- 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?
kwatt wrote:
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.Cars are far more affordable to ordinary people than they ever were in the 60s and the cheapest cars are far more reliable than the cheapest cars were in the past and don’t need scrapping because they rust to bits. If you buy one of the cheapest cars no one says you shouldn’t complain if it is scrap after 18 months or 3 or 4 years.
£13000 was equivalent to £759.79 in 1960 and the mini in those days was extremely basic. The Mini is a premium niche product these days and overpriced, if they souped it up to current levels in the 60s I reckon it would have cost more like £759 which is roughly what it costs now ( source http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/historic-i … calculator )
Televisions and consumer electronics are an unfair comparison as…
All irrelevant K. I was merely trying to show that price reductions don’t automatically mean less reliable to consumers. Brown goods are subject to the same issues with them being unrepairable and BER too soon so the same issues re the sale of goods act also apply.
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.
Sale of gods act says they should last a reasonable time. It’s quite simple really. The fact they are deliberately made crap is a lame excuse for denying consumers their rights.
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.
Until then, they should be able to claim compensation when the product they bought needed scrapping after only 3 years or so. They can be forgiven for naively thinking if a washing machine was so crap it wouldn’t last very long out of it’s 12 month guarantee and couldn’t cope with a large family wash then then they wouldn’t be in the shops in the first place.
Re: How should i deal with this?
Forget cars today I hear that Shellfish haven’t increased in price since the 1950’s and to balance the increase cost’s they simply fish for more and sell further a field, such as our sea’s are full of high quality Spider crabs, we catch them and sell to EU countries at prices well below other EU suppliers.
The info you can gain on budget day just surpresses anything you get in school. 😆
Re: How should i deal with this?
andy_art_trigg wrote:Until then, they should be able to claim compensation when the product they bought needed scrapping after only 3 years or so. They can be forgiven for naively thinking if a washing machine was so crap it wouldn’t last very long out of it’s 12 month guarantee and couldn’t cope with a large family wash then then they wouldn’t be in the shops in the first place.
But you’re only placing your values on the premise of what you consider to be “reasonable”. Not that which the facts dictate.
You are also trying to make the “consumer rights” something which that are not in your argument. For the six year rule to come into effect the goods MUST have been faulty since new, it cannot be a fault or failure that develops through wear and tear. The SoGA nor any other legislation covers that.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
But you’re only placing your values on the premise of what you consider to be “reasonable”. Not that which the facts dictate.
You are also trying to make the “consumer rights” something which that are not in your argument. For the six year rule to come into effect the goods MUST have been faulty since new, it cannot be a fault or failure that develops through wear and tear. The SoGA nor any other legislation covers that.
K.
I’m not imposing my opinion on what is reasonable, it’s the SOGA that says they should last a reasonable time, and as I’ve quoted several times they say that by reasonable they mean what most people would define as reasonable – not the seller or the manufacturer.
As a retailer/manufacturer you are saying you know some of these machines are crap so it’s reasonable that they should need throwing away after 3 years sometimes, but consumers and small claims court judges think if they’ve bought a brand new washing machine it’s not reasonable that they have to scrap it after 3 years.
They say if a product fails within 6 months it will be treated as having an inherent fault but after 6 months the seller has a right to see if any misuse or excessive wear like using one in a pub for example has caused the problem.
If the washing machine is used normally for a normal family who don’t abuse it and it goes BER after 3 years there’s no way that’s fair wear and tear IMO. Your only excuse for this is that you know they are shoddily built and they are relatively cheap so that’s what consumers should expect. My argument is based entirely on BER issues. It’s one thing if drum bearings fail after 4 years heavy use on a cheap machine but it shouldn’t render it scrap.
