Beko should have acted faster on fridge freezer fires

Michelle, whatever the guarantee a product should also have reasonable durability. This is covered in the Sale of Goods Act and it says “the product should:

be of satisfactory quality
quality of goods includes
– appearance and finish
– freedom from minor defects (such as marks or holes)
– safe to use
– in good working order
– durability

durability – the durability requirement is that the item should
work or last for a reasonable time but it does not have to
remain of satisfactory quality. For example, a pair of wellington
boots should stay waterproof but does not have to keep its
brand new appearance.

reasonable time – this depends on the item and the
circumstances. What is reasonable is determined by taking
everything into account and considering what an impartial
person would think is reasonable.”

If you have used the appliance normally then an impartial person would not expect it to fail in 19 months. I’d suggest a fridge-freezer should last 10 years.

I suggest you check the obvious if you haven’t already- for example that you have not accidentally switched it off at the socket, or have a failed fuse in the plug (does the light still come on?). Does it make a noise but not get cold? I’d approach the retailer then, who may require you to have it checked at your cost (you may still be at fault). The advantage of you having someone do a basic check on the appliance is you can then give the retailer the cause of failure and point out they have an obligation under the Sale of Goods Act to make recompense for lack of reasonable durability and also to refund your examination fee. This is independent of any guarantee.

That is my interpretation – Which? may have better advice. If this friendly approach fails you can then take (or threaten to take) the retailer to the small claims court to get redress. All should be cheaper than buying a new appliance.

Sorry to hear of your problem with the fridge freezer. As the product is out of the warranty period, the onus is on you to prove to the retailer that it was faulty at the point of sale and that what has happened is not just general wear and tear.

My colleague Lewis Skinner has written about this issue. Titled ‘The big faulty goods fob off’, it may be useable in your circumstance.
https://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/returning-faulty-goods-retailers-sale-of-goods-act/

I’d also suggest you look at the following links about faulty products:
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/how-to-get-a-faulty-product-replaced-or-repaired

Hopefully you will get a satisfactory ending

The tendency seems to be to focus only on “faults” in goods – that is an abnormal manufacturing defect that exists when purchased. However SoGA has a requirement of durability, as I said above. Acceptable durability might not be met for other reasons – such as a design that is inadequate or materials or components generally embodied that are not up to the job – just a poor quality product. Does Which? not think this is a separate source for complaint that could simply be judged against a “reasonable durability” criterion? SoGA defines these terms. I think that having to prove a fault pre-existed puts many people off pursuing a claim. Help with a simpler route would be appreciated. A fridge-freezer that lasts 19 months clearly does not meet the test of durability, does it?

A component that is faulty at the time of manufacture will usually be apparent during the guarantee period. Failures due to underspecified components, unsuitable materials and poor design are – I believe – responsible for many cases of premature failure of products outside the guarantee period.

Providing that a fridge-freezer has not been damaged or abused then it should last at least ten years and have a warranty for this period. Obviously this cannot be expected to cover damage or abuse. Fridge-freezers are often damaged by users’ efforts to remove ice or by using them in an enclosed space without adequate ventilation.

The Sale of Goods Act isn’t really fit for the 21st century and what the consumers need is decent warranties without paying extra for them. If manufacturers are responsible for the cost of replacement or repair, their products will soon become more reliable.

I’m no expert on the Sale of Goods Act but have asked a colleague and this was their reply;

….starting point is that you won’t find a a specific requirement set out in the SGOA that goods be “reasonably durable.” Durability is one of the factors to consider when determining whether something is of “satisfactory quality” or not – this is the relevant extract from the Sale of Goods Act 1979:

Section 14
(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.

(2B)
For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, (b) appearance and finish, (c) freedom from minor defects, (d) safety, and (e) durability.

Malcolm is right though that where an item doesn’t last as long as it should have, you’d focus on the durability element, but it would be with a view to arguing that it is not of “satisfactory quality” rather than not “reasonably durable”.

