Is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 too hard on retailers?
Under UK consumer rights law, your contract is with the retailer – not the manufacturer. This creates a structural problem at the heart of how appliance disputes are handled, and helps explain why getting a fair outcome when a product fails can be so difficult.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes retailers – not manufacturers – legally responsible for faulty appliances. This is logical in principle, because the retailer is who you bought from. But in practice it creates a significant problem: the retailer is often unable to resolve the fault themselves, the manufacturer has no legal obligation to help once a guarantee has expired, and the retailer may simply refuse. Understanding this dynamic is essential before pursuing a claim.
This article provides general guidance on how UK consumer rights law works in practice. It does not constitute legal advice. For your specific situation, contact Citizens Advice or a legal professional.
Why Is the Retailer Responsible – Not the Manufacturer?
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, your legal contract is with whoever sold you the goods – the retailer. This is because the retailer is the party who took your money and agreed to provide you with a product of satisfactory quality.
The manufacturer, by contrast, sold the appliance to the retailer. They have no direct contractual obligation to you as the end consumer – other than honouring any manufacturer’s guarantee they have chosen to offer. Once that guarantee expires, their legal obligation to you effectively ends.
The retailer sold you the appliance and took your money. Under the Consumer Rights Act, they are responsible for ensuring it is of satisfactory quality and lasts a reasonable time – regardless of whether the fault was caused by their actions or the manufacturer’s.
The manufacturer made the product but sold it to the retailer, not to you. They have no statutory obligation under the Consumer Rights Act. They may help voluntarily – but only if it suits them commercially, or because their own guarantee requires it.
The Catch-22 at the Heart of Appliance Disputes
This legal structure creates a genuine problem in practice – one that explains much of the frustration consumers experience when trying to resolve appliance faults.
The fault is caused by poor manufacturing
An appliance fails prematurely – say, an £800 fridge freezer whose insulation fails at three years, or a £700 washing machine with terminal drum bearing failure at 18 months. These failures are almost certainly caused by manufacturing quality issues, not retailer error.
But the claim must go to the retailer
Under the Consumer Rights Act, only the retailer is legally obliged to deal with the claim. The consumer contacts the retailer, who may be a large electrical retailer, a supermarket, or a small independent shop – none of whom manufactured the product or can repair it themselves.
The retailer depends on the manufacturer to resolve it
Most retailers cannot repair appliances themselves. If an appliance outside its manufacturer’s guarantee needs a free repair or replacement, the retailer must negotiate with the manufacturer to carry out that work. But the manufacturer has no legal obligation to agree – and often refuses or makes it commercially difficult.
The retailer refuses – and many consumers give up
Rather than pay the manufacturer directly to carry out a repair the consumer is legally entitled to, many retailers simply tell the consumer the product is “out of guarantee” and nothing can be done. Many consumers accept this – incorrectly – and give up. But being out of manufacturer’s guarantee does not end your statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act.
Being told a product is “out of guarantee” is not the same as your rights under the Consumer Rights Act having expired. You have up to six years (five in Scotland) to bring a legal claim. Do not accept a refusal based solely on an expired manufacturer’s guarantee. Read our full guide: out of guarantee does not always mean you should pay.
Why Retailers Resist Valid Claims
From the retailer’s perspective, the Consumer Rights Act creates a genuine commercial problem – particularly for smaller retailers with limited buying power.
If a retailer honours a valid claim and provides a free repair or replacement, the cost comes from their own margin – not the manufacturer who actually caused the fault. Unless they have a commercial agreement that allows them to recover this cost, they are bearing someone else’s liability.
Major retailers with significant buying power can negotiate supply contracts that include provisions for post-guarantee fault costs – effectively sharing or passing back the risk to manufacturers. Smaller retailers typically cannot, leaving them directly exposed.
Retailers know from experience that the majority of consumers who are told “it’s out of guarantee” will not pursue the matter further. Resistance costs very little relative to the number of claims that simply go away.
The multi-party nature of the dispute – consumer, retailer, and manufacturer – creates enough complexity that many consumers do not know where to direct their claim or what they are entitled to. This ambiguity benefits retailers who prefer not to pay.
Does This Mean the System Is Unfair?
The logic of placing responsibility with the retailer is sound – they took the consumer’s money and are best placed to ensure the product meets the required standard before selling it. The law is not wrong to make them accountable.
The problem is structural: the law does not currently require manufacturers to share that accountability or make it economically viable for retailers to honour valid claims. Until manufacturers face direct obligations to end consumers – or until retailers have stronger mechanisms to recover costs from manufacturers – the system will continue to produce the outcomes consumers experience: resistance, delay, and disputes.
Consumers have a single, clear party to deal with – the retailer. Rights last up to six years, not just the manufacturer’s guarantee period. The law sets a clear standard: products must be of satisfactory quality and last a reasonable time.
