Out of warranty high value product

DullGreyGuy

They are entitled under the CRA to ask the customer to prove the fault at the customers own expense and so whilst you can try your luck with point 3 its not in line with the legislation you are quoting. 

PHK

DullGreyGuy said:

They are entitled under the CRA to ask the customer to prove the fault at the customers own expense and so whilst you can try your luck with point 3 its not in line with the legislation you are quoting. 

I agree I think tightauldgits approach runs the risk of being seen as unreasonable which could prejudice any future action. 

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

They are entitled under the CRA to ask the customer to prove the fault at the customers own expense and so whilst you can try your luck with point 3 its not in line with the legislation you are quoting. 

They are possibly entitled to but that doesn't mean they have to. When I correspond with someone I like to give them a wide range of options. As I said, I don't know how JL work but if I was a retailer I might prefer to have my own people look at it than some random engineer I don't know and that I might have to pay for later. Which as a customer I would be quite happy to agree to but I wouldn't pay for it. 

And no (to PHK) it wouldn't be 'unreasonable' to present options - it may be unreasonable to insist on something that isn't in line with the legislation but that's not what my suggestion does. 

Also bear in mind that the CRA (as far as I can tell) doesn't actually specify anything about what the retailer can and can't ask for and at whose expense - all it really says is that before 6 months any fault is assumed to be inherent. In fact I'd possibly argue that any retailer who insisted on an independent engineer's report to be carried out before they would even engage with the complaint is potentially being unreasonable. 

The idea that you MUST get an independent report in order to engage with a retailer beyond the 6 month mark is one that I think is too readily thrown around here. 

PHK

I still disagree. In asking for more than you are entitled then you fail the reasonable test. I've seen the court ask claimants where they got the idea they were entitled to that. 

Regarding a report. Without one it could be very difficult as the burden of proof (more likely than not) falls on the consumer. Not on the retailer to defend themselves.

In some cases, an clued up consumer who is confident, eloquent and clear might be able to make a case. But that's risky. Far better to have expert opinion.

hb9505

thanks for all the comments, after having a forward and back with rangemaster today, they finally arranged a engineer to come over for a check.

tightauldgit

PHK said:

I still disagree. In asking for more than you are entitled then you fail the reasonable test. I've seen the court ask claimants where they got the idea they were entitled to that. 

Regarding a report. Without one it could be very difficult as the burden of proof (more likely than not) falls on the consumer. Not on the retailer to defend themselves.

In some cases, an clued up consumer who is confident, eloquent and clear might be able to make a case. But that's risky. Far better to have expert opinion.

What you are entitled to as a consumer when the product doesn't meet the requirements is a repair or a replacement. That's exactly what I would be asking for. 

If JL want to say they don't think it is an inherent fault then of course they can claim that but without investigating how on earth could they know? So of course a reasonable response to that position would be to say  - well you are welcome to send out an engineer to take a look at it and see what they think. Which part of that do you find unreasonable? 

Of course they can say "no we aren't going to send anyone it's up to you to prove to us that it's inherently faulty before we even consider your complaint" but that to me comes across a lot more as a business trying to frustrate a consumer exercising their rights than it does them reasonably trying to engage with a customer complaint. 

Now if it actually went to court I'd certainly say its probably a good idea to get an engineers report to present to the court but that's not the stage we are at yet. A proper retailer should engage with the customer, look to ascertain the facts and make a proper determination on whether the product meets the requirements or not. 

Forcing a customer to spend a couple of hundred quid on an engineers report before they can exercise their statutory rights sounds like an unreasonable retailer to me. Furthermore, I'd think that it would make a stronger case to the court for refunding my engineers costs if I can show that I provided JL the opportunity to minimise the loss by having their own engineers or agents carry out the work. 

Even if they said 'we will send someone out to repair it but if they determine it was user caused then we will charge you for the work' it would be fairer than what they appear to be claiming. Not to mention that they seem to be twisting the CRA in their response anyway by saying the item needs to have been repaired previously. 

Obviously a judge can make their own determination but if I'm the judge I know which one I am saying is unreasonable. 

RefluentBeans

tightauldgit said:

PHK said:

I still disagree. In asking for more than you are entitled then you fail the reasonable test. I've seen the court ask claimants where they got the idea they were entitled to that. 

