Should 'warranties' be replaced with expected lifespans?

[Deleted User]

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

The warranty is meaningless to me when buying a product. What is important is does the product do what I want it to do and also how good the brand is overall. 

Warranty is just PR advertising and is not and indiction of life expectancy of the product or how good customer service is in solving any issues you may have.   

powerful_Rogue

arthurfowler said:

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. 

Didn't say you did, was offering advice regarding your rant.

arthurfowler

Manxman_in_exile said:

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)

Completely agree with everything you said. 

arthurfowler

powerful_Rogue said:

arthurfowler said:

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. 

Didn't say you did, was offering advice regarding your rant.

I explicitly stated I was 'thinking out loud' and not about to start a crusade.

To make a snarky reply, because you disagreed, is on you, but at least be honest  

powerful_Rogue

arthurfowler said:

powerful_Rogue said:

arthurfowler said:

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. 

Didn't say you did, was offering advice regarding your rant.

I explicitly stated I was 'thinking out loud' and not about to start a crusade.

To make a snarky reply, because you disagreed, is on you, but at least be honest  

Maybe you should have posted in the Praise, Vent & Warning section of the forum.

Nothing 'snarky' about my response. If you want change to the law, then that is what your MP is for. Nothing anyone says in this thread is going to change that. As for me disagreeing, you didn't make it clear that you only wanted replies from people that agree with you.

theonlywayisup

Deleted_User said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

The warranty is meaningless to me when buying a product. What is important is does the product do what I want it to do and also how good the brand is overall. 

Warranty is just PR advertising and is not and indiction of life expectancy of the product or how good customer service is in solving any issues you may have.   

A warranty of 10 years for me isn't meaningless.  I've used the warranty period more times than my Consumer Rights, purely because I've read the warranty and know what it covers and know that I'm watertight. 

So, not it isn't PR.  It is tangible.  

Should warranties be made illegal* (unlawful).  Then no.  A warranty is in ADDITION to your legal rights.  Why would you make that unlawful?

* a sick bird

[Deleted User]

theonlywayisup said:

Deleted_User said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

The warranty is meaningless to me when buying a product. What is important is does the product do what I want it to do and also how good the brand is overall. 

Warranty is just PR advertising and is not and indiction of life expectancy of the product or how good customer service is in solving any issues you may have.   

A warranty of 10 years for me isn't meaningless.  I've used the warranty period more times than my Consumer Rights, purely because I've read the warranty and know what it covers and know that I'm watertight. 

So, not it isn't PR.  It is tangible.  

Should warranties be made illegal* (unlawful).  Then no.  A warranty is in ADDITION to your legal rights.  Why would you make that unlawful?

* a sick bird

I don’t live in a world where i buy products with 10 year warranties. I think my washing machine came with 5 years for spare parts and never used it in the 12 years I had the machine. Even if I had to use it after say 2 or 3 years of having the machine I wouldn’t be happy because I would be forking out for labour. Needless to say the machine lasted the 12 years and I went with the same manufacturer for my next one. 

I have had a couple of devices replaced outside of warranty based on good customer service and fault found. 

I buy and will be a return buyer with companies that i find to have good customer service and reliable products. I don’t care about the warranties that they put in the box. 

theonlywayisup

Deleted_User said:

theonlywayisup said:

Deleted_User said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

The warranty is meaningless to me when buying a product. What is important is does the product do what I want it to do and also how good the brand is overall. 

Warranty is just PR advertising and is not and indiction of life expectancy of the product or how good customer service is in solving any issues you may have.   

A warranty of 10 years for me isn't meaningless.  I've used the warranty period more times than my Consumer Rights, purely because I've read the warranty and know what it covers and know that I'm watertight. 

So, not it isn't PR.  It is tangible.  

Should warranties be made illegal* (unlawful).  Then no.  A warranty is in ADDITION to your legal rights.  Why would you make that unlawful?

* a sick bird

I don’t live in a world where i buy products with 10 year warranties. I think my washing machine came with 5 years for spare parts and never used it in the 12 years I had the machine. Even if I had to use it after say 2 or 3 years of having the machine I wouldn’t be happy because I would be forking out for labour. Needless to say the machine lasted the 12 years and I went with the same manufacturer for my next one. 

I have had a couple of devices replaced outside of warranty based on good customer service and fault found. 

I buy and will be a return buyer with companies that i find to have good customer service and reliable products. I don’t care about the warranties that they put in the box. 

You lost me at :

I think my washing machine came with 5 years for spare parts and never used it in the 12 years I had the machine. Even if I had to use it after say 2 or 3 years of having the machine I wouldn’t be happy because I would be forking out for labour. Needless to say the machine lasted the 12 years and I went with the same manufacturer for my next one. 

possibly because my 10 year warranty appliances cover parts AND labour?  

