Who actually 'pays' for an out-of-warranty CRA 2015 claim?

unholyangel

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I thought it was interesting, Neil.

So, a manufacturer makes a product with what is very likely an inherent weakness - it becomes a 'known' issue over time - and the retailer carries the can? It just does not seem right.

Ordinarily if the retailer is "carrying the can", it's because they negotiated a cheaper unit price in exchange for assuming that liability. 

powerful_Rogue

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I get what you are saying. However, I do think it's unfair on them in a case such as this where I understand the hinges are sub-par.

The practical difference it would make here is in my determination to pursue a FOC repair. I'm pretty confident I have a good case for the reasons stated before, but if I thought the retailer - a smaller one in this instance - was going to face a £200 bill, it would give me pause. (If it had been Tescos or PC World or similar, I'd go for it quite happily.)

It's just weird, I think! Under the CRA 2015, consumers have pretty solid protection well after warranties have expired; if a washing machine suffers failed bearings after, say, 5 years' normal use, and it carried only a 1 year warranty, the retailer has to cover all the costs for the additional years?! Jeepers, it's a wonder they manage to exist. :-)

After 2 years of use, the chances are virtually zero without a report showing the hinge as being inherently faulty. On top of that, your son continued to use a faulty product whic caused additional damage. This small retailer will hopefully know their rights and request said report before taking the matter any further.

Jeepers_Creepers

powerful_Rogue said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I get what you are saying. However, I do think it's unfair on them in a case such as this where I understand the hinges are sub-par.

The practical difference it would make here is in my determination to pursue a FOC repair. I'm pretty confident I have a good case for the reasons stated before, but if I thought the retailer - a smaller one in this instance - was going to face a £200 bill, it would give me pause. (If it had been Tescos or PC World or similar, I'd go for it quite happily.)

It's just weird, I think! Under the CRA 2015, consumers have pretty solid protection well after warranties have expired; if a washing machine suffers failed bearings after, say, 5 years' normal use, and it carried only a 1 year warranty, the retailer has to cover all the costs for the additional years?! Jeepers, it's a wonder they manage to exist. :-)

After 2 years of use, the chances are virtually zero without a report showing the hinge as being inherently faulty. On top of that, your son continued to use a faulty product whic caused additional damage. This small retailer will hopefully know their rights and request said report before taking the matter any further.

He didn't. He kept it in the open position which meant he couldn't take it to lectures. He also transported it home for Christmas - in that position - in a large suitcase covered by his clothes.

Sandtree

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I get what you are saying, Neil. However, I do think it's unfair on them in a case such as this where I understand the hinges are sub-par.

The practical difference it would make here is in my determination to pursue a FOC repair. I'm pretty confident I have a good case for the reasons stated before, but if I thought the retailer - a smaller one in this instance - was going to face a £200 bill, it would give me pause. (If it had been Tescos or PC World or similar, I'd go for it quite happily.)

It's just weird, I think! Under the CRA 2015, consumers have pretty solid protection well after warranties have expired; if a washing machine suffers failed bearings after, say, 5 years' normal use, and it carried only a 1 year warranty, the retailer has to cover all the costs for the additional years?! Jeepers, it's a wonder they manage to exist. :-)

That’s why they pay £100 for the washing machine and sell it to you for £250, it’s also one of the reasons when buying in the U.K. is more expensive than say the USA as retailers build in the cost of consumer protections... nothing’s free in life.

the idea of the CRA is it follows the contract, as a consumer you’re considered weak and needing the States protection from the scary business. As a retailer you’re a business and so on even footing with your supplier, you don’t need state protection and so can choose to pay £120 for your goods and the supplier refunds faults or £100 and you carry the can

mattyprice4004

I am a retailer - who picks up the tab depends on the contract with the supplier, which can vary from product to product.