Articles categorised under Consumer Issues

All my articles tagged with Consumer, which cover multiple issues related to white goods appliances.

Updated March 21, 2019 First Published September 27, 2016

Poor distance selling compliance

I wrote an article about returning white goods appliances under distance selling regulations which was inspired by my personal experience of trying to return a large product under these regulations. I found the company involved reluctant to comply and they put several obstacles in our way. My experience may be useful to others.

Although the product involved was not an appliance, it was similarly large and expensive. I ordered some conservatory furniture online but when it arrived my wife found the seat much too deep and could not sit comfortably on it. Her legs could not touch the floor. This is exactly the type of thing the distance selling regulations are designed for. If we had been able to see the furniture in a shop or showroom first we would have been able to sit on it and see that it was unsuitable. From just a photo it’s not possible to judge.

The trader’s terms and conditions stated that there would be a 15% charge to return an item under the distance selling 14 day period, which as the product cost ?1200 equated to ?180. This clearly did not reflect the cost of returning it at all, and to me was designed to put people off returning anything, and to make a decent profit out of it if they did. I know traders can make a charge to recover return costs, and it must be stated in their terms and conditions, but these charges should reflect only the true costs. I challenged this figure and negotiated a substantially reduced charge.

A percentage charge can’t possibly reflect return costs. Using percentages means that a small expensive item, which is easy to return, would cost considerably more to return than a cheaper but large and bulky one that took two men to lift. Such charges are clearly more designed to salvage a profit or punish customers for returning items.

Loss of value

A trader can also charge for any loss in value of a returned product. However, if the product is returned in perfect condition, and has not been used, you wouldn’t normally expect it to have lost any value at all. Some traders might try charging too much and seeing if they can get away with it. It’s up to us to make a judgement as to whether any deduction seems reasonable or not and potentially challenge it or buy from elsewhere. Be prepared for return costs to be a fair bit more than the delivery costs though because appliances are commonly delivered to us at subsidised costs or even free.

Original packaging clause

They also had in their terms and conditions that the item must be returned in its original packaging. I’ve seen this many times since elsewhere. The delivery man specifically offered to take away the packaging, which I originally took for good service, but then realised how convenient that would have been for them insisting that products can only returned with their original packaging. They can’t insist on original packaging. However, if the product is received back damaged there will be problems (see link for more details at bottom of this article).

Summary

Always check the terms and conditions under “returns policy” before ordering anything via catalogue, brochure or online, especially if you think you might potentially have to return it, and especially if it isn’t from a major household-name retailer. If there are unacceptable terms you can consider whether they are the best place to buy from. If they haven’t even updated their distance selling regulations notice and still quote only 7 days they are in breach of the regulations. We have up to 14 days now. Obviously large items such as furniture and white goods appliances shouldn’t be ordered speculatively with a mind to sending it back, it’s just too much trouble. If you find it’s totally unsuitable because of something you could only see once you had the appliance delivered then don’t use it and arrange for it to be returned.

Large retailers should have proper policies in place and some even make it very easy. They can often absorb the costs in return for keeping customers happy and coming back – especially when they sell a lot of different products. Smaller retailers can be hit hard financially, especially if they are overstretching themselves trying to sell to a large area. These are the companies most likely to have less than ideal or punitive returns policies.

Finally, remember that returning damaged or faulty goods is totally different from returning something under the distance selling regulations. There should be separate sections and different terms in an retailer’s terms and conditions.

More important information

My (original) main article has more details and information – Distance selling regulations ? returning appliances

Updated March 20, 2019 First Published July 15, 2016

Fridge freezer 4 months out of guarantee

Here is an example of an appliance out of guarantee and deemed unrepairable. I received a question from someone who had bought a Zanussi fridge freezer 14 months previously. It was now 2 months out of guarantee. It had broken down. The engineer had advised that the fault was due to an internal gas leak. It was unrepairable. The customer asked me what her rights are. She had paid £630 for the fridge freezer.

Note that although this specific question relates to a fridge freezer, the situation should be relevant to any white goods appliance.

Just out of guarantee and unrepairable

The manufacturer’s only obligation is to carry out repairs under their guarantee period, which has now expired. If it was repairable and they were quoting for an expensive repair it might bring up other consumer rights issues (out of guarantee doesn’t always mean you should pay). But as the appliance is not repairable they are washing their hands of it. You would think that as they made the appliance and you are one of their customers they would offer to replace it themselves. They commonly don’t. As far as they are concerned you didn’t buy it from them. They didn’t get your money (although they obviously do indirectly) so it’s nothing to do with them. They will usually tell you to go back to the retailer. This is of course technically correct (Is manufacturer or retailer responsible for faulty appliances?)