[Deleted User]

theonlywayisup said:

Deleted_User said:

theonlywayisup said:

KNotcloseminded said:

theonlywayisup said:

Deleted_User said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

The warranty is meaningless to me when buying a product. What is important is does the product do what I want it to do and also how good the brand is overall. 

Warranty is just PR advertising and is not and indiction of life expectancy of the product or how good customer service is in solving any issues you may have.   

A warranty of 10 years for me isn't meaningless.  I've used the warranty period more times than my Consumer Rights, purely because I've read the warranty and know what it covers and know that I'm watertight. 

So, not it isn't PR.  It is tangible.  

Should warranties be made illegal* (unlawful).  Then no.  A warranty is in ADDITION to your legal rights.  Why would you make that unlawful?

* a sick bird

I don’t live in a world where i buy products with 10 year warranties. I think my washing machine came with 5 years for spare parts and never used it in the 12 years I had the machine. Even if I had to use it after say 2 or 3 years of having the machine I wouldn’t be happy because I would be forking out for labour. Needless to say the machine lasted the 12 years and I went with the same manufacturer for my next one. 

I have had a couple of devices replaced outside of warranty based on good customer service and fault found. 

I buy and will be a return buyer with companies that i find to have good customer service and reliable products. I don’t care about the warranties that they put in the box. 

You lost me at :

I think my washing machine came with 5 years for spare parts and never used it in the 12 years I had the machine. Even if I had to use it after say 2 or 3 years of having the machine I wouldn’t be happy because I would be forking out for labour. Needless to say the machine lasted the 12 years and I went with the same manufacturer for my next one. 

possibly because my 10 year warranty appliances cover parts AND labour?  

Whoopie doo for you. As I said warranties are meaningless to me and it’s all about how reliable the product is and what the customer service is like resolving any issues.  Warranties give no such indication. 

Warranties give exactly that.  A guarantee of a product. 

They warranty an item for x years.  

There is no explaining it any other way.  Enjoy your crusade.   I'm out. 

Yeah yeah because all electronic devices in the world that that come with a 1 to 2 years warranty start breaking down in the 3rd year and the product never fails during those first 2 years 

Manxman_in_exile

I think some people are being a bit unfair on the OP.  I think his choice of title (Should warranties be made illegal?) may be inaccurate and a bit silly, but I largely agree with one of his main points, namely that the existence of manufacturer warranties and guarantees are all too often used by unscrupulous or ignorant traders to divert consumers away from their statutory consumer rights. 

arthurfowler said:

...
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). 
...
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. 

I pretty much agree with all of that - people need to be made more aware of their statutory consumer protection.  How many times do people create a new thread on here saying "Just under six months ago I bought an XYZ...  it stopped working properly...  I contacted the manufacturer under the warranty... and they said send it to us...  they've had it now for 2 months and are still looking for the fault... I'm at the end of my tether... what are my consumer rights?", only to be asked "Why didn't you go back to the retailer?  That's who your consumer rights are with - any warranty is in addition to your consumer rights."

People simply don't know or don't understand, and are fobbed off by retailers - who may or may not know better - to claim under the warranty, whether that is most appropriate or not.  I do think sometimes that some posters (some, not all) do take a bit of a superior view regarding this ignorance.  As I posted earlier, before I started following this forum I didn't fully appreciate the extent of my consumer protection under statute myself, and I'm supposed to have two law degrees!  Most "normal" people simply don't know or don't understand.

A related problem is where retail staff themselves don't understand consumer rights or (like what I suspect has happened in the thread about the table tennis table... ) they don't understand the difference between consumer rights and the terms of their own policies, whether those policies give the consumer additional rights or are carefully written in such a way as to make the consumer think they have a lower level of protection than the law actually affords them.  (Like where T&Cs "appear" to try to  impose far more restrictive returns policies than the law actually permits, but then dishonestly disclaim this by saying "None of the foregoing affects your statutory consumer rights" relying on the fact that most people will be misled because they don't know their statutory rights!)

None of this requires the OP to contact his MP to get the law changed.  Consumers need to understand the existing law better (or need to be better educated) and the law needs to be more straightforward in terms of enforcing consumer rights against errant retailers.  Rather than being forced to threaten court action against what may be relatively low level* infringements of consumer rights (like the Milletts thread over £3.99 postage) consumers ought to have recourse to someone like Trading Standards.  (I actually spent a year as a trainee trading standards inspector back in the 1980s when the public could still access them directly.  Of course, you can't do something as simple as that any more.  Mind you, they were utterly useless when I worked for them nearly 40 years ago which was one of the reasons I left... ).

Anyway, I think the OP makes some decent points which shouldn't be treated so dismissively.

*The problem with continual and unpunished low level infringements is that they lead both consumers and retailers alike to believe that consumer rights can be ignored at will and the law will not enforce them.