3.5 Year old faulty good question

Grrrrallye

Hi All,
I have a bit of AV equipment that cost me around £1500 less than 4 years ago.

This kit failed between Christmas and New Year and so I have been trying to get it sorted since.

I Initially contacted the manufacturer who said i had to deal with the retailer. I contacted the retailer and we agreed to try a new power supply that I purchased on a sale or return basis. This did not resolve the issue and so the retailer had me return the equipment to the manufacturer (at my expense).
Suffice to say this was not fixed and i was informed that the manufacturer were not very interested but i was offered a discount on a new device coming in at a little under £1000.

Suffice to say I don't feel that less than 4 years has been a very good return on my investment.

I had a read up on my Sale of Goods act and contacted the retailer who went away to look into this and they have come back suggesting that I would have had to identify the fault within the first 6 months and then would have 6 years to make a claim but this sounds wrong to me.

Before I contact the head office can someone advise if i have a case or not?

Thanks

davidwood681

What do you use the items for?

cono1717

It's wrong, of sorts.

In the first 6 months the retailer has to prove it is not a manufacturing defect, after the first 6 months the consumer has to prove it was a manufacturing defect. Usually via an independent report.

If you get one of those and the report comes back in your favour the retailer must repair, refund (account for use of the item) or replace the unit (their discretion as to which) and refund the cost of the report.

However if it was B2B this does not apply.

Manxman_in_exile

I'm no expert on SOGA or CRA (and when either applies) but others on here are.


It would seem to me that if you bought something nearly four years ago for £1500 it would be worth about £400 or less now after the use you've had of it. (Assuming a "straight- line" reduction in value, and that's probably being generous to the OP).


If they're offering similar (or better after four years) spec equipment for less than a grand, I would have thought it may be worth considering. As I said, others on here are more expert than me and will also offer advice.


And as others have asked, are you using it in a business or for personal use?

Grrrrallye

Thanks for the responses.

The equipment is for personal use. It is an HDMI to CAT6 converter for transmission over distance.

The same equipment is still being sold at the same price.

My interpretation of SoG act is that this equipment should last a reasonable time and i dont see less than 4 years as reasonable for £1500.

In terms of priving the fault, it has been back to the manufacturer who confirmed the device as faulty but did not elaborate further.

Not sure if that sheds anymore light on the situation?

foxtrotoscar_2

They are offering you a £500 discount on a new unit, I'd take it.

Manxman_in_exile

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

They are offering you a £500 discount on a new unit, I'd take it.

As I posted earlier, I'd give this offer serious consideration.


Ask yourself if you were buying the same kit second hand and it was 3.5 years old, how much would you be willing to pay for it? It must only be worth £400 or less. And you'd be getting brand new kit.

Grrrrallye

My issue with the discounted item is that I don't feel that this equipment has lasted very long for the price paid and so I don't want to spend another £1000 for another 3.5 years.

My understanding from the Sale of Goods Act is that the retailer is responsible for supplying goods that are fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time.
In discussions with the retailer, he has already agreed that this does not reflect a good return on investment.

This is why my original question related to the fact that the retailer has interpreted the SoG act as the fault must be present in the first 6 months, but i do not believe this to be the case

molerat

They are wrong in their interpretation but after 6 months it is down to you (initially) at your cost to prove the failure was down to a fault that existed at the time of manufacture.

Manxman_in_exile

molerat wrote: »

They are wrong in their interpretation but after 6 months it is down to you (initially) at your cost to prove the failure was down to a fault that existed at the time of manufacture.[/QUOTE]


As I said earlier, I'm no expert on SoGA and CRA, but assuming the OP is correct and SoGA applies, was this a requirement under SoGA? Also did the reduction in value for "use" apply under SoGA? Apologies if this is a stupid question, but as I replied to an OP on another thread, if you don't know you can find out by asking questions on forums like this.


OP - I sympathise with how you feel. We're a low-tech household. The most expensive bit of kit is our TV and it's nearly 10 years old. In fact I think we've only bought four TVs in 30 years. (And I'm typing this on a laptop that's nearly eight years old!). If we'd spent £1500 on kit I think I'd be disappointed if it failed after less than four years. But things do break/wear out. What's a reasonable amount of time? How long is a ball of string?


Having said that, I still think it's an offer you should seriously consider. But if you feel you've lost confidence in the kit, and it may fail again, I think it's a difficult decision.


Sorry! Feel like I'm sitting on the fence and not being helpful!