Do you know your consumer rights?

Fitbit is right about the original purchase date being the one that matters. I’m surprised that they have not given you a full refund by now, Michael.

You have a statutory right to make a claim under the Consumer Rights Act for five or six years, depending on where you live in the UK. This takes priority over the manufacturer’s guarantee and is against the retailer rather than the manufacturer, but in the circumstances I do not know what the outcome might be. I admire your tenacity but sometimes it’s worth moving on. https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act-aKJYx8n5KiSl

A manufacturer’s guarantee only applies to the item originally purchased; replacements will only be covered by the original duration of that guarantee.

I’d suggest your claim should be for lack of durability, a specific requirement of the contract you made with the retailer as stated in the Consumer Rights Act.

From what I recall, fitness trackers do not have long lives but I can’t find the Which? report.

A manufacturer’s guarantee applies according to its own terms. Which differ by company and product. If the replacement was a repaired or refurbished item the terms may limit the cover to the balance of the original term, though some will add ” ….or x months whichever is the longer”. If the replacement was brand new item some will start the term afresh. Since the manufacturer is not obliged to give any guarantee at all it seems fair they should be able to define the terms of what they offer.

You are right, David. To quote from the Fitbit website: “Any replacement Product will be warranted for the remainder of the original Warranty Period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer, or for any additional period of time that may be required by applicable law.”

I had looked this up when a former neighbour of mine had a problem with a Fitbit.

Nicki – That is a difficult question and there might not be a satisfactory answer. In the first place I think you will need to establish the company’s current status. You can check this on the Companies House website which should state whether the company is still active, or in administration, or going through liquidation. In the case of the latter two states you would then need to contact the administrators or liquidators to register your interest. What happens next will depend on what you can find out.

How did you pay for the new windows and did you pay the entire cost or withhold a retention in case of any rectification work? If you paid with a credit card you might be able to recover some money to pay for an independent remedy but you will need to discuss that with your card issuer before committing to any work. If the defects are minor and the windows still function and don’t leak then it would be best to postpone any repair work until you know the full position of the company.

Some buildings insurance policies include cover for similar occurrences so it might be worth while checking your policy and asking your insurer whether they can help.

If the window company was a member of a trade body you might be able to find out some more about their trading position and whether or not there is any protection scheme for customers.

Hi Nicki – Which? has advice on making a claim against your credit card provider it the company has gone bust: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-can-i-get-my-money-back-if-a-company-goes-bust-aAmCs2Z30SLb

It’s worth confirming the status of the company as John has suggested.

Cavity wall insulation was installed by the Mark Group for the previous owners of my home. After they went bust in 2017 I discovered that I might still have protection since it was a member of a trade body. Fortunately I have not had any problems.

I hope you find a solution.

That is very useful information, James.
It would be interesting to know the actual fault(s) with Nicki’s timber windows as it might be possible to have someone remedy them. I wonder if it was the fitter who went broke, with the windows purchased by them from the manufacturer? They might be able to help.

Andrew – At the moment the pergola is presumably not fit for purpose. Robert Dyas are accepting that they must replace it. Their inability to supply a particular component is their risk but I nevertheless feel that you should dismantle the item yourself and do your best to make it available for replacement. I can understand if you feel disinclined to do so but that would be my advice for a satisfactory outcome.

When things go wrong with purchases it does cause inconvenience and consumers have to accept that up to a point. To some extent, it’s in the price. I don’t think you are in a strong position to lay down too many conditions on how and when you get a replacement; if Robert Dyas make their best endeavours to satisfy your rights that will count in their favour in the event of this becoming a legal dispute. The company has a good reputation and I feel that if you work with them they will ensure you get satisfaction.

The sensible solution would be for Robert Dyas to supply the missing components or to instruct their supplier to do this. That’s the sort of service that I associate with buying from shops. They might want to see photos illustrating the problem.

I fear that Dyas is unlikely to cooperate with Andrew’s request but they could offer a worthwhile discount for wasting Andrew’s time. It may only take one incident to create a former customer.

It seems that the feet of the pergola are not missing but faulty. Whether they are separate or part of the structure is not clear.

As you say, I would have expected Robert Dyas to offer to supply replacements but for whatever reason that is not within their capability. The maker or supplier could be a long way away and it might take forever for new parts to arrive. Cannibalising another product to obtain satisfactory feet might have been considered but not a practical solution if another example is similarly defective or not available.

If, as Andrew surmises, Robert Dyas do not actually stock this product and it is ordered direct from the manufacturer in flat-pack form it is understandable that they cannot come up with a simple solution for replacing or rectifying the feet.

We don’t know the full situation nor whether Andrew bought the pergola on-line or in a shop where he had an opportunity to view it. The consumer rights will differ.

I must admit I might have sought a discount and sorted out my own engineering solution to the feet problem, but without knowing the product it is impossible to say whether or not that is practical for the average homeowner faced with this problem.

If the pergola is worth keeping I, like John, would find a way to secure it, using my ingenuity or the internet. There are fixing kits to secure pergolas to the ground available online. I would be surprised if one could not be found to solve the problem, and get RD to pay.

Otherwise I think dismantling and leaving the faulty product accessible to be collected is the alternative. It is unreasonable to expect someone to stay at home all day for the convenience of RD, if the product is not as described.