Retailer is responsible

I advised that they should contact the retailer and request a replacement under the sale of goods act. This one hasn’t lasted a reasonable time (or it was not fit for purpose due to it’s short lifespan). Under the sale of goods act if an appliance cannot be repaired – and it has not lasted a reasonable time – then the retailer is responsible. Ironically the first thing they are likely to do is ask the manufacturer for credit to replace it. If the manufacturer refuses to give them credit a retailer will often try to limit their costs by refusing to replace something. They claim there’s nothing they can do because it’s out of guarantee. This leaves the consumer with both retailer and manufacturer claiming there’s nothing they can do. If a consumer has a valid right to compensation or a replacement under the sale of goods act then they are wrong to do that. (Out of guarantee – even by a long time doesn’t always mean you should pay)

Do you automatically get a brand new appliance if the old can’t be repaired?

It will depend on the age of the appliance. Theoretically, a retailer can try to reduce their costs by asking the customer to pay a contribution. The logic is that you have already enjoyed a certain percentage of an expected lifespan so shouldn’t be entitled to a complete replacement free of charge. This does make logical sense, but whether or not they would try this is dependent on the circumstances and the retailer. Hopefully most retailers just can’t be bothered with the potential complexities involved, and certainly in this case where the appliance is only 14 months old they should hopefully just swap it for a new one. It may be quite different though if an appliance is not so close the guarantee expiry date.

Here’s how it would work

It’s complicated. In order to ask for a contribution towards the cost they need to work out what percentage of life you’ve already enjoyed. They would need to say how long the appliance would be expected to last on average. These figures aren’t easy to know or agree upon. Say for example they claim a fridge freezer would normally last 10 years (which is 120 months), they could say you’ve enjoyed 14 of those months which equates to just over 10%.

Using that logic they could ask a customer to contribute 10%. I’m not aware how often – if ever – this happens. To be fair it’s hard to argue with the logic as long as they use fair expected lifespans to calculate. As I said though it seems unlikely many retailers would bother when an appliance is only a few months out of it’s guarantee and in this case, further correspondence from the consumer confirmed that the retailer did exchange the fridge freezer without any quibble.

What if the appliance was older and couldn’t be repaired?

If an appliance has been deemed unrepairable by the manufacturer but it is further out of the guarantee period then things may be quite different. If an appliance is a year out of guarantee – or maybe even 4 or 5 years out of guarantee then you may still have rights under the sale of goods act. There’s usually little point in complaining to the manufacturer although it has been known for them to accommodate customers out of goodwill (and clearly this makes sense). However, it is the retailer who has the liability under the sale of goods act.

The critical point here is that the appliance is unrepairable. Therefore however old the appliance is at this point this is exactly how long it has lasted – so the question becomes – is this acceptable? (Sale of Goods Act gives us 6 years to claim for faulty appliances?)

What if the appliance is out of guarantee and repairable – but it is going to be expensive?

This is far more common, and much more complex. If an appliance is only days or possibly a week or so out of guarantee then you would hope that out of good will the manufacturer would offer to repair it free of charge. But they aren’t obliged to, and often won’t. If this is the case you need to remember your rights under the sale of goods act are against the retailer who sold it to you. You may still be entitled to a free repair depending upon the circumstances.

You would need to contact the retailer and you would need to show that your appliance has not lasted a reasonable time, has not been fit for purpose, or it had an inherent fault at the time of sale. Whether or not you have any justification in such a claim will depend on all of the circumstances – how much you paid, how long you’ve had it, whether it has been nothing but trouble or previously trouble-free, how you’ve looked after it, and how much it has been used. Some of the elements in this calculation are subjective and not clear-cut. This is why you may have to seek consumer advice from someone like Which? (Which? £1 offer – what’s the catch?) and why sometimes a small claims court judge may have to decide.

More related information

You might find it interesting to read my article here, which explains why retailers are commonly reluctant to help us when we have a case Is the sale of goods act too hard on retailers?
Sale of Goods Act gives us 6 years to claim for faulty appliances

Updated March 21, 2019 First Published June 27, 2014

Distance selling regulations – returning appliances

In the UK, when buying online we have rights to cancel after receving delivery under the distance selling regulations, which have recently been extended from 7 to 14 days by the new EU Consumer Rights Directive. There is a whole range of specific rights but this article focusses on the right to return an appliance bought online for a refund.

Can you send an appliance back because you don’t like it?

