- This topic has 44 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: How should i deal with this?
Glad you posted SG, it reminded me about this!
You are correct, it depends on the intended lifespan. I can, with evidence, show that a washing machine’s average lifespan is seven years and, falling year on year. This is due to poorer quality offering consumers lower prices.
If the customer chooses to buy cheap then the expectation on lifespan is reduced. If the product costs too much to repair in relation to the cost of a replacement then that’s just tough really.
If a Miele’s bearings fail after three years there’s no comback really, it’s a failure, a breakdown. It is not covered by the SoGA or the 6 year rule and, if it costs 50{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of the purchase price to repair well, that’s still legal.
I’m not saying that this is morally right, I’m merely pointing out how the legal system works and deals with it.
IME Andy people rarely tell you the truth even if you ask them about the anticipated use and, even if they do, they will often not want to spend on the recommended “ideal” product for the duty. So, they compromise. Then, when it all goes South it’s everyone’s fault bar theirs.
I know you are leaning in the direction of the consumer here but, really, they often only have themselves to blame for the position they end up in.
Washing machines are built and tested on one of two benchmarks, number of cycles till it fails or, number of hours till it fails. The problem is that those numbers are deliberately not made to be public (or trade) knowledge so, in so far as a consumer is concerned, it’s a lottery. But, what they see is a bunch of white (silver, black, whatever) boxes all with an AAA, A+AA, AAB, A+AB rating and they THINK and ASSUME that they are all the same, perform the same and will last the same, the only differences are price, style, features and brand. They don’t know any different. And, they don’t bother their backside to find out all that often either.
But while consumers and retailers demand cheaper machines to hit price points then there’s got to be a compromise on engineering and quality, it’s an absolute certainty and entirely logical that this would happen. All want the cheapest, all want to be the biggest, all need volume to feed production and, here we are.
Customer happy at cheap machine.
Customer hacked off when it doesn’t do or last as long as they assumed it would.
They won’t go to court over it as a/ they would lose and, b/ it costs too much.
Many threaten court but, after they calm down they suss that it’s not worth the aggravation and, are often advised that they’d lose anyway.
In response to rejections, define “reasonable”.
Is it a week, a day, a month, a year? How much use? Is it used as intended? Was it installed correctly? Was it cared for? Is it being used in a manner not intended?
There’s a myriad of rabbit holes to go down there and, most often, consumers won’t like the answers.
Which gets me, sort of to the point, the SoGA is in place as much to protect retailers from unscrupulous consumers as it is to protect consumers from unscrupulous retailers.. It’s a double edged sword, not a one way street.
A cheap washer is designed for, roughly, 600-1500 cycles. The average UK wash pattern says about 250 washes per annum, the math isn’t hard and the conclusion obvious. Cheap washers won’t last other than in a low use situation. Put it into a family and it’ll be spanked to death in a few years at best.
But, that’s the price of cheap product and, that’s the reality whether we, customers or whoever like it or not.
The SoGA offers no guarantee of durability if you read it, not a shred, nadda, nothing. It’s all about what’s “reasonable” and that hinges on the evidence in each case, if it ever gets in front of a judge.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
There’s wishful thinking in some of these interpretations. There’s plenty of people successfully sued for compensation for drum bearings failing under 5 years and other failures. A guy recently posted he got a brand new HP laptop after his failed after 3 years and 3 months.
It doesn’t matter how long a product is designed for, what counts is if it lasted a reasonable time or not. If a claim’s made at 3 years how can it be a good excuse for the manufacturer to say ah well we only designed it to last for 2 years? They can design them to last as little or as long as they like but if they go BER in an “unreasonable time” you can still take them to small claims court because they haven’t lasted a reasonable time.
Since when did it become reasonable for washing machines to be complete scrap after 2 – 5 years?
If you could go back in time K and tell yourself that you would be arguing it’s perfectly reasonable for a washing machine to be complete scrap after 2 or 3 years I doubt you’d believe yourself. That acceptance goes against everything you once stood for. 🙂
Re: How should i deal with this?
