White company refusing to take back faulty Christmas tree

Ergates

Have you tried the tree again since you first tried it?  Maybe a couple of days later?

Things in the loft get very cold when the weather is like this, and when brought down into a warm house, condensation can form on them - including on electrical components, which can cause them to stop working. 

Sometimes, after the thing has warmed up and the condensation has evaporated again, they'll start working again.

As a general rule - if something electronic has been brought in from a cold place, I leave it a few hours (if possible) to warm up before switching it on.

Appreciative_poster said:

Thank you @powerful_Rogue
So if I'm not in a position to pay for an independent electrical check, is there nothing I can do? 
Is it not worth quoting the consumer rights act about goods lasting a reasonable time to them, or contacting an Ombudsman? 

You can claim the cost for the check back from the retailer *if* it finds in your favour.  It's unlikely to be expensive - when compared to a £400 tree.  You might also find that an electrical repair person could just fix it for you.

Whilst the retailer *might* just accept it based on a claim of lack of durability - they do have the right to request proof.  There isn't any ombudsman to report this kind of thing to - the courts are the next level of action.

born_again

Can we take it that fuse has been checked & that wiring is in tact, as mice love a nice warm lost to live in & a tree such as this makes a nice meal.

GDB2222

born_again said:

Can we take it that fuse has been checked & that wiring is in tact, as mice love a nice warm lost to live in & a tree such as this makes a nice meal.

I assume that the op would have noticed a mouse nest?

It is possible that a new transformer to power the lights would solve the problem at minimal cost. Could you provide a photo of the transformer? 

Undervalued

Appreciative_poster said:

Thank you @powerful_Rogue
So if I'm not in a position to pay for an independent electrical check, is there nothing I can do? 
Is it not worth quoting the consumer rights act about goods lasting a reasonable time to them, or contacting an Ombudsman? 

Not really apart from naming and shaming on social media!

After six months the legal onus is on the buyer to show that the fault was inherent and the normal way of doing this is by having it looked at by a competent and independent person. The cost of that is down to you to pay in the first instance but if the report is in your favour the cost can be added to your claim.

The usual yardstick is that consumer electrical appliances should last six years, so as you have had one year's use the retailer could deduct one sixth of the purchase price from any refund.

If the electrical repair person can repair the item for less than that it may simply be easier to have that done.

I appreciate that the seasonal nature of this item makes it seem worse but obviously the shop have no means of knowing that it hasn't be on 24 / 7 for the last year.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

The usual yardstick is that consumer electrical appliances should last six years, so as you have had one year's use the retailer could deduct one sixth of the purchase price from any refund.

Only guidance, as it all is, but pretty credible and would mirror the OP to suggest the usual advice on deduction based on time owned isn't necessarily to be applied as the deduction is for use (perhaps it depends how many Christmases you would expect to get out of the tree), from page 53:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/files/CRA-Goods-Guidance-for-Business-Sep-2015.pdf

Example 32

A consumer buys a lawnmower at the end of summer in a sale and uses it only once

before the winter sets in at which point he puts it in his shed. The following spring,

the consumer returns to mowing his lawn but it is apparent there is a fault with the

motor. At this time the consumer has owned the lawnmower for 9 months but only

used it a handful of times.

If a repair is ineffective and the consumer rejects the lawnmower, the trader is

entitled to make a deduction for the consumer’s use. In this instance, although the

consumer had had the goods for a relatively significant length of time, it is clear from

the nature of the goods that his use was limited so the reduction to be applied must

also be limited.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

Isn't this a case of goods not being of satisfactory quailty (ie durability) rather than a "fault"?

The OP has paid > £400 for a Christmas tree with integral(?) lighting, and it's only worked for one christmas.

Whether or not it's faulty it's clearly not of satisfactory quality.  I don't suppose the White Co. advertise their trees along the lines of "Pay £400 but you'll be lucky to get a second Christmas out of it".

Shouldn't the OP be going back to the White Co and point out to them that the warranty/guarantee is irrelevant as the tree is obviously not of satisfactory quality under s9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that they are entitled to a repair or replacement under s23?

