbRemote

Rainbowgirl84 wrote: »

You are assuming the depreciation is linear. It could be that it's 20-25% in the first year and ~10%/year subsequently.

takman wrote: »

You are completely misunderstanding how depreciation works. It is nothing to do with how much use the bed has got it is how much the bed is worth.

Depreciation is irrelevant to this, because the law does not say that the consumer must be paid what the item is worth. Otherwise the retailer could end up paying more than the original purchase price if items have gone up in value.