Directive 1999/44/EC

boatman

I'm aware that this directive is not UK law and that the Consumer rights act is considered to be in excess of it.
But, in UK law after 6 months the onus is on the consumer to prove fault, yet in EU law it is the seller held liable for 2 years.
How can UK law be considered in excess of that standard.

Article 5
1."The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods.
If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery."

The extract above as i read it says that regardless of what national laws say, the seller is liable for 2 years.

Any thoughts?

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31999L0044&from=EN

peachyprice

The seller is liable here for 2 years, the onus on the purchaser to prove an inherent fault after 6 months does not discharge the seller of liability. I don't know why you would think it does, the two things are not one in the same.

If you have a faulty product after 6 months but before 2 years of purchase the onus is on you get a report proving the fault is inherent, if the fault is proven to be inherent the seller is liable for that faulty product for up to 2 years or a reasonable length of time, not 6 months.

boatman

peachyprice wrote: »

The seller is liable here for 2 years, the onus on the purchaser to prove an inherent fault after 6 months does not discharge the seller of liability. I don't know why you would think it does, the two things are not one in the same.

If you have a faulty product after 6 months but before 2 years of purchase the onus is on you get a report proving the fault is inherent, if the fault is proven to be inherent the seller is liable for that faulty product for up to 2 years or a reasonable length of time, not 6 months.

Is the seller in England not liable for 6 years? In the Eu for 2 years, is it not the case that you don't have to prove the fault, only say its faulty and you want it fixed?

marliepanda

boatman wrote: »

Is the seller in England not liable for 6 years? In the Eu for 2 years, is it not the case that you don't have to prove the fault, only say its faulty and you want it fixed?

It is not the case, no.

The EU directive is irrelevant in the UK as our rights are ABOVE the 2 year EU directive. We have 6 years to raise issues.

There is no '2 year warranty' in the EU. There is a 2 year version of our 6 year version. After 6 months the onus is on the consumer to prove an inherent fault if the retailer requires that.

boatman

marliepanda wrote: »

It is not the case, no.

There is no '2 year warranty' in the EU. There is a 2 year version of our 6 year version. After 6 months the onus is on the consumer to prove an inherent fault if the retailer requires that.

So in other EU countries, for months 7 to 24, like the UK, potentially they need to employ an engineer of some description to prove its faulty before a seller will fix it, if the seller demands it?

neilmcl

boatman wrote: »

I'm aware that this directive is not UK law and that the Consumer rights act is considered to be in excess of it.
But, in UK law after 6 months the onus is on the consumer to prove fault, yet in EU law it is the seller held liable for 2 years.
How can UK law be considered in excess of that standard.

Article 5
1."The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods.
If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery."

The extract above as i read it says that regardless of what national laws say, the seller is liable for 2 years.

Any thoughts?

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31999L0044&from=EN

Try reading it properly. The burden of proof is exactly the same in the EU directive as it is in UK law, ie, the fault is assumed to exists withing 6 months unless the seller can prove otherwise, after which the onus falls on the buyer.

shaun_from_Africa

boatman wrote: »

Is the seller in England not liable for 6 years? In the Eu for 2 years, is it not the case that you don't have to prove the fault, only say its faulty and you want it fixed?

Can you imagine what would happen if that really was the case?

I buy an iPhone and after a year or two when a newer model comes out which I decide I want, all I would have to do is to deliberately damage it in such a way that it becomes uneconomical or impossible to repair then the retailer would have to replace it or refund me a good proportion of what I originally paid.

Anyway, the EU directive to which you linked treats faults in exactly the same way as the CRA in that any fault occurring within 6 months from purchase is deemed to be inherent and it is up to the retailer to prove otherwise.
Any faults after this period and the consumer can be asked to prove that it's an inherent defect.

Article 3.

3. Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which
becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods
shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless
this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods
or the nature of the lack of conformity.

boatman

But in months 7-24 you may not be trying to prove a fault from day one.

It maybe that you are saying its not fit for purpose or hasn't lasted a reasonable length of time(which I guess could be argued it wasn't right from day one.). In the EU are you required to pay for an engineers report before the seller will fix it, or is it just a case of stating its not working and I would like it fixed?

marliepanda

boatman wrote: »

But in months 7-24 you may not be trying to prove a fault from day one.

It maybe that you are saying its not fit for purpose or hasn't lasted a reasonable length of time(which I guess could be argued it wasn't right from day one.). In the EU are you required to pay for an engineers report before the seller will fix it, or is it just a case of stating its not working and I would like it fixed?

If its 'not fit for purpose' it means it was built in such a way that it did not last long enough. Therefore that is an inherent fault (faulty wiring, poor soldering, something not being put together quite right)

As I have said the Eu directive is the same as our CRA. If the fault is found to be inherent the report is refunded. No laws simply state 'just say its not working and they have to fix it' Even within the first 6 months if the retailer finds it has been mishandled it can refuse to fix.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

It is lunch time, I'm going to get the popcorn!

boatman

marliepanda wrote: »

If the fault is found to be inherent the report is refunded. No laws simply state 'just say its not working and they have to fix it' Even within the first 6 months if the retailer finds it has been mishandled it can refuse to fix.

You may well need to go to court to get the report refunded, hopefully it doesn't get to having to get a report in the first place!

I'm not expecting to present a trashed item and expecting them to fix it, but really wanted to know if you have to jump through the same hoops in France for example as you would in UK. You always hope that a retailer would fix it within a 'reasonable' time without having to go to ADR or court. The way its written in 1999/44 comes across as a simple procedure, I guess the CRA on the surface looks the same..