Page 1 of Sale of goods act

I know there`s folks on here who`ve worked/still work in retail.

Can you give me any pointers on the up to 6 years you have for faulty items and what it might cover

Snaps

Every Third Car

I hate that effin rule lol

Anywhoo, it covers what would be regarded as a premature failure of the product within that which is regarded as a reasonable period (Scotland 5 years, think rest of UK is 6).
It is also up to the claimant to prove the said fault exists and at their expense, although I believe (if memory serves) you can claim this cost from the Retailer if found to be right.
Now this is where you can get really tricky about it... and could put you off doing it dependant on time used etc.:

You can have one of several outcomes: 
Not found to be premature failure, you wasted your time, money and effort but you get the peace of mind knowing you tried.

Found premature failure and retailer pays for repair to item.
Found premature failure and retailer pays to replace item.
And the killer one: Found to be premature failure but Retailer decides to pay for lost of time.

Now that last one breaks down like this, say you bought a £1200 item deemd to be prematurely faulty after 4 n a half years, or 54 months.
Retailer takes the initial cost of purchase (£1200) and breaks into a monthly equivalent (£1200/72 months = £16.667 PCM).. occasionally some will break down right into weekly!
They then take the time "enjoyed" using the product and work that into a figure (this case, £16.667 x 54 months = £900 give or take pennies)
At this point as they have decided to refund the difference you would get £300, not a £1200 telly as most Customers I dealt with believed, that`s where you have to weigh up the hassle involved and whether it`s worth chasing up.

To give a bit of perspective to it I believe the rule was brought in after a woman took Currys to book on a washing machine that was used something like 3 times a day and failed before the 6 years, the court body in question agreed it was premature (although I cant for the life of me understand why! lol) and set the precedent for all.

I have seen TV`s written off after 3 to 4 years due to backlight and plasma screen failures, on a few it was the power supply side,  and because the current value of similar units had dropped so much in the period they were "like for like" replaced.

Also saw two, one was a microwave and one was a vacuum both denied claims in the FIRST year due to misuse, the vacuum had never had a change of filter despite the customer claiming it had (miele could state it was the production one not an available spare that was in it... don`t know how!) and the microwave had clearly been used commercially again although the customer protested it hadn`t.

Some products run under totally different rule sets, cars for example.

Good luck, I hate this damn rule and trying to explain anything to do with it! (plus I`m getting old n memory is fading daily ;) )

Jimbo : oÞ

"There`s that word again... is there a problem with the Earth`s gravitational pull in the future?"

It will also depend on what the item is. You would not expect a 59p toothbrush to last 6 years. Your claim has to be reasonable. A small problem is that there is no definition in law as to what is reasonable. If I remember rightly`



"Talking`s for lesbians" Psycho Paul 2011.

Thanks for the answers guys.
It`s a 42 inch Toshiba LCD which has had a knackered screen for ages. I think I posted a query about it on here way back.
It`s about 5 years old so I`m not going to pay for an independant report but armed with this bit more knowledge, along with the fact that it was actually the Toshiba person that mentioned this act, I`ll give Currys cage a rattle later today.
We`ve bought a number of items from them down the years so who knows I might get lucky.
I`ll let you know.

Snaps

Every Third Car

Good luck.



"Talking`s for lesbians" Psycho Paul 2011.

Quote:
Snaps says...
I`ll give Currys cage a rattle later today.lol.  You`d struggle if it was 5 weeks old there.  5 years... mua hahahahahaaaa.
I know jim worked there (and therefore hates consumer law and rights.. ;) ) but I`ve never, ever known such a despicable company that treats and completely disregards consumer rights with such disdain.
They try every trick in the book to get out of their legal duty.  They don`t do `moral` duty.

Ste

Quote:
sj says...
They try every trick in the book to get out of their legal duty. They don`t do `moral` duty.Back in nineteen hundred and frozen to death I started work in Dixons when they were just camera stores.
So nice to see their work ethic still runs through the company.

EDIT: As Jimbo said. They`ll send it away, charge me 50 quid for the inspection and then just offer vouchers having carried out the calculation as mentioned. Basically, not worth the grief.
So looks like watching the watermark for the forseeable future as can`t afford a new telly.

Snaps

Every Third Car

This item was edited on Thursday, 4th October 2012, 13:18

Well, after 11+ years with them I can honestly say I`ve seen both sides of the coin.
Yes, there are stores which did nothing to help anyone and stores which broke rules but you`ll get that in any company, DSG got rattled constantly (as did Comet) due to being the biggest in the field.

There were also stores who did things by the book (and yes, mine included) where if something was amiss and our fault we`d do what we could to fix it, but if you came in one day and bought something using the ever-increasing derisory comments to a staff member attempting to help, made your own choice and walked out with it only to return next day demanding refunds due to not doing what you wanted then yeah, I would dig in the heels and say tough. if a staff member had advised that it would have during the sale then I`d refund or exchange with no hassle but you have to actually work in the field to see the grief and crap spouted (as I`m sure the Doc could also testify to)

The reason I hate the 6 year rule (not the SOG act etc) is it`s ambiguity (sp?) 
It doesn`t have a hard and fast definition and carries the word "reasonable(ly)" too precariously.

Snaps has just shown part of my pet hate with it in that yeah, they`ll check it at your expense (btw, they should have refunded that £50 too if the fault is confirmed) and after confirmation agree to settle but not for what 99% of customers expect to get. Most expect that they will get a full refund or replacement of the purchase price and it`s the ensuing debate that always irked me.

Customers who could easily understand (again, as Snaps did here) that the obligation on proof of fault is to give the remaining time only and anything else is a bonus were easy to deal with (and tbh, usually ended up with anything we could give them off it too just to try and compensate/keep the customer), but those who "Knew their rights!! I expect a new one" were the type you generally got being told by the book and no extras, who then ran off to Watchdog and papers etc.

Anywhoo, I`ve got a bigger gripe coming in a thread I`m about to start!

BTW Snaps..watermark? Is it a screen burn type issue and did I previously suggest the white looped Jpeg to try and fix?

Jimbo : oÞ

"There`s that word again... is there a problem with the Earth`s gravitational pull in the future?"

Quote:
Jimbo :oÞ says...
BTW Snaps..watermark? Is it a screen burn type issue and did I previously suggest the white looped Jpeg to try and fix?I think you may have but I`m not sure both issues are the same. The menus leaving a ghost image is obviously a screen burn issue but the moveable watermark may be different. If it was always in the same place then maybe but it shifts.
You`d almost think it was a drink spill down the screen but the top of the TV`s not wide enough for anyone to have even tried that.
If I get the time I may try the looped Jpeg as a last resort.
Just a pure white screen left on overnight isn`t it?

Snaps

Every Third Car

From above. I can testify.



"Talking`s for lesbians" Psycho Paul 2011.