The Sale of Goods Act has been replaced by The Consumer Rights Act 2015. The new act is designed to, “simplify, strengthen and modernise the law, giving you clearer shopping rights”. So in theory our rights should be even better than with the old Sale of Goods Act. However, some retailers are telling customers that their rights are less if they bought an appliance after the 1st of October 2015.
This implies they believe the new act gives consumers less rights. Consumer group Which? have a form on their site that allows you to compose a faulty goods complaint message to send to a retailer. Part of the form asks if you bought your appliance before, or after October 2015.
This implies there is some difference too. However, it’s possible that the difference is only to determine which legislation to quote to the retailer. I’m currently doing more research, and will keep updating this article as I find more information.
How is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 different?
The main points in the new Consumer Rights Act are that goods must be – of Satisfactory quality – Fit for purpose & As described. We also still have up to six years to take a claim to the small claims court for faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and five years in Scotland. So it sounds pretty much the same as the old Sale of Goods Act.
The main improvements are that we have additional rights early on after purchase, at below 30 days, and below 6 months (described below). However, there does seem to be at least one potentially negative difference. After 6 months have passed, the onus is now on us to prove that the appliance was faulty when it was delivered.
If your complaint is that after 3 years your appliance has broken down with a fault that has rendered it economically unrepairable, then proving that it was faulty when delivered sounds very difficult. If this was the case, then depending on how much it cost, how much it’s been used and under what conditions, you may still have a valid claim.
Peter Tyson Appliances give high quality service coupled with special offers and competitive prices on carefully chosen white goods.
Under the old Sale of Goods Act we still had to prove that this was due to a fault when the product was purchased. So nothing should really have changed except potentially the retailer’s interpretations. Here is a quote from consumer group Which? on their old Sale of Goods Act page –
If your claim under the Sale of Goods Act ends up in court, you may have to prove that the fault was present when you bought the item and not, for example, something that was the result of normal wear and tear. ”
This should still be applicable with the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. If for example you bought an appliance for £600, and after 18 months it is scrap because a fault developed unrelated to wear and tear – or misuse – and it was so expensive to repair that it is not worth repairing I would say you have a very valid claim under either the Sale of Goods Act or the Consumer Rights Act.
I would argue that a fault rendering the appliance unrepairable after only 18 months means that the part that failed was not of satisfactory quality and that should be covered by either of the consumer acts.
But what if the appliance had only cost £199? Well maybe 18 months for £199 isn’t so bad if it’s had heavy use? There are no actual rules. It’s what would be considered reasonable with all circumstances considered.
This is subjective. Likewise if an appliance was scrap after 3 years it might still reasonably be considered unacceptable on an appliance that cost £600 – but again, it’s subjective, and may need a small claims court judgement, or help from Which? or another consumer group to fight the case.
One thing is fairly sure, the retailer will almost always say there’s nothing they can do once it is out of the manufacturer’s guarantee. That is not true if you have a valid claim.
Is satisfactory quality still covered?
The consumer group Which? still list, “not of satisfactory quality” as one of the potential complaints in their template complaint letter even if you bought the appliance after October 2015.
Forbes specialise in renting Bosch appliances so they know them inside out. They also rent other brands and many other products – more details
So, combined with the fact that we have up to 6 years to claim in the small claims court (5 in Scotland) this shows we can still claim if an appliance has not lasted a reasonable time due to unsatisfactory quality. Consider becoming a Which? member for full support and information on consumer rights.
Faulty within 30 days?
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 has now given us the right for a full refund if an appliance is faulty, unfit for purpose or not as described within the first 30 days. You must reject the product quickly though, as soon as anything is noticed.
Faulty under 6 months old?
The onus is now on the retailer to prove that a fault on a new appliance within the first 6 months is not an inherent fault. In other words unless they can prove otherwise it will be automatically assumed that your appliance had a fault when it was sold if it fails in the first 6 months.
You should be entitled to compensation or even a refund. Most retailers will still try to fob you off though. Many have a voluntary exchange policy of something like 28 days during which they will swap an appliance over out of “good will” if it fails inside the period. But after that they can be quite stubborn about it.
Any exchange policy is in addition to your rights and nothing to do with consumer rights at all. They might say they can’t exchange a faulty machine after this period, but if it is under 6 months old and has a fault you need to tell them they sold you a faulty product. That is in breach of the Consumer Rights Act.
This is of course assuming there is a genuine fault, and the issue isn’t related to poor installation, failure to use it properly, or misuse. If it’s only a minor fault though it may be more convenient to accept a repair. In fact they can insist on repairing it if they can show it’s disproportionately expensive to replace it. This little caveat can cause a lot of problems because they might argue that’s always the case. Generally though if it was a serious fault they’d probably find it better to swap it.