We need to oppose this throwaway washing machine culture, which is damaging the environment, putting repair people out of work and costing consumers a fortune as well as a lot of stress and hassle. The only ones profiting from it are retailers manufacturers and insurance companies and arguably even they aren’t profiting that much. You used to oppose it vehemently yourself K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
I’ll try and make this my last post or at least the last argumentative one 😉 as we are just repeating ourselves a bit too much 🙂
I used to think if customers are stupid enough to buy cheap they get what they deserve myself and to an extent I say as much over and over on Washerhelp. But now I also think crap products shouldn’t be made in the first place. The inherent fault issue is still relevant if drum bearings fail at 3 or 4 years. If the seal leaks and lets water into them it was an inherently bad design. If a pcb board – arguably the most reliable parts in washing machines fail at 3 or 4 years they simply shouldn’t, and if proper components were used they wouldn’t. Therefore they had an inherent fault because they were made using unreliable components.
I think it boils down to two sides of an argument, one that says products should all be made reasonably well, even cheap ones, and last a reasonable time, verses one that says anything goes as long as the finished product is cheap enough and that products should be as crap and unrepairable as manufacturer’s dare to make them – let the buyer beware. However, if that’s what the government believed they wouldn’t create a sale of goods act – there’d be no need, all they’d need to do is repeat the mantra let the buyer beware. 🙂
Re: How should i deal with this?
It’s fine Andy but, you’re discovering how frustrated I got when I found out about all this.
The fact is that they are not designed to last as long as people think, end of chat.
They can be repaired, the fact is that the repairs (parts?) are so expensive as to render them effectively scrap as it’s not economical, not that it cannot be done. If people aren’t prepared to pay for those failures that’s got nothing to do with the SoGA or any other legislation as things currently stand.
Therefore, it’s within the legislation. Whether you, I or consumers like it is totally irrelevant really.
And so, retailers and manufacturers get away with it, totally legally.
The only answer is for customers to have more information. How that is achieved is open to debate.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
It’s so hard to stop a discussion like this innit? I’m not trying to get last word honest.
kwatt wrote:The fact is that they are not designed to last as long as people think, end of chat.
Not so much end of chat, but beginning of small claims court. 😉 That’s the whole point K, people expect they should be made to a certain standard, so does government. When they aren’t, the sale of goods act lets consumers pursue compensation. Manufacturers can’t dictate how long our products should last. They create products and compete with each other for our business. Crap ones are supposed to fall to the wayside as customers ultimately favour better ones. What happens when almost all manufacturer’s are producing the same quality and all not lasting as long as they reasonably should? Consumers have nowhere to go but up hundreds of pounds (most can’t afford) to high quality niche versions, or try to seek redress through SOGA.
They can be repaired, the fact is that the repairs (parts?) are so expensive as to render them effectively scrap as it’s not economical, not that it cannot be done. If people aren’t prepared to pay for those failures that’s got nothing to do with the SoGA or any other legislation as things currently stand.
That’s just a verbose way of saying “they can’t be repaired”. Being repairable is an integral part of lasting a reasonable time for a washing machine.
Re: How should i deal with this?
Please point out just where in the SoGA it states that any product should NOT suffer from a defect or fault within six years.
Or, for that matter, any other legislation.
So far as a lawyer would be concerned, the fact that the product suffers from a failure and needs a repair is coincidental and not a reason for a replacement or a statement on the quality of the goods. The fact that the failure is “catastrophic” is just bad luck they will argue and that there are numerous methods in place for the customer to negate taking that risk, such as insurance products. If the customer chose to accept that risk themselves, it’s on them.
Multiple failures may be looked at differently.
Where you can prove epidemic failure it may be looked at differently.
Where you can prove that the fault has existed since new, you may win.
Beyond that, if a customer goes to court just because there’s a fault, they will almost certainly lose.
Large retailers have already wisened up to this and ask for reports to defend themselves.
That’s the legal position.
But yes, I agree that many of the products out there are quite simply rank and probably shouldn’t be sold but, the manufacturers and retailers operate within the rules in place, quite legally. Whether that’s morally correct is absolutely open to debate.
But again, it comes back to people being made aware of what they are actually buying that is the issue rather than trying to fight a losing battle a ways down the road.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
We are going round in circles K and you aren’t taking in what I say and seem to be assuming all sorts of things. You are way too busy to be arguing anyway 😉 I’ve never said they shouldn’t ever break down, and a couple of times I’ve actually said so. It’s the “lasting a reasonable time” section I’ve talked about all the way through, and I only refer to breakdowns that render a product BER causing it to “not last”.
