Out of warranty high value product

PHK

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. 

No, all JohnLewis need to say is that the OP needs to prove their case. The CRA says that the OP must prove their claim 

RefluentBeans

tightauldgit said:

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. 

I understand what you’re saying - but the law is of course the basis of the complaint. Consumer claims the product is faulty, the retailer says sorry not in warranty but can offer a chargeable repair. Consumer clarifies that they are seeking a remedy under the the consumer rights act, and the retailer asks for an engineers report to proceed, as they are legally allowed to ask for. 

Is it bad customer service - maybe. But completely legal. The basis of all customer service is in the law - some will go over and above to make sure customers are happy, others don’t. You can ask for the retailer to go and above, but that’s goodwill. By using terms like unfair and the unreasonable you’re muddying the water as those have legal implications.

A product lasting Less time than required could be for multiple reasons. For example moving houses, or an electrical fault in the house causing a power surge. Neither are the products fault, so the retailer can’t take responsibility for risk from the customers usage. 

How is JL possibly obstructing the OP’s rights?! They’re not refusing to help, they’re asking for proof, which they can do as per the law.

You seem to be saying that this isn’t a legal issue, and rather a customer service issue, whilst compelling them to take action based on (flawed) legal arguments. If it’s a legal issue, point to where JL are infringing on the consumer rights act. If it’s a customer service issue - the warranty JL offers is now over and thus any action is a gesture of goodwill (unless you use a legal argument of the CRA, which as I have said before, requires proof of fault).

Like I said, bad customer service isn’t illegal. By demanding JL do x, y, and z; any goodwill they could offer will evaporate. The law offers a minimum of the service, and if JL want to offer just the minimum they are legally required to, then that’s they’re business choice. The Consumer rights act isn’t a witches spell that can be said to get the consumers way - it is the legal minimum the retailers have to do, and so far JL have complied with the act. 

tightauldgit

RefluentBeans said:

tightauldgit said:

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. 

I understand what you’re saying - but the law is of course the basis of the complaint. Consumer claims the product is faulty, the retailer says sorry not in warranty but can offer a chargeable repair. Consumer clarifies that they are seeking a remedy under the the consumer rights act, and the retailer asks for an engineers report to proceed, as they are legally allowed to ask for. 

Is it bad customer service - maybe. But completely legal. The basis of all customer service is in the law - some will go over and above to make sure customers are happy, others don’t. You can ask for the retailer to go and above, but that’s goodwill. By using terms like unfair and the unreasonable you’re muddying the water as those have legal implications.

A product lasting Less time than required could be for multiple reasons. For example moving houses, or an electrical fault in the house causing a power surge. Neither are the products fault, so the retailer can’t take responsibility for risk from the customers usage. 

How is JL possibly obstructing the OP’s rights?! They’re not refusing to help, they’re asking for proof, which they can do as per the law.

You seem to be saying that this isn’t a legal issue, and rather a customer service issue, whilst compelling them to take action based on (flawed) legal arguments. If it’s a legal issue, point to where JL are infringing on the consumer rights act. If it’s a customer service issue - the warranty JL offers is now over and thus any action is a gesture of goodwill (unless you use a legal argument of the CRA, which as I have said before, requires proof of fault).

Like I said, bad customer service isn’t illegal. By demanding JL do x, y, and z; any goodwill they could offer will evaporate. The law offers a minimum of the service, and if JL want to offer just the minimum they are legally required to, then that’s they’re business choice. The Consumer rights act isn’t a witches spell that can be said to get the consumers way - it is the legal minimum the retailers have to do, and so far JL have complied with the act. 

It seems you might have completely mis-read what I wrote - there was no demand for anything. There was a suggestion of a potential option to resolve the matter. It was then suggested that proposing this option was somehow 'unreasonable' and as I pointed out it's no more unreasonable than JL's proposed solution. 

And let's be clear - if anyone so far has demonstrated a flawed understanding of the CRA it's JL with the nonsense they wrote in their email to the OP. 

There's a hell of a lot of reading into the CRA what it 'requires' here, none of which is actually stated in the Act but whatever you think of what is and isn't required then proposing alternatives is not and never could be unreasonable when one of the alternatives presented is compliance with the absolute legal minimum that you insist is all JL need to do.  

sheramber

Ii the complainer pays for a report and it confirms an inherent fault then they can claim the cost back from JL. If JL get a report and it does not confirm an inherent fault thenJL will charge the cost . Either way it could cost the complainer. Would you rather trust your own engineer rather than one paid for by JL?