Regarding a report. Without one it could be very difficult as the burden of proof (more likely than not) falls on the consumer. Not on the retailer to defend themselves.

In some cases, an clued up consumer who is confident, eloquent and clear might be able to make a case. But that's risky. Far better to have expert opinion.

What you are entitled to as a consumer when the product doesn't meet the requirements is a repair or a replacement. That's exactly what I would be asking for. 

If JL want to say they don't think it is an inherent fault then of course they can claim that but without investigating how on earth could they know? So of course a reasonable response to that position would be to say  - well you are welcome to send out an engineer to take a look at it and see what they think. Which part of that do you find unreasonable? 

Of course they can say "no we aren't going to send anyone it's up to you to prove to us that it's inherently faulty before we even consider your complaint" but that to me comes across a lot more as a business trying to frustrate a consumer exercising their rights than it does them reasonably trying to engage with a customer complaint. 

Now if it actually went to court I'd certainly say its probably a good idea to get an engineers report to present to the court but that's not the stage we are at yet. A proper retailer should engage with the customer, look to ascertain the facts and make a proper determination on whether the product meets the requirements or not. 

Forcing a customer to spend a couple of hundred quid on an engineers report before they can exercise their statutory rights sounds like an unreasonable retailer to me. Furthermore, I'd think that it would make a stronger case to the court for refunding my engineers costs if I can show that I provided JL the opportunity to minimise the loss by having their own engineers or agents carry out the work. 

Even if they said 'we will send someone out to repair it but if they determine it was user caused then we will charge you for the work' it would be fairer than what they appear to be claiming. Not to mention that they seem to be twisting the CRA in their response anyway by saying the item needs to have been repaired previously. 

Obviously a judge can make their own determination but if I'm the judge I know which one I am saying is unreasonable. 

It is my understanding in law, generally, you have to prove the claim you make. The consumer here is claiming the products were inherently faulty (or they didn't last long enough when in normal use). The CRA reverses that burden for the first 6 months, but after it reverts to the 'normal' that you have to prove the claim you are making. 

JL has every right to ask the consumer to prove the fault is inherent and reimburse the costs of the engineer. 

If we go by your logic that it is reasonable for JL to prove the product isn't inherently faulty, we fall into the trap of proving a negative. That's the reason that most claims for faults within 6 months are successful - because its near impossible to prove a negative.

If a retailer said they could send an engineer out and have it inspected, but if it's not faulty, the engineer will charge £300 for their time, is that reasonable? Should they do it for free? If they do it for free, can the consumer demand it over and over again, on a weekly basis to frustrate the retailer? If the retailer offers the service, can they reject anyone other engineers' reports? 

It may feel unfair for consumers to spend money to exercise their rights, but the money is able to be reimbursed in the claim if the product is inherently faulty. 

The law is clear - after 6 months it is the consumer's responsibility to prove the fault is inherent (or that the product didn't last long enough). That may be unreasonable in your eyes, but it is perfectly legal. Currently, the OP has not had their consumer rights impeded. If this was presented in court right now - the outcome would be more than likely in favor of the retailer. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The cost of the "report" would, I presume, be classed as damages, the retailer should reimburse the (reasonable) costs of the consumer obtaining such in a instance where it is ultimately determined the retailer breached the contract (by supplying goods that did not conform).

I don't think there is anything wrong with someone saying to a trader "are you sure you don' want/aren't able to inspect it yourself" or "do we need to go down this road as it's pretty obvious the fault wasn't caused by me" but if the retailer doesn't wish to assist until there is "proof" (to the usual degree) then that's just the way it is really. 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The cost of the "report" would, I presume, be classed as damages, the retailer should reimburse the (reasonable) costs of the consumer obtaining such in a instance where it is ultimately determined the retailer breached the contract (by supplying goods that did not conform).

I don't think there is anything wrong with someone saying to a trader "are you sure you don' want/aren't able to inspect it yourself" or "do we need to go down this road as it's pretty obvious the fault wasn't caused by me" but if the retailer doesn't wish to assist until there is "proof" (to the usual degree) then that's just the way it is really. 