Consumers have got up to 6 years to make a claim. That means inevitably and obviously you can make a claim for products up to 6 years old. It doesn’t mean you have a just claim for any breakdowns up to 6 years (I would only advocate a claim if it’s BER) or very expensive major part) and it doesn’t mean they will succeed. I’ve never implied that. But if a fault develops that makes an appliance BER under 6 years old you can make a claim. A judge would decide if it succeeds or not. I don’t assume any claim would automatically succeed, but I think many would especially if BER at 2 – 3 years.
The fact that the product suffers from a failure and needs a repair is coincidental and not a reason for a replacement or a statement on the quality of the goods.
That makes no sense to me. The fact that it’s broken down has everything to do with its quality.
If a product fails within 6 months, by law it’s grounds for a replacement or money back. After 6 months and up to 6 years it’s up to small claims court to decide. You can’t get around the 6 years bit because if the SOGA meant anything different it would say something like you can only claim against products up to (say) 2 years but you just have up to 6 years to make delayed claims. It simply says you can make a claim up to 6 years after purchase so obviously you can make a claim if a product is up to 6 years old.
The fact that the failure is “catastrophic” is just bad luck they will argue and that there are numerous methods in place for the customer to negate taking that risk, such as insurance products. If the customer chose to accept that risk themselves, it’s on them.
I find that comment bizarre. Just bad luck? And they should have thought about paying out for expensive insurance to negate the risk? I’ll give a previous example again, if you bought a cheap fire extinguisher and it failed to work when you needed it with serious consequences would it be valid for whoever sold it or made it to say it’s just bad luck? Or it serves you right for buying a cheap one? Customers should be able to assume trusted retailers wouldn’t sell something that was not fit for its purpose or that may be fit for purpose but only for a short time.
Where you can prove that the fault has existed since new, you may win.
If certain parts are not designed and built well enough to last a reasonable time under normal usage then quite clearly the parts were like that from the start, from the minute they were purchased. Inherent faults sometimes take several years to manifest.
I’ve seen judgements giving compensation to Hotpoint washing machine owner for cost of repair who’s drum bearings failed well out of the 12 month guarantee because it was judged it hadn’t lasted a reasonable time. The parts that failed were inherently faulty by design if they can fail causing BER so quickly. The guy I mentioned with the HP laptop would never have got a new one after nearly 3 and a half years if it hadn’t been judged to have not lasted a reasonable time and HP aren’t a premium quality product. If you buy a brand new product you should expect it to last longer than 3 and a half years. If it had failed with a minor fault that could be fixed for £50 or even a bit more I doubt he would have claimed. Most people will accept reasonable repairs. it’s when the product is designed specifically so it cannot be repaired economically that claims are totally justified.
What you appear to argue for is a free for all for manufacturers to con consumers into buying more and more products, and a complete throwaway society where we constantly replace all our products and rarely if ever repair any. You seem to be arguing that consumers are thick and get what they deserve, and that poor people who can ill afford more than £300 for a washing machine should negate themselves (and conveniently the retailers and manufacturers) from risk by also paying for expensive insurance which will not give them the cover they think they are buying anyway.
Re: How should i deal with this?
A free for all is more or less what we have, that’s what I’ve been saying.
What I’ve also been saying is that retailers and manufacturers also have rights, not just consumers.
What you seem to be advocating and, it isn’t true, is that there’s a security blanket for customers in law to do whatever they like and, then get compensated because it doesn’t go their way. How can you say or infer that?
Is it the responsibility of the consumer to choose and buy the correct product for their needs or not? Or, as you seem to be asserting, that the manufacturer has an obligation to know how the machine will be used and build every single product to a minimum standard as, that’s the only way that you’d accomplish what you propose.
That means global price rises and the customers that can only afford a £300 washing machine won’t be able to afford one as they’d all cost £800 or more at least. So that’s a moot point. If they build them better, they cost more, if they cost more the disadvantaged can’t buy them.
