Should 'warranties' be replaced with expected lifespans?

arthurfowler

Thinking out loud, as I have been browsing a few sites over Christmas and the warranties they slap on to consumer goods just feel disingenuous. 

Many of the warranties listed (talking about retailers moreso than manufacturers, as it is not their responsibility), are only a year.

As many on here know, once that one year has passed, then it becomes either extremely difficult, if not impossible to get a remedy from the retailer. 

Then we come to warranties for refurbished or second hand goods. These are listed anywhere between 30 days to 2 years. As per my understanding, if there is no fault listed on the item for a used or refurbished item, then you have exactly the same consumer rights, as if you were purchasing new (i.e. it should last it's expected lifespan). 

I think the problem is that many people are unaware of their consumer rights, but also that retailers are deliberately taking advantage of consumers by making it difficult to claim after a warranty period is finished. Even within that warranty, the terms of that warranty are usually worse than your consumer rights (i.e. they say they have the right to repair multiple times before replacing, refunding etc). 

My thoughts would be for retailers to list the expected lifespan of an item prior to purchasing. I appreciate though that retailers may just slap 'one year' on everything. Although I doubt manufacturers would be very happy to have their items as having an expected lifespan of only one year. 

I think the issue is obviously also that a lot of retailers make it deliberately impossible to maintain your consumer rights. That is a big issue and I do think the government should help make it easier for people, as many think they have to stick to whatever their retailer's terms are. 

Rant over. 

powerful_Rogue

arthurfowler said:

Thinking out loud, as I have been browsing a few sites over Christmas and the warranties they slap on to consumer goods just feel disingenuous. 

Many of the warranties listed (talking about retailers moreso than manufacturers, as it is not their responsibility), are only a year.

As many on here know, once that one year has passed, then it becomes either extremely difficult, if not impossible to get a remedy from the retailer. 

Then we come to warranties for refurbished or second hand goods. These are listed anywhere between 30 days to 2 years. As per my understanding, if there is no fault listed on the item for a used or refurbished item, then you have exactly the same consumer rights, as if you were purchasing new (i.e. it should last it's expected lifespan). 

I think the problem is that many people are unaware of their consumer rights, but also that retailers are deliberately taking advantage of consumers by making it difficult to claim after a warranty period is finished. Even within that warranty, the terms of that warranty are usually worse than your consumer rights (i.e. they say they have the right to repair multiple times before replacing, refunding etc). 

My thoughts would be for retailers to list the expected lifespan of an item prior to purchasing. I appreciate though that retailers may just slap 'one year' on everything. Although I doubt manufacturers would be very happy to have their items as having an expected lifespan of only one year. 

I think the issue is obviously also that a lot of retailers make it deliberately impossible to maintain your consumer rights. That is a big issue and I do think the government should help make it easier for people, as many think they have to stick to whatever their retailer's terms are. 

Rant over. 

Totally diasgree.

By all means contact your MP.

mattyprice4004

The consumer laws we have do help massively - you just need to know how to use them, and to follow the process. 
I've never once failed to get a remedy outside of warranty (maybe 15-20 times in my lifetime) so it's hardly accurate that it's extremely difficult or impossible. 

JJ_Egan

Nope its an extra  and not your Consumer Rights , no rights in law to have an actual warranty .

Retailers making Consumer Rights difficult is not a warranty issue .

I buy a TV  and have Consumer Rights on the item . The law gives me up to six years to pursue through the court .

The manufacture has given me a free warranty on top of my rights under the law for xx years .

You are correct in that many do not understand Consumer Rights and mix Warranty  from the manufacturer with  the law CR against the vendor .

Thrugelmir

arthurfowler said:

My thoughts would be for retailers to list the expected lifespan of an item prior to purchasing.

Usage and treatment immediately spring to mind. 

Brie

I think that a lot of companies would not want us to know how short lived the expensive products we buy might be and I think they are unlikely to be able to provide open honest information in any case.  I would be really happy to have some system that designates how repairable items are - maybe with an A B C rating the way electric appliances are rated.

Manxman_in_exile

If I see a product advertised for sale with a warranty of 12 months or whatever, I deduce that whoever is providing the warranty (manufacturer or seller) has a reasonable expectation that it is unlikely to last much longer, and decide accordingly whether to buy.

What is a time-limited warranty or guarantee if not the manufacturer's estimate of a product's expected lifespan?

That's how I look at it.

Sandtree

arthurfowler said:

Thinking out loud, as I have been browsing a few sites over Christmas and the warranties they slap on to consumer goods just feel disingenuous. 

Many of the warranties listed (talking about retailers moreso than manufacturers, as it is not their responsibility), are only a year.

As many on here know, once that one year has passed, then it becomes either extremely difficult, if not impossible to get a remedy from the retailer. 

Then we come to warranties for refurbished or second hand goods. These are listed anywhere between 30 days to 2 years. As per my understanding, if there is no fault listed on the item for a used or refurbished item, then you have exactly the same consumer rights, as if you were purchasing new (i.e. it should last it's expected lifespan). 

I think the problem is that many people are unaware of their consumer rights, but also that retailers are deliberately taking advantage of consumers by making it difficult to claim after a warranty period is finished. Even within that warranty, the terms of that warranty are usually worse than your consumer rights (i.e. they say they have the right to repair multiple times before replacing, refunding etc). 

My thoughts would be for retailers to list the expected lifespan of an item prior to purchasing. I appreciate though that retailers may just slap 'one year' on everything. Although I doubt manufacturers would be very happy to have their items as having an expected lifespan of only one year. 

I think the issue is obviously also that a lot of retailers make it deliberately impossible to maintain your consumer rights. That is a big issue and I do think the government should help make it easier for people, as many think they have to stick to whatever their retailer's terms are. 