Under distance selling regulations yes, we don’t have to have any reason whatsoever. We are just entitled to send it back within 14 days of receiving the goods (not from order date) for a full refund including the delivery costs*. This return period has always been 7 days, but it’s now been doubled. We only have these rights because we are buying blind – which means until the item is delivered and we can see, touch and feel it we can’t be sure it’s what we wanted. I’m not sure why we need 14 days to check it out though, it’s not as if we can use them, this is a time period allowed to unpack and inspect only.

*Refunding the cost of delivery. The trader only has to refund the basic delivery cost of getting the goods to you in the first place, so if you paid extra for an enhanced service such as guaranteed next day delivery they only have to refund the basic cost.

Can you still send it back if you’ve used it?

These rights are simply to protect us from having to keep products we’ve bought expecting one thing (having only been able to judge from a photo and description) and receiving something that looks quite different in real life. The idea that we can use it and then return for a refund is a step too far. The retailer needs to be able to resell a product. Using any product is accepting it. Once accepted, unless something is covered under the sale of goods act you shouldn’t be able to return it unless by any chance the retailer allows it.

If the appliance is faulty, this comes under different regulation (Sale of goods act – faulty appliances)

Can you send an appliance back if it doesn’t fit?

You should make sure you have measured up properly. Length width and depth sizes should be quoted on any advertisement or web site. If the quoted measurements are wrong (it happens) then the onus should be on the retailer. If you just failed to check and the new one doesn’t fit then technically that’s your fault. However, I would expect most large retailers might accommodate you.

What if you look at an appliance in a shop and then order it from their web site?

If you saw it in a shop and then ordered it online the distance selling regulations shouldn’t apply because their purpose is to protect us when we haven’t had an opportunity to examine goods before entering a sales contract. In practice of course most retailers will be unaware of any previous examination, especially any large retailer. However, if for example you dealt with a small independent shop who remembers you, and they had demonstrated an appliance which you subsequently ordered from their web site, they could dispute any attempt to send it back under distant selling regulations.

Do you have to send it back in the original packaging?

Removing packaging is essential in order to see if the appliance is acceptable or not. If an appliance comes with packaging that can’t be refitted there’s nothing we can do about that. I’ve seen cases where retailers have in their terms and conditions that returns must be received in the original packaging, but they can’t insist on that if it’s not possible or practical. The regulations specifically state –

Packaging: You may ask customers to take care when they open the package or return goods with the original packaging, but you cannot insist on this. ”

It is wise however to try to remove transit packaging as carefully as possible and try to repack before returning to prevent damage during the return journey. If a retailer claims they received the appliance with dints or scratches this could prove a difficult situation to resolve.

Who pays the costs of returning an appliance?

Most retailers should arrange to get the appliance picked back up using the same people who delivered it although they can still charge to do so if they’ve specified this in terms & conditions and in writing at point of sale. In theory some could insist on you arranging to get them back yourself, which theoretically could happen with a small independent retailer, but again, they must inform you of this in their terms and conditions and in writing (usually on the email confirmation).

How much can they charge? They’d have to make reasonable real-world charges but they could be unexpectedly high because initial delivery charges when purchasing are commonly subsidised. You may have even had free delivery, or paid a relatively modest delivery charge only to find they want substantially more to fetch it back. If you send an appliance back because you’ve changed your mind or don’t like it you may have to pay the “proper” costs, but again, this should be made clear when initially buying so you can decide if it’s acceptable.

Watch out for big American Freezers or large cookers

Return charges for a retailer picking up a very large appliance such as an American fridge freezer or one of the large cookers might be quite shocking. I’ve seen quotes for around £100 (Delivering American-style fridge freezers).

Fortunately some large retailers offer to have the appliance picked up free of charge e.g. John Lewis (affiliate link)

You must get your money refunded within 14 days

You are responsible for returning the items within 14 calendar days of cancelling, and refunds must be paid within 14 calendar days after returning the goods, or with evidence that they were returned.

You must take care of the goods

You need to take reasonable care to ensure that the appliance is returned in good condition and not damaged in transit. If you don’t exercise reasonable care and the goods are damaged when received back they may well make a claim against you for breach of this duty. This is where saving the packaging, removing it carefully and refitting it prior to being picked up make sense. If you destroyed or threw away the packaging and the appliance gets damaged during its return journey you might be accused of not taking reasonable care and face charges if damage occurs.

What about special orders?