Yes indeed, no harm in OP going back to them and pointing out the claim is being made under the CRA so even without a warranty being in place the implied terms of the contract, which can't be contracted out, require the goods to be of satisfactory quality and a repair/replacement is required as entitled to see what their response is. 

As   @GDB2222 points out on the other thread 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6570258/retailer-refusing-refund-of-goods-bought-online-due-to-signs-of-wear#latest

a bluff of taking it further might force their hand in resolving.

GDB2222

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Okell said:

Isn't this a case of goods not being of satisfactory quailty (ie durability) rather than a "fault"?

The OP has paid > £400 for a Christmas tree with integral(?) lighting, and it's only worked for one christmas.

Whether or not it's faulty it's clearly not of satisfactory quality.  I don't suppose the White Co. advertise their trees along the lines of "Pay £400 but you'll be lucky to get a second Christmas out of it".

Shouldn't the OP be going back to the White Co and point out to them that the warranty/guarantee is irrelevant as the tree is obviously not of satisfactory quality under s9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that they are entitled to a repair or replacement under s23?

Yes indeed, no harm in OP going back to them and pointing out the claim is being made under the CRA so even without a warranty being in place the implied terms of the contract, which can't be contracted out, require the goods to be of satisfactory quality and a repair/replacement is required as entitled to see what their response is. 

As   @GDB2222 points out on the other thread 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6570258/retailer-refusing-refund-of-goods-bought-online-due-to-signs-of-wear#latest

a bluff of taking it further might force their hand in resolving.

However, the OP should make sure that she has a reasonable case, and that means finding a repair person to have a look at the tree. That’s an obvious choice, anyway, as the alternative is to buy a new tree, and the repair may be quite inexpensive. 

Really, regardless of the responsibility, the sensible solution is to try to repair the lighting on the tree. We seem to be an awfully throw away society these days. 

screech_78

Lights and bulbs are also usually classed as consumables and that will affect the durability of the tree as a whole since it’s pre-lit. 

My current Christmas tree cost £250 and I bought it in 2017, but it’s not pre-lit so this will be its 8th year and I expect to get many more years out of it. The same can’t be said for the lights I purchased for it in 2017. I’m sure I’m on my 3rd or 4th set now. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

screech_78 said:

The same can’t be said for the lights I purchased for it in 2017. I’m sure I’m on my 3rd or 4th set now. 

If you pay £20 or £30 for some lights maybe you can't expect much (sadly, LEDs should last well and, my understanding is, they fail early due to poor manufacturing) but the standard 7ft tree on White Stores is £179.99 with the LED tree at £319 so you would pay £140 for the lights and with satisfactory quality considering price I don't think they should fail after one Christmas. 

I do, as others said, wonder about storage but OP does make a point of where else do you store your artificial tree? 

If I paid £319 (or indeed full price at £449 as OP did) I'd be pretty annoyed with the current situation. 

OP if you are still reading, did you pay with a credit card by chance? 

screech_78

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

screech_78 said:

The same can’t be said for the lights I purchased for it in 2017. I’m sure I’m on my 3rd or 4th set now. 

If you pay £20 or £30 for some lights maybe you can't expect much (sadly, LEDs should last well and, my understanding is, they fail early due to poor manufacturing) but the standard 7ft tree on White Stores is £179.99 with the LED tree at £319 so you would pay £140 for the lights and with satisfactory quality considering price I don't think they should fail after one Christmas. 

I do, as others said, wonder about storage but OP does make a point of where else do you store your artificial tree? 

If I paid £319 (or indeed full price at £449 as OP did) I'd be pretty annoyed with the current situation. 

OP if you are still reading, did you pay with a credit card by chance? 

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. Think the lights I’ve bought have always been between £30-£40. I also store both my tree and lights in the loft. 

But I think the OP is going to have a hard time enforcing any rights and I also think it will be difficult to get anyone to come and write a report on a Christmas tree. 

I personally think pre-lit trees are a waste of money. A good quality tree should last for many years but the lights are always going to fail at some point. Reminds me of the TV/DVD combos you used to get. The DVD player would always give up the ghost fairly quickly. 

I also wouldn’t be happy if I was in the OP’s shoes but just not sure how easy it will be to get a resolution from the retailer.