Amazon: Faulty Twinkly Lights, Consumer Rights Act 2015

dodgy

Hi,

I have some Twinkly Christmas Lights (actually six sets of them), and I noticed on unpacking this year that my most recent set was faulty. I purchased this from Amazon for £168.00 on Fri 25 Nov 2022 using a credit card (Amex).

The lights were used for two seasons (2022 and 2024 - I didn't use them in 2023), and when I got them out this year I found they were completely dead. I did some fault-finding with Twinkly support who confirmed the following:

"After conducting a thorough analysis, we have determined that your lights have a hardware defect that cannot be resolved remotely. While we understand that your product is no longer under warranty, and therefore we are unable to offer you a replacement set of lights, we would like to extend our assistance to help resolve the situation.
As a gesture of goodwill, we would like to offer you a 25% discount on the full price on the purchase of a new Twinkly set of lights of your choice from those currently in stock"

Reading through this site and the Which wizard, I contacted Amazon and made the case that I considered these to be not of satisfactory quality for the price/brand, and would like them repaired. 

My case was escalated to the 'Executive Customer Relations' team who gave a generic reply asking me to prove they were faulty within the first six months of ownership.

I then made my point more specifically:

My concerns with this item relate to it being of 'satisfactory quality, specifically to the products durability. These lights have been used for two seasons (2022 and 2024) for around 20 days each year. That means as of now they have 40 days of operation and have a hardware failure. I don't believe that a reasonable person would consider this to be satisfactory.

I understand that durability takes into account many different factors such as product type, brand reputation and price point - and I would argue that these are a premium product from a premium brand, thus the expectation would be that the product would have not failed after limited use such as I've described and are therefore not of satisfactory quality.
I would again request that, in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, you accept these products for repair. 

Today I received a reply back which 'acknowledged the points I raised relating to durability' and they then just repeated their original mail, requesting the following:

• Evidence from the manufacturer, that the item you purchased has been recalled or otherwise found to be defective. This could, for example, be in the form of a press release, or a statement on the manufacturer’s website or social media channels.

• An engineer’s report, such as from the manufacturer or a repairer, which confirms that the defect was present within the 6 months starting on the date of delivery, even if it was not visible at that time.

• A dated photograph or other record showing that the defect or non-compliance was present within the 6 months starting on the date of delivery.

• A previous complaint about the same defect or non-compliance in the same product made by you to us or to the manufacturer.

As the product hasn't been recalled, I can't prove the defect was present before six months as they worked then, and didn't raise any issues within that window, I don't really know where to go from here.

I strongly feel they shouldn't have failed with such limited use, but Amazon don't seem particularly willing to help.

Is there something else I can try/say to help progress this, or have I learned an expensive mistake about their product quality.

While the 25% gesture from Twinkly is something, it only brings the Twinkly Store prices down to standard Amazon ones, so doesn't really help much.

Thanks for any advice!

molerat

Amazon are correct.  It is down to you to provide proof that a defect existed at the time of manufacture.  You need to get an independent report to state that, not simply that they are broken, and the cost of that report should be reimbursed by Amazon along with refund.

Aylesbury_Duck

Amazon are dealing with you correctly and in accordance with your consumer rights.  You need to get them inspected by an "expert" (a registered electrical/electronics person will do) and have that expert confirm the probability that they were always likely to fail prematurely.

SiliconChip

I'm not sure you should spend any money on a report because I very much doubt if it will show a pre-existing defect given that the lights worked in 2022 and 2024, in which case Amazon won't need to refund either the cost of the lights or the cost of the report so you'll be even more out of pocket than you are now. If you wish to argue that they're not of satisfactory quality I think you'll need to take Amazon to court and take your chance that the court will find in your favour. Bear in mind that anecdotally Amazon are believed to close the account of anyone taking legal action against them.

Isthisforreal99

Was the product actually sold by Amazon or a 3rd party seller?

retiredbanker1

£168 for six packets of lights - so £28 each packet?  Under £100 so why are you claiming under S75?

sheramber

retiredbanker1 said:

£168 for six packets of lights - so £28 each packet?  Under £100 so why are you claiming under S75?

Where does OP mention S75?

ThumbRemote

retiredbanker1 said:

£168 for six packets of lights - so £28 each packet?  Under £100 so why are you claiming under S75?

No.

dodgy said:

I have some Twinkly Christmas Lights (actually six sets of them), and I noticed on unpacking this year that my most recent set was faulty. I purchased this from Amazon for £168.00 on Fri 25 Nov 2022 using a credit card (Amex).

They own six sets. 
The most recent set is faulty. 
This set was purchased for £168. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

molerat said:

Amazon are correct.  It is down to you to provide proof that a defect existed at the time of manufacture.  

Time of delivery

You don’t need an engineer OP, just an independent inspection by someone credible.

Appliance repair person might be willing to check the lights and says they aren’t durable. 

It’s not CSI, Amazon won’t go to court over some Christmas lights so you just need something. 

Amazon should pay for the inspection if it confirms an issue. 

Basically goods need to be durable so if the components aren’t of sufficient quality to last long enough this counts as the goods being “faulty” at the time of delivery. 

Grumpy_chap

IMO, Christmas lights only really tend to have a short life expectancy.  The more "fancy" features the lights have, the more to go wrong.  The lights are used for a bit then packed up and often stored in sub-optimal conditions where damage can occur easily (crimped cable / crushed box / cold / damp / etc.) then removed after a long period and given another go.

Amazon seem to have followed the requirements to honour consumer rights. 
The value of the lights probably does not warrant an independent report and nor is it obvious such a report would show a fault present at point of purchase.
If the lights were found to be faulty at the point of purchase, the OP has still had 3 or 4 years' use from the lights so would be subject to a deduction reflecting the beneficial use obtained.  The 25% discount seems reasonable.  Either take this offer or let it go but, ether way, move on.

A_Geordie

Just as a reminder to everyone here, the statutory rights are not the only rights/remedies a consumer is entitled to pursue. 

Section 19 says:

(9)This Chapter does not prevent the consumer seeking other remedies—
(a)for a breach of a term that this Chapter requires to be treated as included in the contract,
(b)on the grounds that, under section 15 or 16, goods do not conform to the contract, or
(c)for a breach of a requirement stated in the contract.

(10)Those other remedies may be ones—
(a)in addition to a remedy referred to in subsections (3) to (6) (but not so as to recover twice for the same loss), or
(b)instead of such a remedy, or
(c)where no such remedy is provided for.

(11)Those other remedies include any of the following that is open to the consumer in the circumstances—
(a)claiming damages;
(b)seeking specific performance;
(c)seeking an order for specific implement;
(d)relying on the breach against a claim by the trader for the price;
(e)for breach of an express term, exercising a right to treat the contract as at an end.

OP could simply seek a damages claim for breach of contract as to an implied term of durability based on the brand, quality, price and expectation that the goods will last a reasonable period of time. However, @Grumpy_Chap does make a valid point that the OP would need to address if challenged around storage conditions. Deduction for use would need to be accounted for.

Having successfully sued Amazon recently (and my account has not been closed down), do expect them to go hard and defend the claim. Strongly suggest any rejection of their settlement agreement, particularly as one of the terms of their settlement agreement states you agree not to sue Amazon ever again...