You should also be entitled to a refund or partial refund if a repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience, or if a repair would take an unreasonably long amount of time. This may well be applicable if a repairman looks at the appliance and says he needs to order parts that might take weeks to arrive and be fitted. I would especially argue the significant inconvenience issue if you had a fridge or freezer break down within 6 months and they can not repair it for weeks.
Any reasonable person is likely to argue that being without one of these vital appliances for more than a few days is very inconvenient.
You might argue the same thing if a washing machine can’t be repaired within (say) a week and you have a young baby or large family to wash for. After 6 months though things are different.
There is no 6 year guarantee
We do not have the right to free repairs up to the 5 or 6 years in the sense that any faults up to 6 years should be repaired free of charge, but I do think faults that render an appliance uneconomical to repair within the 6 years should be potentially covered (depending on full circumstances).
It’s not necessarily unreasonable if a fault develops on a washing machine or other white good within the first 5 or 6 years. Appliances can and do break down and this is accepted in the Sale of Goods Act. However, whilst it might be considered reasonable for a fault to develop on a £200 washing machine after 2 years washing for a family of 4 every day it might not be considered reasonable for a washing machine costing £600 to suffer the same – especially if only washing for a retired couple for example.
Major faults occurring within the first 5 or 6 years (which these days commonly render an appliance beyond economical repair) are a different matter though, and I believe many cases may well be covered. If an appliance breaks down and is unrepairable because of the huge cost quoted to repair it within the 5 or 6 years (especially after only 2 or 3) then I believe there is a strong case that the product has definitely not lasted a reasonable time.
You have to take into account how much it cost though, and how much use it’s had. Maybe if a washing machine only cost £200 and did 5 years of heavy washing it could be considered a reasonable lifespan, but one costing £350 and only washing for one person, or a couple, should surely have lasted longer? It’s very much open to interpretation but don’t forget the Sale of Goods Act specifically qualifies the phrase that a product should last a reasonable time by saying “reasonable” is “that (which) a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory”.
A can of worms is waiting to be opened
Until enough people start to fight for these rights and retailers and manufacturers are forced to comply most consumers may have to resort to taking a seller to the small claims court to get a decision on the true extent of their rights ( Small claims court advice ).
If this ever occurs on a large scale it will cause serious ripples. The status quo affords a lot of extra profit to retailers and manufacturers. It effectively encourages them to produce or sell poor quality products. They financially benefit from doing so through extra sales when they don’t last, extra repair business, extra sales of spare parts, and sales of extended warranties.
I’m sure many people take out an extended warranty to protect them from the fear of a major fault developing within the first 5 years, which may well be covered under the Sales of Goods Act. Related: consumers lost over £1bn last year through not using consumer rights | Money Helpline Saves Members Over a million pounds
What would happen if consumers actually received their statutory rights?
Firstly because the customer only has a contract with the people they bought from – and not the people who made it. They shouldn’t have to negotiate with faceless third parties. Secondly, and I’d like to think this was intended though it’s only speculation on my part, if retailers sell rubbish they (in theory) should suffer financial and time consuming consequences and would either stop selling the rubbish or put pressure on manufacturers to improve quality.
Unfortunately retailers do sell a lot of poor quality products that don’t last anywhere near as long as they should, and of course manufacturers continue to make them. Because most consumers don’t enforce their consumer rights both manufacturers and retailers generally profit nicely from sub standard quality and have little incentive to produce or sell better quality products.
Consumers take most of the impact of poor quality goods themselves by paying out extra for extended warranties or by replacing products far too often, or by paying out to repair products within the first 6 years when the retailer may well be liable.
Most manufacturers (of appliances at least) own so many brands they don’t even fear people being so dissatisfied with a brand that they don’t buy it again because they own many of the “alternative” brands. ( Who owns who? Who really makes your appliance? )
If consumers en mass started to reject the status quo it would put the cat amongst the pigeons and cause a lot of trouble for retailers and manufacturers. Retailers in particular wouldn’t know what had hit them. In the end they’d have to stop selling rubbish because they could no longer profit from doing so. They would only be able to survive selling products that were good enough to last the “reasonable time” expected.
I wouldn’t try to say that most appliances are so rubbish that the majority of them don’t last (although some might), but there’s little doubt that an unacceptable percentage of white goods appliances do suffer expensive breakdowns well within the first 5 or 6 years and this current situation, which is bad for the environment as well as consumers, is only viable because it’s the consumer that bears most of the financial costs. If the consumer refused to accept this burden it would pass back to the retailer as the Sale of Goods Act intended and guess what – the retailers would ensure products they sold were more reliable.