Rant over. 

Secondhand items are the same other than for the fact you wouldnt expect a 10 year old washing machine to last as long fault free as a brand new one even if no faults are listed. You would also get differences if you are buying the "tesco value" or "Finest" versions of things. 

The main problem with your idea is that there is no fixed lifespan and ultimately its for the courts to decide if getting 2 stuck pixels on a £500 65" TV after 3 years is reasonable or not... you'd potentially need several pages of notes given different aspects may have different life expectances (drive belt wont last as long as the drum etc).

Warranties in theory often go beyond your statutory rights, some include accidental damage, many will give a replacement device after 6 months whereas consumer rights allow partial refunds to reflect use after this period. 

Personally have more issues that warranties do not automatically count as insurance as Ombudsman protection and separating the retailer/manufacturer from the protection would mean it continues even if the company goes bust.

arthurfowler

JJ_Egan said:

Nope its an extra  and not your Consumer Rights , no rights in law to have an actual warranty .

Retailers making Consumer Rights difficult is not a warranty issue .

I buy a TV  and have Consumer Rights on the item . The law gives me up to six years to pursue through the court .

The manufacture has given me a free warranty on top of my rights under the law for xx years .

You are correct in that many do not understand Consumer Rights and mix Warranty  from the manufacturer with  the law CR against the vendor .

I think this is part of the problem. Retailers use the one year warranty as a means of getting out of any sort of help with consumer rights. The amount of stories I have heard from friends, family, online who say retailers won't help because it's out of warranty is huge. 

arthurfowler

powerful_Rogue said:

arthurfowler said:

Thinking out loud, as I have been browsing a few sites over Christmas and the warranties they slap on to consumer goods just feel disingenuous. 

Many of the warranties listed (talking about retailers moreso than manufacturers, as it is not their responsibility), are only a year.

As many on here know, once that one year has passed, then it becomes either extremely difficult, if not impossible to get a remedy from the retailer. 

Then we come to warranties for refurbished or second hand goods. These are listed anywhere between 30 days to 2 years. As per my understanding, if there is no fault listed on the item for a used or refurbished item, then you have exactly the same consumer rights, as if you were purchasing new (i.e. it should last it's expected lifespan). 

I think the problem is that many people are unaware of their consumer rights, but also that retailers are deliberately taking advantage of consumers by making it difficult to claim after a warranty period is finished. Even within that warranty, the terms of that warranty are usually worse than your consumer rights (i.e. they say they have the right to repair multiple times before replacing, refunding etc). 

My thoughts would be for retailers to list the expected lifespan of an item prior to purchasing. I appreciate though that retailers may just slap 'one year' on everything. Although I doubt manufacturers would be very happy to have their items as having an expected lifespan of only one year. 

I think the issue is obviously also that a lot of retailers make it deliberately impossible to maintain your consumer rights. That is a big issue and I do think the government should help make it easier for people, as many think they have to stick to whatever their retailer's terms are. 

Rant over. 

Totally diasgree.

By all means contact your MP.

Didn't realise I required your authorisation to contact my MP, but thanks for your input. 

Manxman_in_exile

arthurfowler said:

JJ_Egan said:

Nope its an extra  and not your Consumer Rights , no rights in law to have an actual warranty .

Retailers making Consumer Rights difficult is not a warranty issue .

I buy a TV  and have Consumer Rights on the item . The law gives me up to six years to pursue through the court .

The manufacture has given me a free warranty on top of my rights under the law for xx years .

You are correct in that many do not understand Consumer Rights and mix Warranty  from the manufacturer with  the law CR against the vendor .

I think this is part of the problem. Retailers use the one year warranty as a means of getting out of any sort of help with consumer rights. The amount of stories I have heard from friends, family, online who say retailers won't help because it's out of warranty is huge. 

I agree with you there, but I think the problem is the lack of consumer rights knowledge within the public at large.

I've got two law degrees and I worked as a manager in the NHS for 25 years.  But it was only after I retired a few years ago and discovered MSE that I actually learned anything about consumer rights.  Yes, I knew the basic stuff about contract terms and the old SOGA, but I didn't know anything about the really important and less well-known consumer rights.  And even though I had specifically studied the Consumer Credit Act doing a LLM (albeit 40 years ago now) I wouldn't have had a clue about a s75 claim before learning about it here.  And I'm still learning stuff here today.

In fact, to make my own ignorance even more shocking - in the mid 1980s I spent a year as a trainee Trading Standards Inspector!  What a complete waste of time that was!

Also what surprises me is the ignorance of fairly basic consumer rights legislation on supposedly consumer based programmes like "You and Yours" on Radio 4 and a lot of the financial "help" pages in the press - even the quality papers.  (Mind you, there is a consumer rights programme presented by a barrister on LBC some nights at 9pm, and he seems to know his stuff very well).

So the problem is helping people through the legal maze.  I've been looking today at some of the provisions of the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation etc...) Regulations, and I'm not surprised a lot of people can't make head nor tail of them*.  It needs sites like this to produce "user guides" and publicise them so that the ordinary person in the street can understand them and not just get fobbed off with "claim under the warranty" or "Tough luck.  It's just out of warranty... "

When I was a student there was an academic named Twining who was introducing the idea of using flow-charts to analyse complex legislation.  If somebody could produce flow-charts explaining consumer rights legislation, they'd be onto a sure fire winner.  Maybe somebody's already done it...

*And I still find it very difficult to get my head around the information requirements around cancellation rights that @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head is always going on about.  And I think a lot of seasoned posters on here can't get their heads around them either!  (@unholyangel always used to go on about that as well)

EDIT:  Whoops mistakenly edited this post rather than the later one!  Just cancelled this edit]