Breakdown can happen to any machine, it’s a machine and it can happen at any time. Quality levels can reduce the risk of it, not eliminate it, I think it’s naive to assume otherwise. Hence the “bad luck”.
I do so wish people would study the 6 year rule Andy, it is not an all encompassing safety net and, TBH, the examples you cite I can’t comment on as I don’t know the circumstances but I’ve yet to see one be successful that I’ve seen tried.
Fit for purpose means it does what it says, I’ll say it again, NOT that it will not break down. And, again I will say, the SoGA offers no guidance on how long a product should last beyond “reasonable”. You can’t define “reasonable” as it will vary according to opinion and circumstance coupled with the product.
Effectively a lot of the cheaper products have been rendered disposable, it’s sad, it’s not right but it is true.
Just look at the way VCRs, DVD players, toasters, kettles, irons and a host of others have gone. They knock them out as cheap as possible in China or wherever to the point where they are simply not worth repairing and, everyone accepts that just fine, they don’t try to invoke the six year rule on those!
People just accept that they’re garbage unless they spend a good bit of money on a Dualit or a specialist product and that’s it, beyond that you throw them away and buy another, even after 18 months or less.
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
You’re doing it again K. Attributing words to me I haven’t said despite me clearly saying things very different all the way through. I’m not advocating that there’s a security blanket for customers in law to do whatever they like and then get compensated because it doesn’t go their way. Nothing I’ve said could possibly imply that (please show me). I’ve only advocated that if a major household appliance like a washing machine is scrap after 2 or 3 years the consumer should be entitled to compensation under the SOGA because the product has not lasted a reasonable time. You’ve kept going off on tangents and dealing with other issues I haven’t raised.
Of course retailers should have rights too but they aren’t covered in the SOGA. I’ve criticised the fact that the act puts unfair onus on retailers myself who (unless they are big and powerful) can’t get redress from the manufacturers or even the wholesalers. That’s wrong, but no concern of consumers unfortunately.
And no, it’s not the responsibility of the consumer to choose and buy the correct product for their needs if it means many products are crap and the onus is on the customer to work out which. If it was there’d be no need for a SOGA. Customers buy cheap budget washing machines and expect them to be noisier, shake about more, have far less features, be less sophisticated, even be less environmentally friendly and use more energy etc – but they don’t expect them to last only 18 months – ever. They expect them to last a reasonable time. If they can’t make cheap washing machines last at least 5 years they aren’t a viable product IMO and shouldn’t be created.
Of course I assert that the manufacturer has an obligation to know how the machine will be used. Of course they should! They are designing a product to do a specific job, how could they not take into account it might be used by Mr and Mrs Smith and her 3 kids? They should also know it might break down after 2 years and make sure it’s repairable – like the ISE ironically.
And of course they should build every single product to a minimum standard – that’s exactly what the SOGA is saying. They should be designed to work as expected and last a reasonable time. It’s childlike simple.
I agree that this would mean price rises but it does not cost an extra £500 to turn a budget washing machine into one that can last longer than 2 or 3 years or even 5 years. They would not go up anywhere near that much. Budget machines are always needed but they shouldn’t cost the poor more by trapping them into a never ceasing circle of constant replacement and expensive insurance which cost them a lot more than if they could afford a good machine in the first place.
No one’s asking for machines that don’t break down, only ones that don’t break down and can’t be repaired within a few years. Don’t confuse me with unreasonable customers you’ve dealt with who might think that.
I wrote an article several months back where I say that consumers don’t have a blanket guarantee under the SOGA and that it’s not unreasonable for appliances to break down.
http://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/wordpre … ppliances/
In it I quote the relevant section of the SOGA
The government’s guidelines say:
“Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.”
A reasonable person K – not the manufacturer, and not the retailer.
Yep, I totally agree that fit for purpose means NOT that it will not break down but I’ve never even mentioned fit for purpose have I? Only lasting a reasonable time which is different.
Of course the SOGA offers no guidance on how long a product should last beyond “reasonable”. No you can’t define “reasonable” as it will vary according to opinion and circumstance coupled with the product. But “reasonable” is all we’ve got and if a consumer doesn’t think 18 months is reasonable for the life of a washing machine I’d stake my life on the fact that most “reasonable persons” as described by the SOGA would agree with him. It’s just fortunate that most of them would not have the confidence or stomach for the fight they’d need to get involved in to get their rights.
