Should 'warranties' be replaced with expected lifespans?

MarvinDay

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.  

I pretty much agree with all of that - people need to be made more aware of their statutory consumer protection. 

The thing is, how to you make people more aware of their legal rights?
As it currently stands, there are loads of websites that give this information (such as this one, Which, Citizens Advice etc) and if people don't have access to the internet, many daily newspapers have sections dealing with consumer rights and problems and there are also many TV programs relating to consumer rights.

There are also walk in Citizens Advice locations in many towns and cities (but I'm not too sure if they are operating at present) and CA also have an online and telephone facility for asking for help.

Manxman_in_exile

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. 

That's what I think should be the case too, but the problem is that many people's idea of a what a "guarantee" is seems to offer a lot lower level of protection than what I understand by the term "Guarantee".  See the current Richer Sounds thread and the Sealskinz thread - neither of which I consider offer what I think of as a "Guarantee".

Long live the Tilley hats lifetime guarantee!  In my experience it does what it says on the tin!  A replacement £70 hat after 20+ years of ownership with no proof of purchase!

born_again

MarvinDay said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.  

I pretty much agree with all of that - people need to be made more aware of their statutory consumer protection. 

The thing is, how to you make people more aware of their legal rights?
As it currently stands, there are loads of websites that give this information (such as this one, Which, Citizens Advice etc) and if people don't have access to the internet, many daily newspapers have sections dealing with consumer rights and problems and there are also many TV programs relating to consumer rights.

There are also walk in Citizens Advice locations in many towns and cities (but I'm not too sure if they are operating at present) and CA also have an online and telephone facility for asking for help.

You can't.

It's like all the people that fall for the common scams (that have been published in Media & banks warn you of) yet people keep falling for them on a weekly basis, then complain...

Retailers could put a letter detailing your rights in with their products & I bet 99% of customers would simply chuck it in the bin without reading. Then complain no one told them their rights.

Gavin83

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. 

I disagree with you as well. 

Warranties often provide quibble free (in theory) repairs/replacements within the first year of ownership. While you say this is nothing to do with the manufacturer it actually is since this is a manufacturers guarantee.

This is on top of your consumer rights. Of course potentially basic consumer legalisation does provide more rights but there are more hoops to jump through. While you say retailers make it difficult I can’t see many refusing a remedy if you have a report to say the problem is inherent, which is after all a requirement to enforce your consumer rights.

I’m ignoring extended warranties in this, which I don’t think is part of the discussion but that’s a different issue entirely.

I’m also not sure it’s the retailers responsibility to inform people of their consumer rights. Most retail employees likely don’t know themselves. If people wish to know their rights they should take the time to learn themselves or ask on a forum such as this.

I’m all for laws/policies that make the understanding easier though.

Jenni_D

Warranties often provide quibble free (in theory) repairs/replacements within the first year of ownership. While you say this is nothing to do with the manufacturer it actually is since this is a manufacturers guarantee.

It depends on whether or not the seller has taken over the warranty support from the manufacturer. (Sellers can get a cheaper unit price if they do). If they have then it's nothing at all to do with the manufacturer.  

arthurfowler

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

You are twisting my words. I have no problem with people disagreeing. I posted an opinion on a public forum. No more, no less. Anyway that's the last I will say on it. I am sure you will once again reply in an attempt to be smart. Good luck. 

MarvinDay

arthurfowler said:

You are twisting my words. I have no problem with people disagreeing. I posted an opinion on a public forum. No more, no less. Anyway that's the last I will say on it. I am sure you will once again reply in an attempt to be smart. Good luck. 

You also posted a question asking if warranties should be made illegal and it is that question that people have been replying to.

arthurfowler

MarvinDay said:

arthurfowler said:

You are twisting my words. I have no problem with people disagreeing. I posted an opinion on a public forum. No more, no less. Anyway that's the last I will say on it. I am sure you will once again reply in an attempt to be smart. Good luck. 

You also posted a question asking if warranties should be made illegal and it is that question that people have been replying to.

Which is great.

powerful_Rogue

arthurfowler said:

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

You are twisting my words. I have no problem with people disagreeing. I posted an opinion on a public forum. No more, no less. Anyway that's the last I will say on it. I am sure you will once again reply in an attempt to be smart. Good luck. 

Nothing twisted. As you say, it's a public forum and you asked a question. Just because you don't like the answer given, doesn't make it any less valid.

RogerBareford

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.

I think your looking at this the wrong way around.

When a manufacturer is offering a 12 months warranty they are saying that the product will most likely last that long and they have account for a reasonable amount of failures in the price. A different manufacturer may offer a 2 year warranty on a similar product which is almost identical but they just price it higher to account for a higher number of failures in year 2 they have to cover.

So both products may have exactly the same lifespan but with substantially different lengts of warranties.

Just because a warranty is X months it doesn't meant it is "unlikely" to last longer.

Another example of this as you mentioned seller provided warranties is Richer Sounds. They offer a 6 year warranty on TV's but i can buy the same TV from another retailers with only a 1 year warranty. So warranty lengths don't really give an indication of how long a product will last.