Not really Andy.
The “average” lifespan of a washer is seven years according to GfK figures. And, that average has been in a decreasing trend over the past decade or so. If you ask many manufacturers will tell you that their machines are designed to last about five years, I think Electrolux were doing this not so long ago.
With that in mind it’s very easy to say that within that average those doing light duties will last longer, those washing for a family or large family will not last as long.
If the average is that then you would expect higher price point and often but not always, machines to last to or exceed that seven year mark.
You cannot reasonably expect a cheap machine in even a moderately high use situation to last the average.
So, it depends on the use.
It also depends on the judge and how well the case is defended.
I hear what you’re saying but I think you’re falling into the same trap that many consumers do in assuming that a product has to last a set period when that simply isn’t the case. There are a number of variables that can affect it and these have to be taken into account.
What I argue for and, have done for a long time, is that customers should make a more informed buying decision from the outset. If they did that instead of buying cheap junk then a lot of this sort of debate would not exist.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
kwatt wrote:customers should make a more informed buying decision from the outset. If they did that instead of buying cheap junk then a lot of this sort of debate would not exist.
K.
Trouble is, 90{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of appliances on sale out there are built to a ‘just good enough’ standard from an engineering point of view.. does spending £500 on a ‘Hotpoint’ make any more sense than spending £250 on one for example ❓ Probably not.
I can understand why people get confused & disillusioned, and just end up buying a throw away 🙁
Re: How should i deal with this?
Hi K,
I don’t think the average lifespan figures are relevant other than to show how poor most of them are these days, which strengthens not weakens my case. How long they are lasting and how long they are supposedly designed to last has nothing to do with whether they are lasting a reasonable time.
If you go on those figures you can start saying that as they are only lasting on average 7 years if one gets to 3.5 years it’s lasted half what it was expected to last. When the average figure gets down to only 5 years you can say if one lasted 6 years it’s been fantastic but 6 years is still crap. Also, you’d be able to say when one only lasts 4 years it’s done OK because it’s lasted 80{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of the average.
I contend that what is judged to be reasonable, by consumers and small claims courts, and consumer groups has, and should never have, anything to do with how long they are designed to last or how long the inadequately built products last on average.
Manufacturers shouldn’t be able to dictate what is reasonable. They shouldn’t be able to design something for an inadequate period of life in order to sell cheap to the masses and then claim it’s reasonable that they only last 2 or 3 years. We decide what’s reasonable as do consumer groups and the small claims court.
I know there’s variance on expectations, which I acknowledged in my first post but even if washing for 4 kids a woman has the right to expect that her brand new washing machine should be able to manage that task for more than 3 years even if it was cheap. If products are in the marketplace designed to do a specific job and they are cheap they should still last a reasonable time.
If people refused to accept washing machines can need scrapping so young retailers would have so many claims they would stop selling rubbish washing machines. Washing machines would have to increase in quality or they wouldn’t have a market.
I don’t think a product has to last a specific time, just a reasonable time, I just think 5 years minimum life for a large domestic appliance is not asking for much. Not 5 years trouble free, just 5 years without becoming BER. If they can’t make them last that long they have no business littering our planet with them.
Re: How should i deal with this?
That’s the thing though, it is so confusing from a customer’s perspective who doesn’t have the knowledge we have. But is that anyone’s fault bar the people that buy them without wanting to know much of anything beyond the price?
I don’t think that these cheap machines that last hardly any time are morally right (as I said above Andy ;)) I just see the reality of the situation or, at least I try to, from the different angles.
If the customer chooses to spend money on a quality product then yes, they have every right to expect a reasonable lifespan from it and that it should last a reasonable time. Like the example of an HP laptop, it’s a supposed “quality” brand that probably cost more than the “no-brand” competition by some margin and it would be “reasonable” to expect it to last a bit longer. But it is very well documented that a laptop should last “about” five years and you can get MTF figures for drives, boards and so on.
But, if a customer chooses to buy cheap then they cannot “reasonably” expect to get the same quality, performance or lifespan from what is, in essence, an inferior product.