Would we be better off?
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from the “credit crunch” it’s that our economy seems to be based almost entirely on everyone buying lots of products they do not need, and replacing them way too regularly. As soon as we enter a time when people stop buying things they don’t really need we have mass unemployment and business’s struggle. So if all products were much more reliable it could have a big impact on sales and jobs.
It would however be better environmentally and that’s pretty important at the moment. The cost of products would have to go up because you can’t have very cheap and very reliable. It’s ironic that in a way, all these shoddy goods help keep our economy going. However, the same could be said for crime and vandalism, think how many jobs would be lost if there was no crime – seriously it would be millions.
There’s no need for every product to be high quality and there’s plenty of room for a healthy variance in quality but products should still last a “reasonable” time and most people would think a white goods appliance lasting less than 5 or 6 years before a major fault renders it not worth repairing is not reasonable in most circumstances.
Fair wear and tear clause
A vital point to realise is that the Sale of Goods act and the Consumer Rights Act in the UK giving rights to compensation for between 5 and 6 years is not a guarantee or warranty. There has always been a fair wear and tear clause. It has always said that it does not mean that no breakdowns at all should occur within this period –
Goods cannot always be expected to work fault-free. They can break down through normal use. Buyers cannot, therefore, expect to hold the seller responsible for fair wear and tear. There needs to be a fault that was present on the day of sale even though it only became apparent later on, or a mis-description of the goods, or a lack of durability that suggests the goods were not of satisfactory quality to start with. ”
Research further
Last year I spent a few weeks researching consumer rights and wrote an entire section focusing on consumer rights for washing machine owners though most of the advice should be equally relevant for most appliances and even other products.
Many manufacturers give 2 year guarantees (such as Bosch) and even 5 year parts and labour guarantees such as Miele or 10 year guarantees (ISE10 and occasionally Miele). The longer the guarantee period the better. However, any guarantee given by a retailer or a manufacturer, as the famous phrase says, “is in addition to your statutory rights”.
The Sale of goods Act is a separate right which often needs fighting for and is shrouded in mystery, confusion and denial as well as (to be fair) often over inflated expectations from consumers.
Here’s why being out of guarantee is often irrelevant
My article here gives examples of how even years out of guarantee we may still have rights – Out of guarantee doesn’t always mean you have to pay out
Related Consumer Links –
I’ve read all the consumer advice about washing machines, I’m thinking of taking them to court (This page contains a link which allows you to pursue a small claim online, without even having to leave home. The article is about washing machines but the link can be used to pursue any small claims court action)
The above link includes many links to consumer booklets and guides as well as looking at many related FAQs regarding white goods and repairs. One of the most useful guides available is written for retailers. This is a valuable guide for retailers, but as consumers it is very useful to see what retailers are being told are their responsibilities by the Department of Trade & Industry.
Five consumer laws you really ought to know. There are several references to washing machines and white goods in the article and the comments below it.
How The Sale of Goods Act leaves manufacturers with little or no consequences for making rubbish
Making only retailers responsible for poor quality products has major downsides. Everything I’ve read about consumer rights cases, and all of my personal experiences, have shown that the big retail companies usually deliberately stall us. They keep information from us and mislead us (proven by Which? research). They even keep their front line staff in the dark about our rights so that they genuinely believe we have no rights, and sound convincing when they fob us off. They realise most people will give up so they play the numbers game. They disingenuously refuse to help us when we have bought products that have been of very poor quality, have not lasted a reasonable time, or have had design faults and inherent faults.
They refuse to give refunds or replacements even when we quote our Consumer Rights or threaten to take them to the small claims court. They know this method weeds out most people. I’m not talking about when customers make unreasonable demands, which does happen, but when we have clear and obvious claims. If you have a genuine claim the chances are very remote that the retailer will admit it. Unless you make a serious fuss they have nothing to loose by stalling you until they get official small claims court papers through. Then they will likely pay up.
In my opinion the system does not work well at all. The retailers are not to blame for shoddy goods, yet they have to suffer losses of time and money sometimes years after selling a product and they presumably do not agree with it. Maybe this is why – Is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 too hard on retailers?.
nick says
As a retailer I feel very frustrated by the mixed messages we seem to be getting on the above issue.
Only last week I read a leading trade paper that stated that retailers were not bound by a 6 year warranty period set down in European legislation.