People do reluctantly accept small appliances like toasters and kettles because they are so cheap. They are quite different to large essential appliances costing £300+ You can buy a washing machine for as much as £500 and it could potentially be BER after a few years. That’s never going to be acceptable.
Anyway I’ve said too much as usual 🙂 We can’t just keep going on over the same ground. I only keep coming back because you totally misconstrue what I say probably through lack of time to really digest it. The prosecution rests. 😉
Re: How should i deal with this?
I think as washing machine repairers we get a distorted impression of how reliable machines are. As I always tell customers who ask which machines are the most reliable, I only see the ones that break down, not the ones that carry on providing good service for year after year. I can infer something from the nature of the faults I see on different machines, and the age at which I get called out to them, but that is all.
Of course, every component has a failure rate, only the manufacturers know what the rates are, and for obvious reasons they don’t disclose them. So if an appliance fails early, it is very difficult to prove whether it is a manufacturing defect or not.
When a component fails prematurely, it is not necessarily because of unsatisfactory quality. For example, if the bearings fail, it is often due to factors outside the manufacturer’s control, eg (1) build up of limescale due to customer using too little detergent in hard water areas; (2) build up of wet sludge from use of low temperature washes, too much fabric conditioner, etc; (3) use of cheap detergent lacking corrosion inhibitors. If a circuit board fails, it can be due to unsuitable location of the machine, eg cold, damp garage, damp shower room, or unstable supply voltage in rural areas. If a heater element fails, more often than not it is due to overheating caused by build up of limescale or clothing debris, overdosing of detergent, etc.
After an appliance has been in use for 6 months, there is certainly no presumption of unsatisfactory quality. This is why the County Court would generally want an expert report before deciding on a claim under the Sale of Goods Act.
Re: How should i deal with this?
In many ways, thanks Andy.
The SoGA is not simple, it can appear that way I grant you but, it is open to opinion and interpretation.
And no, it’s not the responsibility of the consumer to choose and buy the correct product for their needs if it means many products are crap and the onus is on the customer to work out which.
Huh?
If I go to buy anything at all it’s on me to choose a suitable product for the purpose. If I go buy a 12V wall wart to power a 5V device and it fries the device, that’s my problem.
If I go buy a sedan and take it off road and wreck it, that’s my problem, not the retailer’s or manufacturers.
If I go buy a cheap washer and expect it to do three loads a day every day then I’d expect it to wear out much faster than a more expensive one, that’s my problem.
If I have a car that’s under warranty, I still have to get it to the garage for repair even if it breaks down, that’s why we have breakdown cover and, granted, that’s often part of the manufacturer warranty.
The SoGA doesn’t provide universal cover or replace breakdown insurance.
You say that a washer should last five years, even the most basic and, that’s fine but if you achieve it then prices will rise, that is inevitable. But you also say that this is your opinion.
Given the examples above, should all those manufacturers also know what I was going to do and take account of it?
That’s the thing about the SoGA, it covers ALL products, not just appliances.
In a free market economy there is no way you would ever achieve a universal minimum standard, it cannot happen. And, it’s not just the UK that has this problem, it’s global. So, it’s not just the SoGA that’s the problem here.
In fact, as I have said many, many times before, the consumer legislation and level of protection in the UK is way superior to most any other market I’ve looked at. We’re the one’s out of step, not everyone else. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing as it isn’t BTW.
The government’s guidelines say:
“Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.”
A reasonable person K – not the manufacturer, and not the retailer.
But not how long that should be the case for or after what period that they are considered to be accepted as being of a satisfactory quality.
Yep, I totally agree that fit for purpose means NOT that it will not break down but I’ve never even mentioned fit for purpose have I?
Yep, you did. 😉
People do reluctantly accept small appliances like toasters and kettles because they are so cheap. They are quite different to large essential appliances costing £300+ You can buy a washing machine for as much as £500 and it could potentially be BER after a few years. That’s never going to be acceptable.