As an example, to use your laptop story a little. Although this is taken to extremes, you should get the point…
If the dude had dragged it through the Amazonian jungle then HP could, quite rightly tell the guy to bog off as it wasn’t built to withstand that. If it was loaded with malware or kicked about, scuffed or whatever then agains they could deny any liability and, quite rightly.
The argument would be that a “normal” laptop was not designed to withstand that sort of treatment or environment. The guy should have bought a Panasonic ToughBook, three to four times the price, but will cope with a lot of abuse.
It depends on the conditions of the case in question and a lot of other variables as I said, the point I’ve been making is that there simply is not a “one size fits all” rule in terms of lifespan and, there can never be one.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
I actually agree with a lot of what you’re saying Andy but I don’t think that consumers taking retailers to court is the answer. In fact, if anything, it’s probably counter productive.
A certain person once told me that many manufacturers trade on a fine line between what’ legal and what they can get away with, often more in the latter camp than the former.
But it’s large chain retailers and consumers that demand lower and lower prices, not the manufacturers. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to put all the blame on them and them alone.
Manufactures don’t determine what’s reasonable. Consumers do, they vote with their wallets.
They just have to live with the consequences of their choice.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
That was the quickest response ever K, I only just posted my last reply and you replied a minute later but obviously you were writing it at the same time – we are on fire with this one 😉
I think you are making the mistake of letting your inside knowledge of the industry interfere with your objective thoughts. You are fully aware that cheap washing machines are built apparently with a specific lifespan in mind and therefore it’s not surprising to you that many of them suffer terminal failures especially under family use. But as I said in my last post I don’t think how long they are designed for is relevant from a consumer point of view.
At one time you were dead against any of these cheap washing machines and have like myself spent many years writing critical articles lambasting them and saying how they damage the environment etc. You’ve even built your ISE campaign around the condemnation of most modern washing machines becoming BER so young.
It’s obvious if a customer buys cheap they shouldn’t last anywhere near as long as if they buy at the top end. What I’m arguing is that cheap should still give reasonable service and last a reasonable time otherwise it’s totally unsustainable. other wise they are selling products not fit for purpose.
Your point about the laptop being mistreated is also a given. Few would argue with that but it’s not relevant to the argument to say ah but he wouldn’t be entitled to a replacement if he’d seriously mistreated it because it’s a given. If you try to say a woman with 3 or even 4 kids has mistreated her cheap washing machine because she used it to wash all their clothes that’s crazy to me because the entire point of a washing machine is to wash all the families clothes. If it can’t do it for more than 2 or 3 years it’s clearly not fit for the purpose it was sold.
Re: How should i deal with this?
kwatt wrote:I actually agree with a lot of what you’re saying Andy but I don’t think that consumers taking retailers to court is the answer. In fact, if anything, it’s probably counter productive.
A better answer would be for consumers to stop being so stupid and stop buying rubbish. We’ve both been championing that idea for 10 years or more.
But it’s large chain retailers and consumers that demand lower and lower prices, not the manufacturers. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to put all the blame on them and them alone.
Manufactures don’t determine what’s reasonable. Consumers do, they vote with their wallets.
I blame consumers equally, always have. I’m just batting in this particular way because this is the subject of the topic we are on. I might start a new topic entitled “Customers are naive and stupid and shouldn’t buy rubbish”. Many consumers can only afford cheapo rubbish though, it’s always been the case that poorer people buy budget washing machines. What’s the worst thing you could do to a poor person? Sell them a cheap washing machine that can’t be repaired and make them buy a new one every several years – or make them so scared of them being scrapped they pay out for expensive insurance which they can’t afford.
It would be kinder to make them pay £100 more and have a decent machine if lacking in features that at least would wash for them for a reasonable time and when it inevitably goes wrong let them be able to have it repaired at a reasonable price – not tell them it’s BER.
Someone should bring such a machine out 😉
Re: How should i deal with this?