Manufacturers face no direct statutory obligations to end consumers once their guarantee ends. Retailers must bear costs caused by manufacturing faults. Many consumers give up when told their rights have expired – when they have not.
What This Means in Practice – and How to Use It
Understanding this dynamic is valuable because it tells you exactly where to direct your claim and how to frame it effectively.
-
Always direct your claim to the retailer – not the manufacturer. The retailer is your legal counterpart under the Consumer Rights Act. Do not be redirected to the manufacturer as a first step – politely but firmly keep the focus on the retailer’s obligations.
-
Do not accept “it’s out of guarantee” as a final answer. This refers to the manufacturer’s guarantee only. Your statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act are independent and may extend significantly beyond this. Read our guide on what “out of guarantee” actually means for your rights.
-
Put your claim in writing. A formal written claim citing the Consumer Rights Act is taken more seriously than a verbal request. It also creates a paper trail if you need to escalate. Include the purchase date, the nature of the fault, and the remedy you are seeking.
-
Understand what you need to prove. Within the first six months of purchase, the fault is presumed to be inherent – the retailer must prove otherwise. After six months, you may need an independent engineer’s report to demonstrate the fault is inherent rather than caused by misuse or wear and tear. See our full Consumer Rights Act guide for the full picture.
-
Escalate if necessary. If the retailer refuses a valid claim, contact Citizens Advice, use a dispute resolution service, or pursue the matter through the small claims court. Many claims are resolved at the point of a formal letter before action – before court proceedings begin.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do I have to deal with the retailer and not the manufacturer when my appliance breaks down?
Because your legal contract is with the retailer – they are who you bought from and who took your money. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 places the obligation to provide goods of satisfactory quality on the seller, not the maker. The manufacturer has no direct statutory obligation to you as a consumer once their own guarantee has expired, even though they made the product.
The retailer told me to contact the manufacturer – do I have to?
No. While you can choose to contact the manufacturer – particularly if the product is still within their guarantee period – your legal rights sit with the retailer. A retailer redirecting you to the manufacturer does not transfer their legal obligation. You can contact the manufacturer in parallel, but keep the retailer clearly on notice that you hold them responsible under the Consumer Rights Act.
The manufacturer’s guarantee has expired – have I lost my rights?
No. The manufacturer’s guarantee and your statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act are completely separate. A guarantee expiring does not remove your right to make a claim against the retailer for a fault that constitutes a breach of the Act. You have up to six years (five in Scotland) to bring a claim. Read our full guide: out of guarantee does not always mean you should pay.
Can the retailer recover their costs from the manufacturer?
In some cases, yes – particularly large retailers with the buying power to negotiate supply contracts that include provisions for post-guarantee fault costs. In practice, smaller retailers often cannot recover these costs, which is part of why they resist valid claims. This is a structural weakness in the current legislation, but it does not change your rights as a consumer.
Who is really responsible when an appliance fails prematurely – the retailer or the manufacturer?
Morally and practically, the manufacturer is usually responsible for a premature failure caused by poor build quality or inherent defects. Legally, however, your claim lies with the retailer – who must then pursue the manufacturer themselves. This disconnect is at the heart of why appliance disputes are so common and so frustrating. Read our detailed analysis: who is responsible for faulty appliances?
What if the retailer has closed down or gone out of business?
If the retailer has ceased trading, your Consumer Rights Act claim against them is no longer straightforward. However, if you paid by credit card, Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act may give you a claim against the card issuer instead – this covers purchases over £100. For purchases on debit card, the chargeback scheme may be available, though this is not a statutory right. See our guide on consumer rights and appliances for more detail.
Whether you need to understand your rights, get a fault diagnosed, or book a repair engineer, Whitegoods Help can point you in the right direction.
My SIA larder fridge has a split in the plastic right across the back panel. For some time I thought it was an ice line although frost free. Five years old. They are claiming “out of time” when I quote 2015 Consumer rights.
Bought on line AO
Consumer rights are for 6 years, though only 5 years in Scotland.
Thanks Bob. Yes I remember Comet used to buy most of their appliances with an extra discount and take on the responsibility for all repairs under the guarantee. A very strange and risky business model. You can imagine the situation with retailers though, they might get extra discount to cover SOGA issues but then when it comes down to it the cost of exchanging or repairing an appliance that’s out of guarantee still comes from “their” money. It still impacts their profit margins. So they are just as reluctant to do anything and know that 90% of people can be easily fobbed off.
A retailler – at least those with buying power – will ensure that their future agreements with their suppliers will appropriately compensate for any SoGA issues … either in an up front contract to cover more than the just the guarantee, or in terms of wholesale price of future orders, etc.