If a product has been specially made for you it can be excluded from the distance selling regulations and you won’t be able to change your mind. However, this exclusion is meant to protect retailers from bespoke orders that would be impossible or difficult to re-sell, or would deteriorate quickly – not “special orders” –

Products may not be returned if they are genuinely tailor-made products. If they are put together by combining off-the-peg options, then they may be returned. ”

So it doesn’t appear to extend to cover products that they don’t actually stock, even if they specially ordered them for you. These would be “off the peg” appliances rather than tailor-made. It’s possible some might interpret it this way though and refuse to accept back an appliance that they don’t stock (because they would normally find it difficult to sell) but specifically ordered for you. If this happens you would need to seek advice.

Summary of useful points

The distance selling regulations and Consumer Rights Directive from the EU cover further rights and obligations not gone in to on this article. Here’s a short list of some other relevant points.

New legislation from October 1st 2015 says if a product is faulty within 30 days customers are entitled to a full refund if required
A retailer’s failure to provide the required information to the customer in the way set out in the regulations, could result in the 14 day cancellation rights being extended by up to a year
A deduction can be made by the retailer if the value of the goods has been reduced as a result of the customer handling the goods more than was necessary
The extent to which a customer can handle the goods is the same as it would be if they were assessing them in a shop
The seller’s terms and conditions or returns policy should state who pays the cost of returning the item. If they don’t state this, then the seller has to cover the cost. In this case, you’re entitled to a refund of the total amount you paid, including costs to ship the item to you, and the fee to return the item. No admin or restocking fees should be charged

More information

This article and the research put into it were inspired after my personal experience of poor distance selling compliance

Updated May 3, 2019 First Published April 24, 2014

Is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 too hard on retailers?

I’ve written many articles about our consumer rights under the sale of goods act. How we are fobbed off by retailers falsely claiming there’s nothing they can do once an appliance is out of guarantee. But the sale of goods act has always struck me as being quite hard on retailers. I wouldn’t be surprised if they all feel quite hard done by. This might explain why we have to fight so hard to get anywhere with them.

Goods have to be durable, free from inherent faults, and last a reasonable time. But if an Â£800 fridge freezer is scrap after 3 years because the main insulation has failed and it can’t be repaired at reasonable cost how is that the retailer’s fault? It’s the manufacturer who is to blame. It has nothing to do with the retailer (apart from if they are knowingly selling poor quality products). Yet under the UK Sale of Goods Act only the retailer is responsible and has to compensate if a customer is correct in thinking it hasn’t lasted a reasonable time.

Consumer Rights Act

Although the Sale of goods Act has been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 our consumer rights haven’t changed much (Sale of Goods Act (and Consumer Rights Act) gives us 6 years to claim for faulty appliances).

Our contract is with the retailer

The retailer is the one who took our money. So a manufacturer can’t give it back if they never had it. The manufacture has no sale of goods obligations to us other than the obligation to honour their guarantee. They sold the appliance to the retailer. They then sold it (at profit) to us. Clearly this is why we have to deal with the retailer when things go wrong. Retailers wouldn’t complain about that if things go wrong straight away. Yet it’s a massive burden to have to deal with faults and replacements several years later, which the sale of goods act clearly obliges them to do under many circumstances (out of guarantee â€“ even by a long time doesn’t always mean you should pay). This is especially tough on small retailers.

Are manufacturers to blame for our struggle to get recompense for faulty or poor quality goods?

From the consumer’s point of view it’s the retailers who try to limit our claims. If retailers were able to claim their costs back from the manufacturer (who is really responsible) every time they compensated a customer with a free repair or replacement there would be few problems. I suspect that much of the time this isn’t the case though. Otherwise why would retailers be so stubborn about free repairs or replacements the minute a manufacturer’s guarantee expires?

Retailers usually aren’t able to repair products themselves. So if a product is out of the manufacturer’s guarantee and it should be repaired free of charge because a major fault has developed (e.g a Â£700 washing machine 18 months old with terminal drum bearing failure) they have to rely on the manufacturer to agree to repair it free of charge. However, as the manufacturer hasn’t any obligation under the sale of goods act they often refuse. This leaves the retailer in a tough position. They then tell us that it’s out of guarantee and the manufacturer won’t do anything in the hope we will accept it. But under under the sale of goods act the retailer is obliged to fix it or replace it if there is a valid claim.

The Sale of Goods Act causes a big catch 22 situation

So if this is the case it would seem our rights, which in law rest with the retailer, may be being decided by the manufacturer, who has no obligation. They have no incentive other than if they perceive it’s in their interests to keep the customer happy (which they only do up to a point). If you think about it, why should a manufacturer repair something free of charge or give us a new one at cost to themselves when their guarantee has run out and they have no obligation to? But conversely, why should a retailer have to pay the manufacturer hundreds of pounds to fix or replace a product for their customer when the only reason it failed is because the manufacturer didn’t make it properly? The onus is completely on the wrong party!

