Goods must 'last a reasonable length of time' - Consumer Rights Act 2015

drspa44

Hello fellow consumers

The MSE article about consumer rights uses the phrase 'last a reasonable length of time' and the quote marks suggest it is the verbatim wording: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

However looking at the actual Consumer Rights Act 2015, I don't see this nor any similar wordings: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true

I am in the process of returning an item that died just outside of its 1 year warranty. In my complaint, I don't want to be quoting Martin Lewis rather than the legislature. Does anyone know where this phrase comes from? It is a lot more precise than 'of satisfactory quality', which I do see in the text.

Thanks in advance!

DiddyDavies

It would come under the requirement for goods to be durable. (CRA 9.3)

durability

noun [ U ]

UK 

the quality of being able to last a long time without becoming damaged:

However, there's a bit more to it than goods simply having to last a reasonable amount of time. They must last a reasonable time taking into account the price paid as it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a widget costing £1 to have the same durability of a far better quality one that cost £10.

In your case, the onus is on you to prove that the item in question was of unsatisfactory quality and that any failure or breakage was due to something that came from manufacture (bad assembly, poor quality components etc).

Grumpy_chap

What type of item is the OP looking to return after 1 year?  What is the extent and nature of the failure?

drspa44

Thanks both. It does seem unusual that durability in 9.3 is the closest embodiment of this phrase. The act does not define the word and not all dictionaries align with Cambridge's definition. Oxford's is "the ability to withstand wear, pressure, or damage". Regardless, it doesn't really describe something like a TV or a boiler that stopped working. Moreso a bike or a drill that will fail after a few uses unless it is made with quality components. I think I will have to rely on "of satisfactory quality" for my complaint.

I didn't want to get into specifics about what I am returning, as last time I ended up causing stress for myself and others on the forum arguing over the merits of the complaint. I've gone through the Money Claims Online process before and am confident I have a good case. I just wanted to see if anyone knew where this quote came from.

Sandtree

Sure it does.... a mechanical devices is more obvious about wear and tear but electronic devices are still subject to forces that can cause deterioration even if it’s less obvious 

unholyangel

drspa44 said:

Thanks both. It does seem unusual that durability in 9.3 is the closest embodiment of this phrase. The act does not define the word and not all dictionaries align with Cambridge's definition. Oxford's is "the ability to withstand wear, pressure, or damage". Regardless, it doesn't really describe something like a TV or a boiler that stopped working. Moreso a bike or a drill that will fail after a few uses unless it is made with quality components. I think I will have to rely on "of satisfactory quality" for my complaint.

I didn't want to get into specifics about what I am returning, as last time I ended up causing stress for myself and others on the forum arguing over the merits of the complaint. I've gone through the Money Claims Online process before and am confident I have a good case. I just wanted to see if anyone knew where this quote came from.

I presume from this statement, that you're not aware durability is one aspect which you would consider when determining whether goods are of satisfactory quality? Ie your comment reads as "instead of relying on not being of satisfactory quality, I think i'm going to rely not being of satisfactory quality". 

As stated, everything has durability. Even a TV. For example if you bought 2 TVs tomorrow, one at £300 and the other at £3000, you'd have higher expectations (including for how long the goods would last) of the £3000 one than the £300 one. 

Also, the 6 month rule applies to all breach of contract claims (whether is satisfactory quality, not as described etc) so you'll still have to prove that the goods inherently fail to conform to contract. 

drspa44

CRA 9.3 does say that durability is one of the aspects that can be used to assess whether goods are of satisfactory quality. It does not say that all 5 of the listed measures must be compromised to prove quality is unsatisfactory. By this logic, a car that was sold with faulty brakes would not meet the standard if it had a perfect "appearance and finish". Neither would a perfectly functioning, durable car that was delivered covered in scratches and dents.
I am aware that electronics can suffer 'wear and tear' - I have dealt with swollen capacitors and shorts after cable insulation has melted. It just isn't the most appropriate measure for my case.

unholyangel

drspa44 said:

CRA 9.3 does say that durability is one of the aspects that can be used to assess whether goods are of satisfactory quality. It does not say that all 5 of the listed measures must be compromised to prove quality is unsatisfactory. By this logic, a car that was sold with faulty brakes would not meet the standard if it had a perfect "appearance and finish". Neither would a perfectly functioning, durable car that was delivered covered in scratches and dents.
I am aware that electronics can suffer 'wear and tear' - I have dealt with swollen capacitors and shorts after cable insulation has melted. It just isn't the most appropriate measure for my case.

That's because it doesn't require all 5 measures. It's not a criteria checklist. It's just showing what things can be taken into account when deciding if goods are of satisfactory quality. It's not an exhaustive list either.

neilmcl

drspa44 said:

CRA 9.3 does say that durability is one of the aspects that can be used to assess whether goods are of satisfactory quality. It does not say that all 5 of the listed measures must be compromised to prove quality is unsatisfactory. By this logic, a car that was sold with faulty brakes would not meet the standard if it had a perfect "appearance and finish". Neither would a perfectly functioning, durable car that was delivered covered in scratches and dents.
I am aware that electronics can suffer 'wear and tear' - I have dealt with swollen capacitors and shorts after cable insulation has melted. It just isn't the most appropriate measure for my case.

The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;

(b)appearance and finish;

(c)freedom from minor defects;

(d)safety;

(e)durability.

zoob

We really need a bit more information on what the product is so people can give you the correct information and advise you on how best to proceed under CRA2015 legislation 

drspa44

zoob said:

We really need a bit more information on what the product is so people can give you the correct information and advise you on how best to proceed under CRA2015 legislation 

Thanks but I am not seeking advice at the moment. I only wanted to check if anyone knew who Martin Lewis and/or his editors were quoting.