😉
Ah but…
It still all comes back to this simple sentence:
“But as I said in my last post I don’t think how long they are designed for is relevant from a consumer point of view”
But, it is, totally.
What consumers assume to be the case and what actually is the case often differ.
By your argument then it would be reasonable to expect that a £30 vac from Tesco should last the same length of time or, going on for the same amount of time, as a Miele or a Sebo? Would you consider that to be a reasonable argument to make?
Same thing only different.
Is the £30 vac fit for the same purpose as a £200 Sebo?
Fit for purpose is oh so often misunderstood and abused. What it means quite simply is that the product does what it says it does. It does not in any way, shape or form, state that it should last, keep doing it or anything else. It simply means that the product does as it says and to the standard advertised for a “reasonable” and, very importantly, unspecified time.
I’m only pointing out how consumer law works here, not casting judgement either way.
And, then I pick up the last post on preview. 🙂
Yes, exactly. And exactly what I think to be true but it is sadly the reality as consumers just do not (or do not want to) understand that quality products cost money. You can’t get a Rolls Royce for Mini money basically and they can get right shirty when you tell them that.
It is true that many people can’t afford decent appliances but, they used to go to the laundrette. 😉
The cheap washing machine has put paid to many a laundrette. So that option is often either not open to people or, difficult.
Vicious circle with a Catch 22 for good measure.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
kwatt wrote:😉
By your argument then it would be reasonable to expect that a £30 vac from Tesco should last the same length of time or, going on for the same amount of time, as a Miele or a Sebo? Would you consider that to be a reasonable argument to make?
Same thing only different.
Is the £30 vac fit for the same purpose as a £200 Sebo?
Slow down K, you aren’t absorbing me points properly 🙂
What I said was –
“It’s obvious if a customer buys cheap they shouldn’t last anywhere near as long as if they buy at the top end.”
How do you get that I think a £30 vac should last as long as a Sebo from that?
I also added. “What I’m arguing is that cheap should still give reasonable service and last a reasonable time otherwise it’s totally unsustainable. other wise they are selling products not fit for purpose. “
So in your example it would be reasonable to expect the £30 vacuum to be noisy, not substantially built and need looking after carefully and not as efficient as a Sebo, nor have many features. It should still be capable of hoovering to a decent standard though and it should still last a reasonable time. When we get down to figures as low as £30 the game changes drastically. 2 or 3 years would be reasonable, some might even say just 1 year wouldn’t be bad at that price. When it comes to a big washing machine, that needs delivering and the old one disposing off, and spending £200 – £500 it’s a bit different from a £30 product.
Re: How should i deal with this?
I’m trying, I copied and pasted. 😉
I’m not saying that you would expect a £30 vac to last as long as a Sebo but, some customers do! Mostly because they’re often not quite right in the head, but that’s another area… 😆
But, if the legislation change goes through that’s been mooted then the difference between a £30 vac and any product under £250 is moot.
What the EU (I think) have proposed is that any product under £250 the manufacturer or retailer will not, by law, be obliged to hold any spares for. At all!
That makes anything under £250 disposable, by law.
Now I don’t know about you but I find that awfully hard to square with existing consumer law and even harder to reconcile with a customer’s point of view.
So far as I am aware, now, anything under £125 is like that. Basically it’s regarded as disposable so the closer you get to that figure, the closer it is to being disposable.
Bad, innit?
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
Price does not equal quality.
There are many appliances badged and sold as high end that are nowhere near high end, one that springs to mind is the basic Crosslee T/D, sold as Whiteknight for £110 at the time I recall this, BSH badged the same T/D as Bosch and sold it for £240.
They also sold that lovely odd looking upright vac as a Siemens, sold for around £300, made though by Vax, they sold the same vac, but completely different body to look at for £150, that was the one that kept blowing an internal TOC which prevented the brush roll motor from operating, you could not access the TOC to replace the part, so UG had to be replaced with a new vac or out of warranty you need to buy one, plenty failed after several months and out of warranty, one of the directors didn’t mind openly stating around the depts when the reality of moaning clients increased complaints “Who cares were are selling sh88 loads”.