As explained in opening paragraphs, there’s a logical reason why the government put the onus onto the retailer. But until the government somehow make manufacturer’s properly, or at least equally responsible, the status quo will remain. Almost every time consumers have a valid claim they will meet resistance, disinformation, stubbornness and stress. Retailers are well aware that most consumers will just complain but then accept rejections, or push a little more but then give up when faced with the, “I’m sorry but it’s out of its guarantee” response.

Updated April 11, 2019 First Published March 7, 2014

Exploding door glass – who’s fault is it?

I still receive emails from people whose washing machine door glass has shattered or “exploded”, and I’ve included two photo’s recently supplied to me in this article. It’s hard to get a proper perspective on how widespread it is but I’m assuming it’s still relatively rare. Manufacturers are blaming users claiming they are probably overloading or leaving coins and other objects in pockets (as described in my article – Washing machine door glass danger) and if this proves to be the case they may have a point. But can manufacturers completely wash their hands of it, and is it really caused by user misuse? Some of them are shattering when not the washing machine isn’t even running.

Is the broken glass safe or dangerous?

If the door glass breaks in a safe manner, with no – or very little – risk of injury, and user “misuse” is to blame such as overloading or leaving coins in pockets, then we have to accept that if we don’t use products properly we can suffer inconvenient breakdowns and associated costs in putting it right.

But if the door glass shatters into dangerously sharp shards, exploding outwards and potentially hitting children & pets who might be in front of it then it might be fair to see it differently. You would expect that manufacturers have a duty to design against the door glass shattering – even if failure to use as instructed or leaving objects in pockets causes it.

Do manufacturers have a duty in law to protect users from dangerous consequences of not following instructions? And do they have a duty to pre-empt easily predictable user behaviour – particularly if the actions can result in dangerous consequences not easily predictable by users. Eg. who would predict that overloading a washing machine would cause the glass to explode? There’s no doubt that overloading, and leaving coins in pockets is extremely well known, common, and predictable behaviour, and in my experience door glass did not used to shatter like this in the past.

Maybe the care of duty is only a moral one and not legislated for?

I was recently writing a new safety article about electrical adapters and plug extension sockets, and how easy it is to overload one causing electrical overheating – which could set fire to your house. I wondered why these extension sockets and adapters don’t have built in safety devices to protect against overloading and potentially lethal fires. Then it hit me. This is even more serious than the door glass issue, and yet there’s no safety device inside to protect users from misusing them with dangerous consequences.

I’ve also seen where people have left laptops on beds blocking the vents underneath, which caused it to catch fire. Again this is technically misuse with very dangerous consequences but they haven’t been designed anticipating people will place them on soft furnishings which will block the vents, nor apparently to cut out before catching fire. Surely they should be? Maybe people will have a legitimate claim against these manufacturers for not thinking about these potentially lethal consequences, but maybe not. It’s not really clear.

However, people do need to take responsibility for their own actions, but at the same time we all make mistakes and have lapses of judgement so shouldn’t easily predictable mistakes and even misuse be made safe by design? There are plenty of other examples where people routinely misuse products with dangerous and even fatal consequences yet so many of them don’t have built in safety devices. So this strongly implies there is no legal obligation manufacturers have to protect their customers from themselves when they misuse their products.

Examples of accident prevention already used

Despite the last few paragraphs, manufacturer’s clearly do design safety features into washing machines to protect users from their own stupid actions, which they would never dream of removing. The door lock for example. You cannot open the door whilst the drum is spinning for obvious reasons. Imagine the outcry and litigation if anyone could just open the door whilst the drum is spinning at full speed. So manufacturers do either have a legal or moral obligation or they wouldn’t always fit a door lock device. They could just tell users in the instruction book not to open the door whilst it’s running. Then if someone does and loses an arm, they can say it’s misuse – their own fault.

So, if “misuse” can cause the door glass to explode out into the kitchen breaking into “sharp shards” I would have thought they would want (or need) to design so it doesn’t happen or at least to mitigate any dangerous consequences. It may or may not prove to be user misuse, but if they know it is happening, and can see it is potentially dangerous you would hope they would at least warn users about it properly in the instruction book – something like – Warning: overloading, leaving coins and other foreign objects in pockets or washing laundry with metal buckles etc could cause the door glass to shatter.

Is washing machine door glass breaking in a safe controlled way – or in a dangerous way?

See the experiences of consumers who have contacted me, and some of the photos –

Articles categorised under Consumer Issues

Poor distance selling compliance

Loss of value