Have you felt pressured to add insurance to a purchase?

Malcolm

Products are often well-designed but even the large manufacturers save a few pennies by using barely adequate electronic components, flimsy plastics, etc. Many small domestic products are designed for easy assembly and very difficult to take apart to repair them, contributing to prohibitive repair costs. For these and other reasons, TVs, washing machines and other larger appliances have well-known weaknesses or design faults. Perhaps best known are the problems associated with different models of cars, which are listed on the Honest John website and elsewhere. In the world of consumer electronics, it is well documented that certain Sony TVs suffer damage to their screen due to overheating.

The Sale of Goods Act should be the answer but it requires the customer to provide evidence that the fault existed at the time of purchase. I don’t know a single person who has even attempted to obtain this sort of report. Mentioning that you are aware of the Act is certainly worthwhile. A friend was going to write off a 14 month old TomTom sat nav last week, but I encouraged him to write to Amazon, explain the fact that it has been troublesome and mention his rights. They replied promptly saying that the model has been discontinued and gave him a full refund. Car manufacturers and dealers have led the way in ‘goodwill’ payments and free or discounted repairs. I once got a ‘free’ replacement engine (labour was charged) for a car that was two years out of the guarantee period.

Many people who use this site will be perfectly capable of politely explaining problems, pointing out their legal rights, and explaining what redress they are seeking, either with or without the help of the template letters on the Which? website. I’m keen on manufacturers’ or retailers’ free extended warranties to help the many consumers who would struggle to do this.

With extended warranties, it is essential that the manufacturer and retailer have appropriate protection too. It’s not reasonable to expect a washing machine to last ten years in a household with half a dozen kids. It is not difficult or expensive for the manufacturer to record the operating hours of a washing machine, etc. Car guarantees have covered a certain number of years or miles (whichever comes first) for a long time. There is a lot we can learn from the motor industry.

wavechange, the part of SOGA that I am interested in is durability (try Kindles as an example). This means that a product should last a reasonable length of time, not necessarily with a specific fault from purchase. I suggest this could be looked at, as products may fail before we might reasonably expect, and we should be able to claim some redress (e.g. repair, contribution to replace, replacement part depending on length of time used). It is an area that seems little used but could be of real value if a concerted effort were made to make use of it. Hence a potential task for Consumers Association – not about template letters but about what “reasonable durability” of different products might be.

I have relevant extracts from the OFT explanation of SOGA as follows:

Customers’ rights last for six years:
The law says that a customer can approach you with a
claim about an item they purchased from you for up to six years
from the date of sale (five years after discovery of the problem
in Scotland).
This does not mean that everything you sell has to last six
years from the date of purchase! It is the time limit for the
customer to make a claim about an item. During this period,
you are legally required to deal with a customer who claims
that their item does not conform to contract (is faulty) and
you must decide what would be the reasonable amount of
time to expect the goods to last. A customer cannot hold you
responsible for fair wear and tear.
The six year period is not the same as a guarantee, but it does
mean that even where the guarantee or warranty supplied
with the product has ended, your customer may still have
legal rights.

• 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.

Durability is my main concern too, Malcolm. I also feel that it is too difficult for the average consumer to pursue their rights under the SOGA. If the case went to court, the customer would probably be asked for a professional report indicating that the fault was present at the time of manufacture. If a washing machine fails prematurely because the manufacturer has used an underspecified component (e.g. a transistor costing 20p rather than 50p), the cost of parts (a new circuit board would be fitted) and labour could be over £100. That fault was not present at the time of manufacture.

Deciding what constitutes satisfactory durability is not easy for some items. For example, single person might use a washing machine twice a week but a family could use their machine twice a day.

Whatever system is put in place to address this problem, it needs to be easy to understand and use, and fair to both the customer, retailer and manufacturer.

The fault does not have to be present at purchase. You buy a washing machine, and it fails in an expensive way after 18 months – do you give up and not try for redress? Your TV fails after 2 years – is that reasonable? Your boiler stops working a couple of years out of warranty – should you expect that? No – these items are not reasonably durable and consumers should expect some compensation – repair for example. It may be down to poor quality components, and unless it was a cheap and nasty item they probably form a design defect, or an out-of-spec component.

It may not always be easy easy to pursue such claims, but avoiding them is no way to move forward. An association of consumers can help individuals by, for example, forming what reasonable durability might mean, by being in a position to accumulate faults that can help consumers frame their argument, by testing appliances and uncovering potential shortcomings. Which? for example?

SOGA does seem fair to both consumers and retailers in its framework. It needs implementing reasonably. Many retailers and manufacturers will take a sensible approach to durability, I believe, if approached appropriately. Legal action should not normally be necessary – it only lines the lawers pockets.

The problem with durability measured in years alone is that it takes no account of the usage to which an appliance is put – and hence manufacturers are not inclined to be very generous.