Which is pretty much what I suggested - giving JL an out to check it themselves before it 'goes legal' 

tightauldgit

RefluentBeans said:

tightauldgit said:

PHK said:

I still disagree. In asking for more than you are entitled then you fail the reasonable test. I've seen the court ask claimants where they got the idea they were entitled to that. 

Regarding a report. Without one it could be very difficult as the burden of proof (more likely than not) falls on the consumer. Not on the retailer to defend themselves.

In some cases, an clued up consumer who is confident, eloquent and clear might be able to make a case. But that's risky. Far better to have expert opinion.

What you are entitled to as a consumer when the product doesn't meet the requirements is a repair or a replacement. That's exactly what I would be asking for. 

If JL want to say they don't think it is an inherent fault then of course they can claim that but without investigating how on earth could they know? So of course a reasonable response to that position would be to say  - well you are welcome to send out an engineer to take a look at it and see what they think. Which part of that do you find unreasonable? 

Of course they can say "no we aren't going to send anyone it's up to you to prove to us that it's inherently faulty before we even consider your complaint" but that to me comes across a lot more as a business trying to frustrate a consumer exercising their rights than it does them reasonably trying to engage with a customer complaint. 

Now if it actually went to court I'd certainly say its probably a good idea to get an engineers report to present to the court but that's not the stage we are at yet. A proper retailer should engage with the customer, look to ascertain the facts and make a proper determination on whether the product meets the requirements or not. 

Forcing a customer to spend a couple of hundred quid on an engineers report before they can exercise their statutory rights sounds like an unreasonable retailer to me. Furthermore, I'd think that it would make a stronger case to the court for refunding my engineers costs if I can show that I provided JL the opportunity to minimise the loss by having their own engineers or agents carry out the work. 

Even if they said 'we will send someone out to repair it but if they determine it was user caused then we will charge you for the work' it would be fairer than what they appear to be claiming. Not to mention that they seem to be twisting the CRA in their response anyway by saying the item needs to have been repaired previously. 

Obviously a judge can make their own determination but if I'm the judge I know which one I am saying is unreasonable. 

It is my understanding in law, generally, you have to prove the claim you make. The consumer here is claiming the products were inherently faulty (or they didn't last long enough when in normal use). The CRA reverses that burden for the first 6 months, but after it reverts to the 'normal' that you have to prove the claim you are making. 

JL has every right to ask the consumer to prove the fault is inherent and reimburse the costs of the engineer. 

If we go by your logic that it is reasonable for JL to prove the product isn't inherently faulty, we fall into the trap of proving a negative. That's the reason that most claims for faults within 6 months are successful - because its near impossible to prove a negative.

If a retailer said they could send an engineer out and have it inspected, but if it's not faulty, the engineer will charge £300 for their time, is that reasonable? Should they do it for free? If they do it for free, can the consumer demand it over and over again, on a weekly basis to frustrate the retailer? If the retailer offers the service, can they reject anyone other engineers' reports? 

It may feel unfair for consumers to spend money to exercise their rights, but the money is able to be reimbursed in the claim if the product is inherently faulty. 

The law is clear - after 6 months it is the consumer's responsibility to prove the fault is inherent (or that the product didn't last long enough). That may be unreasonable in your eyes, but it is perfectly legal. Currently, the OP has not had their consumer rights impeded. If this was presented in court right now - the outcome would be more than likely in favor of the retailer. 

In law yes, but we aren't at the law stage yet, we are at the customer service stage. In any case the law only requires 50%+1 confidence level. Now to my mind if an item expected to last 10-15 years breaks after 3 and it's not obviously user caused (no giant axe embedded in the front of it etc) then it at least warrants some level of engagement by the retailer to ascertain if it is a fault, what might have caused it etc. 

What, to my mind, the law says is that before 6 months it doesn't matter because it's assumed to be a fault anyway but beyond 6 months they are entitled to conclude that it's not an inherent fault and dispute the claim. Now legally they may well be able to roadblock the OP by insisting on a report before they even engage with the complaint but that to me is a) very poor customer service and b) borderline obstruction of a consumer exercising their rights. 

A lot of people aren't going to have £200 to throw at an engineers report in the hope it tells them what they want, or indeed the knowledge of how to get a report done. They are simply going to say JL won't help them and give up. JL know this which is why they are going down this route.