…..claims under the SOGA wouldn’t just be where a product has a specific defect, the SOGA as Malcolm suggests, could also apply where you just make your product out of materials that weren’t up to the job i.e. it could be made exactly as the manufacturer intended, but it’s still not of satisfactory quality or fit for its purpose.

Richard, thanks for following this up. Durability became a specific requirement under “Implied terms about quality and fitness” in the 1994 amendments. So SoGA clearly requires a product to be durable and introduced this for a reason. I don’t know where the act defines durable, but the Office of Fair Trading “Sales of Goods Act explained” has a glossary that defines durable as” …..last for a reasonable time” – the latter being “…what an impartial person would think was reasonable”. I presume these terms are based on legal interpretation.

Certainly if Michelle’s fridge-freezer has just stopped working after 19 months without misuse then lack of reasonable durability must be an issue?

It seems to me that durability is one key element of SoGA and included to be used as one means of pursuing redress. I think we should pay more attention to it as a means of helping consumers.

Whilst I, like others, would like to see longer guarantees I do not see them replacing the Sale of Goods Act. Guarantees will always be designed by the manufacturer – so written in their favour – whereas legislation should always be in the consumer’s favour, and ensure unfair terms or omissions are not misused. However, I bang on about durability in SoGA and I think most of us believe that when we buy a product we expect it to last a reasonable time; this will depend upon a number of factors, including cost. Where SoGA fails is it only lasts 6 years, and yet we should expect a lot of products to last much longer – I suggest up to 10 years is a more reasonable time for some products.
We could not expect longer guarantees to be free; inevitably a manufacturer, however good their quality, will supply some individual items that will have a problem during, say, a 5 year period and the cost of repairing will come out of their profits, so being realistic must be covered in the initial cost. However, where we will win will be that the better manufacturers will have fewer problems, and therefore lower extra costs; the poorer quality manufacturers will either have to up their game, or their prices, to cover their higher problem rate.
We need both a Sale of goods Act – particularly made more usable for durability and the number of years it can be applied – and longer warranties that reflect reasonable durability. That’s my view. if others agree, should Which? be pursuing this for us?

Malcolm – You and I and a relatively small proportion of the population pursue our rights under the Sale of Goods Act, but it is far too difficult too much hassle to expect most people to do this, especially when retailers have not wakened up to their obligations. In the recent survey Which? found that none of the visits to retailers – including John Lewis – gave acceptable responses to the undercover investigators.

Car manufacturers used to provide a warranty for a year, but longer warranties have done a lot to help sales of makes that offer longer warranties. Brands that offer longer warranties don’t necessarily cost more and no-one can fail to appreciate how much cars have improved over the years. The fact that we have longer car warranties and main agents are often prepared to support the customer via ‘goodwill’ repairs or payments helps maintain loyal customers too.

We are stuck with the Sale of Goods Act for a while yet, but what we should be campaigning for is longer warranties for ‘consumer durables’, with longer warranties being an important selling point. Consumer durables is a very appropriate name.

Wavechange, I think you pick up on my main point – we need to make it much easier to use the Sale of Goods Act – it should cover more than even an extended warranty will. Where are we with Kindle screens for example? I would have thought a clear case of inadequate durability. And why should Michelle have to jump through hoops to prove her failed fridge-freezer at 19 months is not her fault?
I would like to see longer warranties – even 3 years for a car is pretty poor. But if retailers are made to understand their obligations under SoGA – and using it more routinely will wake them up – then our consumer rights will be exercised more successfully. It is not one or the other – strengthen both. An important job for Consumers Association in my view.
When I mentioned SoGA recently to John Lewis in pursuit of a claim they were on my side, gave me immediate redress, and got it back from their manufactuer. No warranty involved, just durability.

Unless there is a major change in the legislation, the majority of consumers will continue to receive little benefit of the Sale of Goods Act. It’s time to cut our losses and push for extended warranties.

What Michelle needs is to get her fridge-freezer repaired under warranty, without hassle.