We are quite used to car warranties being expressed in years and mileage – e.g. 3 years or 50,000 miles. It can’t be beyond the wit of electronics engineers to design cheap, tamper-proof, sensors that measure the number of times a dishwasher has been used, or the operating hours of a lawn mower, so that warranties could take usage into account. I’ve got chips in my ink-jet cartridges that tell me when to change them and prevent refilling.

So why can’t I have a chip in my vacuum cleaner or kettle that offers a true “lifetime” guarantee?

Where have I suggested we should not seek redress in the event of a problem? I have been complaining about lack of durability since 1971, when I tackled Rumbelows over my faulty Grundig reel-to-reel tape recorder. Eventually I fixed the problem myself, but this incident sparked my interest in consumer rights. I have had a great deal of success over the years and if anyone is unhelpful after a polite request, I produce information about the SOGA.

As I said, you may need an expert’s report for older goods. Which? has this information on their website:

“Expert’s reports
Beyond six months, it’s up to you to prove that the problem was there when you received the goods even if it has taken until now to come to light.
So, you may need to prove that the fault was not down to ordinary wear and tear or damage you caused, and that the product (or a component) should have lasted longer than it did.
To do this you may need an expert’s report, for example, from an engineer or a mechanic.”

I certainly do not want to take legal action and would like a system that makes it easy to seek redress, irrespective of confidence and detailed understanding of consumer rights.

Em, exactly – elapsed time meters are cheap and could help. Other methods are probably available for manufacturers to decide fair usage. However I would think with many items it would not be difficult.
wavechange – as I read it durability does not imply there was a problem at purchase (a defect) as I restated above. It is this area that could do with exploitation. Collating information on product faults would be a good way of demonstrating sub-standard designs for example, and give consumers a basis to proceed. It has taken a long time for car manufacturers to be forced to recognise that a one year warranty is inadequate. How long will it take to persuade other manufacturers the benfits of backing the durability of their products. You’ve tried for 43 years. Perhaps Which could address the issue with other Consumer Associations for the benefit of we consumers?

Em

Most domestic equipment contains electronic circuitry, making it easy to log the total operating time or number of times an item is used. Non-electronic elapsed time indicators have been in use for at least 40 years, though I have never seen them in domestic equipment.

This is not only about products that contain electronics of course.

The early indicators looked like a wire-ended fuse and contained a small amount of mercury. That’s probably why they have been withdrawn. A cheap electronic device will do the job.

OK – point taken Malcolm. There are many non-electrical items too. 🙂

It’s difficult to judge what constitutes fair wear and tear on carpets, for example.

The insurance company is in business to make a profit, like any company. It is possible that the rise in premium may be related to the fact that you have made several claims, but not necessarily. All you can do is shop around for alternative cover or take the risk of your dishwasher not developing further faults. I don’t believe D&G are doing anything illegal, unless you were promised that the cost of cover would be maintained at the same level. You are not obliged to continue the insurance.

What we should all be looking for is appliances with a decent manufacturer’s warranty included in the price. I believe that manufacturers should cover expensive appliances such as dishwashers for ten years (maybe five for cheap ones), provided that they have not been abused or simply worn out through heavy use. If the manufacturer has to pay for the cost of repair, they will be more likely to use decent quality parts in their products.

………..then there would need to be a change in G & S Act legislation to ensure the manufacturer and not the retailer is responsible should any faults occur on larger appliances in particular. Better quality parts would certainly reduce the likelihood of this happening but there is always going to be the odd occasion when faults do occur when the manufacturer should then be held to account, especially when an inherent fault is evident. Paying more for better quality products must include manufacturers insurance [guarantee] so there would be no further need for add-ons but this would affect sales and ultimately profits which is one reason why they churn out cheap inferior stuff with little or no guarantee and expect the consumer to pay when things go wrong through add-ons and unreasonable demands from Insurance Companies.

On the other side of the coin, the service side of any manufacturing industry is a drain on company profits so you would think it would be in their own interests to produce a more durable product. Question is, can the average consumer afford or is willing to pay for them?

Morgan, perhaps the best option for people extending the warranty on their appliances is to take a term insurance where it is available, paid up front, if they look good value. Miele offer 5 and 10 year repair or replace warranties on a number of their appliances. I took an 10 years on a dishwasher for £149. Not something I would normally do but it seemed reasonable value for 10 years total peace of mind.

We have discussed long manufacturers’ guarantees and the alternatives elsewhere. All will add to the initial cost of the appliance because there will be failures that need funding. It should encourage manufacturers to design with reliability and durability in mind, as this would minimise claims. But do we want to pay more for appliances? There seem to be mixed views.

Incidentally, has the cost of your insurance so far been less than the cost of repairs to your dishwasher?