The confusion around faulty goods

Unless the TV was purchased directly from Sony, the legal responsibility lies with the retailer, not the manufacturer. It does not matter if there is a design fault. The manufacturer would only be responsible if they had recalled a product because it was unsafe. There is also no requirement to provide a refund on goods where the guarantee has expired. Under the Consumer Rights Act you have a legal to reject goods that are unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described and get a full refund within 30 days of purchase.

Although manufacturers have no legal responsibility, they are often more helpful than retailers.

Duncan – Sorry, but I should have mentioned that there is still the possibility of a refund if a retailer has attempted a repair and it has failed. The case we are discussing is complicated because the TV has already been replaced. I don’t know whether the retailer would be allowed an attempt to repair the new TV.

Design defects -present in the product from the beginning,even before it is manufactured , in that something in the design is inherently unsafe- manufacturing defects -those that occur in the course of a product , manufacture or assembly -“res ipsa loquitur ” . In this case its a DESIGN fault , something the retailer would know nothing about -UNLESS advised by the manufacturer , in Common law its the manufacturers liability . That the Consumer Rights Laws in the UK are Skewed and “weasel words” used should not prevent the plaintiff going to court and winning his case , no if ,buts ,maybe,s – 1000,s of people in the UK/US ALL complain of the same fault –does that not “ring a bell ” in relation to other Convo,s ? . The part could be removed by a qualified expert , examined , determined to be bad/cheap design and case won.

There seems, in my view, to be a misconception that has been perpetuated and one I have asked Which? to comment on in the past. “Fault” as in “faulty goods” is not a term used either in SoGA or CRA. They use the term “contract” as in a failure to meet contract terms. These terms include a number of things, one of which is “Quality”. Under “Quality” are a number of items including “Durability”. Hence if a product does not prove to have acceptable durability – stops working properly before a reasonable time – then it fails to meet the contract and thus remedy is required by both SoGA (for items purchased pre Oct 2015) or CRA thereafter.

As far as the 30 days “rule” is concerned as I understand it this is the time when the consumer has the right to a full refund if an item proves to have a defect. But after that, and for up to 6 years, claims can be made and redress required.

We have a framework of legal protection that consumer groups should make absolutely clear, so we know how to approach retailers (with whom our contract usually rests and who are legally obliged to provide a suitable remedy) and obtain redress that is fair to both parties.

It may well be that Natakie has used the manufacturers guarantee to get a remedy. It is usual, I believe, for a guarantee to be effective from the date the product was first purchased, even when a replacement product has been supplied.

Another conversation has the subject “Will Prime Minister May be a pro-consumer Prime Minister”. One way to “restore trust” – I’d suggest rather “provide reassurance” – would be to ensure consumers can more easily get justifiable redress when they have a problem with a product or service.

Which? could, I believe, do much more to ensure steps are taken to achieve this. unless, perish the thought, my understanding of SoGA and CRA is totally wrong in which case perhaps they would say.

When we buy a product, use it correctly and don’t abuse it, we should be entitled to expect it to last a reasonable time taking account of the price we pay. That is what “durability” is all about and I want to see the playing field leveled so consumers get a fair deal without unreasonable cost or inconvenience. I would have thought that, as a guardian of consumers’ rights, Which? would surely have this as one of their top priorities?

I strongly agree about design faults, Duncan. When I used to do faultfinding on consumer electronics, mainly TV and radio, design faults were common knowledge and well documented. My last car was gradually working through the list of known problems with that model.

I am disappointed that the Consumer Rights Act did not focus on the problem of design faults. I wonder if those who compiled the document have much experience of faultfinding. Service engineers know about design faults and often carry appropriate replacement parts in their vans.

Which gives useful advice:

After the first six months the burden is on you to prove that the product was faulty at the time of delivery.

In practice, this may require some form of expert report, opinion or evidence of similar problems across the product range.

We have to be careful about using information from websites because frequent failures are not always caused by the same defective component. You will be aware of this but those who rarely do repairs might not.