Like us, most retailers want to keep exsisting customers and would not begrudge going the extra mile to keep our customers happy. What would help on this issue would be a definate piece of Uk legislation on the matter to clear up once and for all the mixed messages that retailers seem to be getting.
Washerhelp says
Thanks for your contribution Nick: Retailers are bound by the UK’s 6 year period (5 in Scotland) defined under the Sales of Goods Act. It’s not a warranty period or guarantee period though, the only “guarantee” we get is from the manufacture which as we all know, “does not affect our statuary rights”.
It’s just the period in which a consumer is entitled to take a retailer to court if they believe the goods they bought were not fit for purpose or haven’t lasted a reasonable time.
In my opinion any major product costing hundreds of pounds should not suffer a major breakdown within 6 years, especially one that renders it uneconomical to repair. The problem is that some products are so cheap one could argue it is naive to expect them to last more than 6 years anyway.
If you buy a washing machine for £200 and use it to wash for a family of 5 and the main bearings or motor fails after 5 years it could be argued that it’s still “reasonable” considering the work it’s done and the relatively small amount it cost.
In cases of “cheap” products it may need a small claims court to decide. I doubt there would be so much uncertainty though if a consumer has purchased an expensive product and it breaks down needing very expensive repairs within 5 or 6 years. The chances are though that the consumer will meet great resistance from the retailer and would need to be extremely insistent, stubborn and prepared to use the small claims court to get their “rights”. At the moment the majority of consumers don’t either realise the extent of their rights or aren’t prepared to fight for them.
nick says
Thanks for your help on this issue. I fear this will continue to be a sticking point within the industry. I have an example of a problem our company faced 6 months ago.
One of our customers bought a creda freestanding cooker from us 3 1/2 years ago. when she contacted us 6 months ago she told us that rust marks were appearing around one of the hob hotplates. She had contacted Creda to get the machine exchanged. As expected Creda point blank refused stating the machine was out of its warranty period. The customer then got back to us asking for us to remove the damaged appliance and provide her with a replacement free of charge, which as reputable dealer we gladly did at our own expense. We tried to get Creda to take the appliance back from us for credit and surprise surprise they point blank refused to help us aswell. Now i could take this matter further and try and take creda to court but frankly is it really worth all the time and effort to do so.We are now left with a 3 1/2 year old appliance which cannot be sent back being left to gather rust and dust in our warehouse.
My point here is that if creda are supplying us with a machine that has gone rusty within a 3 1/2 year period of time why does the small retalier have to bear the complete loss on supplying the replacement appliance to the customer. Surely Creda or any other manufacturer that makes appliances must hold some responsabilty for the products they supply and should help the retailer if the applinace becomes faulty within a reasonable period of time. Small retailers cannot bear this loss alone and will need help from the manufacturers. Until the manufacturers are forced to take responsabilty for the long term quality of the products they make i fear small retailers will the ones who lose out the most while the people who make these machines get away scott free.
Washerhelp says
Hello Nick: It sounds like your company is reputable and defends its reputation even at cost to itself. Your customer was very lucky to get the cooker exchanged, which wouldn’t have happened with a larger retailer I’m sure. After using it for 3 and a half years, if she was entitled to a refund it would be a refund minus the value of 3 and a half years use. This would have to be worked out by trying to find the average life expectancy of the product.
A retailer isn’t obliged to replace the product unless it’s unrepairable, only to repair it or offer a refund minus the appropriate amount for the use the customer has had from it, or to offer some amount of compensation if still usable and they accept compensation instead. It all depends on the exact circumstances.
Your example highlights a major flaw in the Sales of Goods Act, which is that it gives rights to a consumer to be borne by the retailer but gives no rights to the retailer who is not responsible for the quality of the product. It’s one of the reasons I got out of selling finished goods and cannot imagine ever selling them again because of the unfair burden on retailers – particularly small ones. Having said that though, the retailer is responsible for choosing to profit from selling the goods they sell, and so one argument is that this is why they are fair game. If a retailer profits from selling rubbish then they get what they deserve don’t they? In practice though this is a simplistic view as most of the problems are caused by products not being so rubbish that no one will sell them, but being of just the right sub-standard quality to make them viable – as long as customers and retailers bear the main consequences of the lack of quality – instead of the manufacturers.
A small retailer should have exactly the same rights as a consumer regarding the quality of products but they don’t. In theory the customer demands recompense from the retailer and in turn the retailer, who is only a customer of the manufacturer, demands recompense from the manufacturer. That way everything gets sorted. The problem is that only the end consumer can quote the Sales of Goods Act, which (as far as I’m aware) does not apply to the retailer who can quote nothing.
