Do you know your consumer rights?

The Consumer Rights Act offers protection that extends beyond the guarantee period but it might be difficult to make a successful claim after six months unless it can be shown that there is some deficiency in the product. It might be possible to get some sort of goodwill, such as a discount on a replacement product.

If a product is going to be disposed of, there’s nothing to be lost by having a go at fixing the problem, as Em suggests.

Which? seem to ignore advising the use of the “durability” requirement in the CRA. This means a product should last a reaonable length of time for its cost, and can be usef for the 6 years the CRA is applicable (5 yrs Scotland).

Clearly, someone has to do some work to show what durability of various products should be expected, but we fund Which? and other organisations to work on behalf of consumers.

It might be more difficult to show a product has been correctly used but failed prematurely as the product ages but for major appliances manufacturers could embed monitoring software; they are quite willing to make appliances “smart”.

But surely a clear example of when (lack of) durability should be used for the consumer’s benefit is when an appliance fails not long after the (short) guarantee has expired. Yet this seems not to be advised. Why is this, I wonder.

Julie – Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as well as being ‘as described’ and of ‘satisfactory quality’, goods must be ‘fit for purpose’ and ‘last a reasonable length of time’ [i.e. have reasonable ‘durability’].

I don’t think you would have much of a ‘not fit for purpose’ claim because, if a fault develops after the first six months, the burden is on you to prove, possibly with expert evidence, that the product was faulty at the time you took ownership of it.

I suggest that you follow Em’s advice and check to see if the wiring has become loose; if so, and you can fix it, but you still have a problem with colours, then I think you could go back to the retailer to seek a repair or replacement because I consider that a product like that, even bearing in mind its exposure to the elements, should last a good ten years before failing – after all, “Ring” doorbells can cost as much as any major household appliance. Bringing claims for lack of durability is difficult because there are no legal guidelines on the reasonable lifespan of products and a court case [with an unpredictable outcome] could swallow up even more money than the item is worth.
..

Malcolm – I agree with your comments. So far as I can see, Which? does not even mention ‘durability’ in its consumer guidance on the CRA – see:
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 was passed partly in order to make up for the loss of easy public access to trading standards services and to create a fairer trading environment so that consumers could exercise fundamental [and legally indisputable] rights themselves. It is a great shame that one of its main criteria has been so badly neglected that it could now be regarded as unfit for purpose. Without a dedicated consumer affairs minister it is no doubt difficult to get government action to deal with this shortcoming. Within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [BEIS] there is a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State [Minister] with responsibility for small business and enterprise (including access to finance), consumers and competition (including competition law), labour markets, postal affairs, and the retail sector. Paul Scully MP [Sutton & Cheam] is his name and he has been in post since 13 February 2020.

In order to make a successful claim rather than just goodwill, the product would have to be examined to established if there is a fault with the product or how it has been used, taking into account the instructions. As Em points out, exposure to the elements can be a problem. The CRA is intended to be fair to both consumers and to retailers.

Not really any different to dealing with a warranty claim, where misuse or abuse can be a factor. At present it seems we can only rely on goodwill, whereas the law provides a remedy that we should gear up for. Manufacturers can, as I suggest, include software for many things, so why not use it to check for correct use of a product and to identify the fault.

A product designed to fit on the exterior of a property needs to be designed to withstand normal weather conditions and therefore have a reasonable life expectancy. Three years or less is not reasonable, in my view.

Julie’s doorbell doesn’t work properly any more. It should not require an expert examination to prove that. The images can be forwarded electronically to anyone who doubts Julie’s word.

How many times a year does a doorbell get activated?

Malcolm – We don’t have to rely on goodwill. If we feel we have a valid case we can pay for an expert opinion as to why the product has failed. Some companies are prepared to provide this free of charge and as a result I have had a free replacement engine from VW and a major repair to an Apple laptop, both more than two years out of guarantee. I have never had to pay for a faulty product to be examined but would be prepared to do so and if my claim under the CRA was successful would try to reclaim the cost of the expert’s report.

Some faults are because of the way a product is used rather than an inherent defect. For example, if a dishwasher fails due to hard water causing a problem or the brushes of a washing machine motor wear out, that’s not the fault of the manufacturer or retailer.