Many top end machines can be found lower down the price range under different badges, price is no reflection of quality.
Re: How should i deal with this?
We have many examples of where prices have fallen dramatically such as in brown goods, computers and even cars but quality remains high. So as white goods prices have fallen you can forgive customers for not necessarily expecting quality should fall so drastically. Cars have never been so reliable and virtually never rust these days but they are cheaper than ever. Prices can fall considerably for many reasons but lower quality is only one of them.
If manufacturers and retailers together drive down prices out of competition by using various economies of scale and production techniques it shouldn’t automatically follow that customers should expect they should become less and less reliable as they get cheaper. They shouldn’t expect a Miele for an Indesit price but they should still expect a reasonable life. If taken to its logical conclusion in 10 years time they’ll be making washing machines with sealed lids and back, no serviceable parts inside and for £100 and you’ll be lucky to get 18 months from one.
Cheapness shouldn’t be an excuse for a product being so poor it doesn’t last a reasonable time. If making them that cheap means they often get scrapped just out of guarantee they’ve gone too far over the line and should accept products just aren’t viable below a certain price. The Sale of goods act is supposed to guard against rubbish products by making retailers responsible for some years after purchase but it doesn’t work because it’s too much hassle to enforce those rights in the face of big retailer stonewalling.
Imagine if you bought a fire extinguisher and it didn’t work properly after 2 years when your kitchen caught fire and the retailer said you only paid £10 for it what do you expect? Or a smoke alarm from Poundland that failed and people were killed in bed – but it was only a quid so they should have expected it to be crap. At the end of the day manufacturers have a duty to create products fit for purpose and to last a reasonable time, and selling them very cheaply is no excuse for creating junk.
The spares issue sounds bad, but all that will happen is that retailers will have to replace products instead of repairing them when they fail prematurely if there are no spares.
Re: How should i deal with this?
I know Lee, we all do and that is, naughty, will we say.
I was wondering when the consumer electronic and cars would get rolled out. 😉
A mini in the 1960’s cost £400.
A Mini today costs over £13,000
A washing machine in the 1960’s cost £3-400.
A washing machine today costs £2-1200. The bulk under £500.
Go figure what’s gone up in price. What you;ll also find is that people have more income these days as well so, relationally a washing machine costs peanuts these days if you run the comparison. 😉
Televisions and consumer electronics are an unfair comparison as…
a/ They are primarily electronic with little or no moving parts
b/ They are subject to mammoth investment
c/ Are much younger (electronics especially) than mechanical devices such as appliances
d/ Have been refined massively over the past two decades or so as markets opened and expanded on an unprecedented scale
e/ They are “desirable” items, people don’t generally buy them as they MUST have them (although some do ;)) but because they WANT to have them
f/ The replacement cycle, outside TVs, is generally shorter than for LDAs
g/ Manufacturing is easier as you can just slam parts together
h/ There is very little reliance on steel for shells, plastics are the order of the day
i/ Shipping costs are MUCH lower due to size and weight differences
Need I go on?
Whilst there are comparisons that can be drawn, there are actually more differences than similarities between the two.
Appliance manufacturing reached its zenith many years ago, the IT and consumer electronics markets are still a work in progress. All the appliance manufacturers can do is move the production here and there to save money on labour, rates and so on. Beyond that, they can only really cut the quality to drop the price.
So we end up where we are today with appliances. Cost engineering. Built to a price, not a standard. Now you can argue all day long about consumer rights and they “should last this” or “should last that” but it really is irrelevant as most mass market appliances are, well, crap really or very close to it.
Until consumers wise up and demand decent quality machines and continue to think that they can get good on the cheap, it’s unlikely to change.
Cars have risen in price but you “get more for your money” or, at least, that’s the perception. Or is that more people can actually afford a car with today’s higher salaries? Or, perhaps what you got way back when was as cutting edge as could be in a “normal car” and, today you also get just that and it’s really not any cheaper.
K.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.