Brief cases: can I make a claim after all this time?

On the basis that Peter’s warranty allowed for a refund, receiving a refund plus a goodwill payment for the inconvenience resulting from the failed repairs is a fair outcome. It is good that Grohe offered a five year warranty and rather unusual to include a clause offering a refund, presumably applying in cases where repair had not been achieved or was not economically possible. The only disappointment is that Peter had to obtain legal advice and to contact the CEO to sort out the problem. I expect most people would have just given up trying in these circumstances.

I appreciate that we need Which? to provide reliable and independent testing of a wide variety of products, but as a member, my main interest is the work Which? is doing to tackle the problem of consumers being treated very shabbily. Some of our regular contributors to Which? Conversation would be extremely grateful if we could explore the long standing problem that retailers routinely deny that they have any responsibility after the guarantee/warranty expires, sometimes referring customers to the manufacturer who has no legal responsibility for offering a remedy.

Earlier in the year, Which? magazine carried a report about ‘mystery shoppers’ posing as customers being given poor advice relating to their rights after expiry of their manufacturer’s warranty. This is in the January 2014 issue of the magazine and members can access this via their account on the Which? website if they have not kept the magazine. Amazon and John Lewis performed worst but every one of the retailers approached performed poorly. I would like to see this re-enacted with real people (perhaps Which? members who subscribe to Which? Legal) with real faulty goods. If these members are turned away when they have rights under the Sale of Goods Act then there is a good case for taking legal action against the retailer for failing to meet its legal obligation. That cannot be done with mystery shoppers, who are actors pretending to have problems.

The biggest problem with the Sale of Goods Act seems to be over the issue of durability and though I know of cases of manufacturers making goodwill gestures (despite any legal obligation to do so) I am not familiar with any recent cases of consumers achieving a satisfactory outcome when they approach the retailer over products that have failed prematurely after the warranty has expired.

I think the most effective way of achieving consumer protection for faulty goods is to push for longer warranties that are fair both to the consumer and the manufacturer or retailer that provides the warranty. As Which? has rightly pointed out for many years, purchased extended warranties are generally poor value for money, so we need warranties included in the purchase price. With any warranty, the provider is not expected to cover fair wear and tear or abuse.

It would be a great help if Which? could include the length of manufacturers’ warranties as a factor in giving rating for products tested and when selecting ‘Best Buys’. Longer warranties are included with some products (the shower mentioned in the introduction is an example), but the length of warranty has to become an important selling point, which has happened with cars.

Thanks to Peter Litchman for this Conversation.

I’m fed up with retailers telling me that I have no rights after a warranty expires. The warranty is a contractual right, which is in addition to and does not replace one’s statutory rights. It’s often an uphill struggle to make a retailer fulfil its legal obligations, which often means involving one’s credit card issuer under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Under Regulation 5(4)(k) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, if a retailer tells you that you have no rights after the expiry of a manufacturer’s warranty with the intention that you pay for repairs for which it is potentially liable, then the retailer is committing an offence under Regulation 9, punishable under Regulation 13 by a fine and/or up to two years’ imprisonment. Retailers need to train their staff properly so as not to misinform consumers about their rights.