Of course, and that can be done by agreement with, and the cooperation of, the retailer. If the consumers pays for the inspection if it is their fault and not a defective appliance. We also need guidelines and reasonable durability so all concerned can view an incident on a common and agreed basis. This is where I consider we need work done by consumer organisations to determine what appropriate fault-free lives should be.

John – I believe it would be useful to log faults and if investigation shows that there is a design fault causing premature failure require retailers to provide a remedy. I remember a discussion involving Patrick Steen about a known problem with the PS3 games console. If a video doorbell was not adequately sealed against water ingress then the same would apply. I am not aware of any current legislation that requires customers to be provided with a remedy under the CRA, but if I was making a claim I would collect as much information as I could about similar failures. If a remedy was a refund it would be reasonable to make a deduction for the length of time between purchase and the fault being reported.

I have politely reported concerns about poor design to manufacturers and have been provided with free spare parts outside the guarantee period. That does not help those who don’t have the confidence or knowledge to take action, which is why I am keen on identifying products with known problems. In my younger days I used to repair TVs as a hobby and the books I referred to listed the known problems with a particular model. Our former contributor Duncan Lucas had a set.

Which? Connect could be used to log faults.

A fault symptom such as a TV not displaying a picture could be the result of many causes. A survey might be useful to find out if a particular model shows the same symptom, allowing any recurring problem to be investigated and identified.

I’ve suggested that it would be useful to consult service engineers who are familiar with repairing household products to identify common faults that might be caused by a design problem.

There have been examples of motor manufacturers providing free or cheap repairs for known problems.

According to the John Lewis website, the Ring “Smart Video Doorbell Pro with Built-in Wi-Fi & Camera plus Ring Smart Chime” [£169.00] is “weather-resistant, operating between -21° and +48° C, to work rain or shine”. They say they have sold 25 in the last 48 hours.

Out of 171 reviews of this particular model there are seven 1-star and two 2-star reviews, of which none mentioned this fault and the negative comments were usually unrelated to the product itself but to the installation or the technical requirements for the installation. Of course, most customer reviews are submitted shortly after delivery or installation so would not comment on durability issues. That is another inhibitor of consumer action.

According to some reviewers Ring has a very helpful customer help service so it might be worth Julie having a word with them in case it is a known problem and they have a fix for it.

Hi Robert – You have rights against the retailer for up to six years and the advice on the Which? website will help you make a claim under the Consumer Rights Act: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product Note that the manufacturer, Samsung, has no legal responsibility, though sometimes they offer goodwill.

Your case is complicated by the fact that you have involved a repair shop rather than gone back to the retailer, but at least it has provided an expert opinion about the fault.

It would be interesting to know how the retailer responds if you make a claim. Best of luck.

Robert, as you have identified where the failure is your formal claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would, I suggest, be that it failed the “Durability” requirement that is a key part of the contract you have with the retailer. It did not last a reasonable length of time. I doubt anyone could dispute that. I would expect a decent retailer to recognise that, repair or replace or give a substantial refund and themselves gain redress from their own supplier.

If you look up the CRA you will see the Durability retirement.

As things may not be that simple if the retailer is uncooperative you could then contact Samsung and hope for goodwill from them. Then try Which?Legal to put pressure on the retailer.

I hope that the voucher that Vicky has received is generous. If not I would push for more.

It never fails to amaze me that goods sold under a brand name can differ so much. Years ago I bought a pair of Clarks sandals, was very happy with them and bought a second and eventually a third pair. The first pair wore out after a great deal of use, the second pair is doing very well and hopefully the third pair will serve me well, but have only been used indoors so far. A few years ago I bought a different style of Clarks sandals, left them in the shoe cupboard for a few years because I had not needed them. I got them out recently and after two wearings they have gone in the bin.

It’s not a bad idea to give products some use soon after purchase because faults often become apparent in the early days.

Bikes and bikes have been in great demand and the retailer has presumably been taking orders based on the expectation of receiving stock and may have had supply difficulties. It’s poor practice to continue to advertise products if they are out of stock but it still happens.

You have agreed to pay the higher price and the goods have been supplied, so the contract has been completed. I suggest pushing the retailer to refund the price difference. I suspect that it would be very difficult for you to prove that the retailer had deliberately not supplied the goods in order to raise the price.