National retailers have great clout, they don’t need to quote anything, just threaten to stop stocking their product. The manufacturers often dance to their tune and believe me the major retailers do have power over the manufacturers.
The middle and lower retailers though have little or no clout and can’t make demands. The most they can do is stop retailing a product but as they are so small it’s as a flea bite to an elephant. Small retailers are often just grateful a manufacturer even allows them to sell their products, or are so small they can only buy through third party wholesalers where their power is just as weak.
Small to medium sized retailers have no obvious rights and have no influence over giant manufacturers. The most they can threaten is to stop retailing a brand which they usually don’t want to do so they end up bearing the costs and the hassle themselves. The only people I can think of that could be a help to small retailers in this situation are the Federation of Small Businesses who have a legal helpline as part of the benefits of (paid) membership.
I’ve just added a new paragraph to my original article entitled “Fair Wear and Tear clause” which you may find interesting. The quote is from the The Law Relating to the Supply of Goods and Services – A TRADER’S GUIDE (pdf) which offers a vital insight to a retailers responsibilities as advised to them by the Department of Trade & Industry.
Lilly says
The life of Fridge-Freezers
I bought my L~G fridge-freezer less than five years ago from a reputable local retailer (RLR).
>> It started running madly the side (and later the back) of the casing >> heating up. Only way to stop it was to switch off at the mains.
>> I rang RLR who said they would send a man round for the standard call-out fee.
>> He came, offered four equally unsatisfactory explanations:
>> 1. I had been leaving the door open
>> 2. the door-seal had Failed
>> He then removed the grille at the back
>> 3. it needed re-gassing
>> 4. the capillaries were blocked. I asked what with. “With solids”>> I queried this, how could it happen in a liquid/to gas/to liquid/to gas >> system. He gave no reply., but re-fixed the grille (8 screws)
>> He then recommended I buy a new one – which would get me a £20 reduction >> of his bill, which he wrote out for £46 plus VAT.
>> I gave him my cheque as in duty bound, but know I had been swindled
Washerhelp says
Fair wear and tear is a valid exception to the 6 year rule but if your fridge needs replacing after less than 5 years how can that be fair wear and tear? Most people would agree that a fridge should last much longer than 5 years so if it is truly beyond economical repair you have a case for arguing it has not lasted a reasonable time.
The problem is that honouring these consumer laws will cost retailers a fortune and they are trying to dodge the responsibility. If the people you bought it from refuse to offer any compensation you have no choice but to go to the small claims court and let them decide.
If they decide in your favour though you will not be entitled to a full refund because you’ve had use of the appliance for almost 5 years. It could be decided for example that it’s lasted around half as long as it reasonably should have and therefore you should get half your money back.
There are some useful links in my consumer section I’ve read all the consumer advice about washing machines, I’m thinking of taking them to court
lilly says
Of course I agree that after five years I should not expect my money back.
What I do expect is a correct diagnosis, and trhe replacement of whichever component has failed.
Repair would not have cost the retailer anything since I was under the illusion that I would pay the price of that component in the same way as I paid the “engineer’s” call-out fee.
Was this man ‘qualified’ only to con elderly women into buying a new appliace because the old one must be written off?
Lilly says
Have just read (under the Repaircare heading) contributions by someone whose his fridge-freezer needed only a “pcb” replacement.
What is a “pcb” please.
My appliance’s compressor and gas were working; was it a “pcb” fault that the “engineer” should have diagnosed BUT DID NOT?
Incidentally I DID carefully study the “handbook” that came with the appliance. Very limited “trouble-shooting” advice. Nothing whatosever about running on and on apparently out of control.
Washerhelp says
Lilly: PCB is a Printed Circuit Board. It’s a board full of resistors and microchips etc.
I’m presuming from your description that there wasn’t enough gas in the machine due to a leakage. This meant the fridge could never be brought down to temperature and would run continuously.
It sounds like the machine is beyond economical repair and so the question is has it lasted a reasonable amount of time? Most would say not. You need to go to the small claims court if the retailer refuses to offer any compensation. You can do it online easily and cheaply (links available on my consumer section links in previous comments above)
Lilly says
Thanks for your latest.
No, when I ran the fridge experimentally it cooled from 64deg room temp to 40deg (“Normal” setting) in a couple of hours, so presumably gas and compressor were OK. It’s juist that the motor wouldnot stop running… …
Hence my question about pcb – or what about thermostats, are they indepednet, or incorporated into the pcb?
I assume purchasing one of these would be possible and MUST cost less and be QUICKER than going to a small claims court?
As usual, L.