In the eyes of the SoGA no, there is no difference.
In the eyes of consumers yes, there is.
The fact of it is that retailers have played a major part in all this, the big ones especially in driving lower prices which has, inevitably, led to lower levels of quality. Consumers now don’t accept that it costs two or three times (at least) the cost of a basic appliance to make a good one and they cannot discern between them other than price and brand, perhaps eco-labelling. But, everyone loves a bargain… until it goes wrong.
We’ve been working with DEFRA for a few years trying to get something in place to help consumers make an informed choice which, I’m happy to say, they have.
They intend to introduce durability labelling which will show people how well built (to a degree) that the machines actually are alongside how well they perform.
DEFRA and a host of other people within the industry including and, it surprised me, a lot of manufacturers actually agree and want to build better products. But the first words out their mouths is, “the big retailers won’t like this at all…”
K.
Re: How should i deal with this?
kwatt wrote:
We’ve been working with DEFRA for a few years trying to get something in place to help consumers make an informed choice which, I’m happy to say, they have.
They intend to introduce durability labelling which will show people how well built (to a degree) that the machines actually are alongside how well they perform.
K.Why does the phrase ‘can of worms’ spring to mind?
In both principle AND practice i’m all for something like this but the cynic in me wonders how on earth this could be a reliable and provable measure, particularly as manufacturers wheel out new designs constantly.
Will the products be subjected to rigorous, reliable and repeatable tests, but more importantly who will test them?
Re: How should i deal with this?
It possibly is a can of worms.
But then, how else can you actually inform people of what they’re buying?
The problem is, as i said, that punters just see a line of white boxes with little to separate them from one another bar price and brand. Trying to convey to a customer that walks into Currys or Comet why they should buy a better machine when they can buy one for £200 (at least) less is, at best, difficult.
We see it all the time, people buy an AW23 or, previously a 5, because they think it’s the same thing, with the same build as the 10 despite expressly telling them it isn’t. People believe what they want in a lot of cases.
Just like people believe that Hotpoint is still made in Britain. Hoover too.
An example of this, or a good one, is look how much money Volkswagen threw at changing people’s perception of Skoda. Or Seat.
Now people think that both are a poor man’s Volkswagen. So, it had a counter effect and one I very much doubt that Volkswagen either intended or wanted. It works for them on some levels, but not on others.
This is the crux of what this has been about, people’s perception.
The fact that you can attempt to take your argument to court is almost completely irrelevant.
The question is, how do you overcome all this?
The only way that I can see is to give people information to make a good buying choice, which independent dealers do well but it doesn’t always sink in because the C’s can sell a machine (product) that does the same for much less. People think you’re winding them up, you’re too expensive and off the pop to a shed and buy something inferior because, it was a bargain.
Just think about the number of customers you spend time with, explain why they should go with your recommendation and, you never see them again.
One story that wound me up a few years back was that B&Q ordered in Flymo’s that had almost identical model numbers to the pukka mowers but were specified to be much cheaper than the independent garden centers could buy at let alone sell at. The garden guys told customers that they weren’t the same and all that but, a year or two later many were back to get the ones they’d bought fixed bemoaning the manufacturer and whining about the failure.
Who’s fault is that? The retailers? The manufacturers? The customers?
That’s the point I’ve been making to Andy, it’s not clear cut as to who is at fault and that’s why it’s really, really hard to prove some of this stuff if people choose to go down the court route. It’s a lottery basically and, if they lose, it can be a costly one for them. Most cases would be solved by settlement, that way everyone loses.
The idea behind durability labelling is to give some sort of indication for the customer of the design life. It’s not foolproof and it’s probably not going to be an easy thing to do but, it is some sort of clarity. And, if retailers or manufacturers then choose to basically lie then they get caught out on the SoGA, rightly. Basically, bang to rights.
If customers choose to buy inferior goods then they’ve also got no comeback on anyone as they had the information, if they chose to ignore it then it’s their problem. Again, bang to rights.
Until someone comes up with a way to invent Utopia then, for now, I reckon it’s probably about the best that can be done.
K.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.