The big faulty goods fob off

I fully agree. How long should a kettle last? Or an MP3 player? These are two items I have argued about in the past with no great success. There has to be a list of acceptable life. But should it be accepted that a cheaper item should have a shorter life than a more expensive item? And if so, how much shorter?

This is a very good point, John, and one that has been made many times in earlier discussions. It has also been suggested that Which? could give us an indication of expected life of different types of appliance when publishing reviews.

Perhaps an mp3 player could be expected to last 3 years. The technology is improving and as small portable devices, they are knocked around a lot. That could also be the lifetime of a built-in battery, though having user-replaceable batteries is a better design.

Though a kettle is often one of the most heavily used items in the home, I believe there is a case for pushing for a 5 year warranty as standard and perhaps up to 10 years on more expensive models.

If you take apart broken appliances and try to find out why they have failed, often it is a cheap part that has failed. Better quality, reliable appliances does not mean that they have to cost a lot more.

Will Asus not accept the email exchanges as proof of purchase?

Sorry – wrong thread!!

Well, I’m pretty sure almost every customer was cheated by customer service. My blackberry tablet broke after 5 months, took it back to currys within warranty period and received back only the phone number to blackberry customers service as currys apparently doesn’t take responsibility for any product purchased from them. Exactly the same situation had with Samsung tablet bought from Tesco Direct. They are happy to take the money but don’t give anything back, I think that phrase “Customer is always right” faded away ages ago.

Agreed. It needs a few prosecutions, perhaps by Which?, to imprint these responsibilities and obligations upon the minds of retailers. If that means much better staff training, then so be it. Finding knowledgeable sales staff is difficult enough when it comes to product knowledge, but lack of training in Consumer Protection Law is often very evident. Any decent retailer would ensure that sales staff can demonstrate all this knowledge (after training), before being let loose on the unsuspecting public. The UK enjoys some of the best Consumer Protection Legislation in the world, but some sellers still abrogate their responsibilities and treat complaining customers with contempt. It is a long and slow process to get some parts of the public to stand up for their consumer rights.

Gloria, thanks for this – it looks to be a brilliant source of addresses.
Which? Why don’t you think about publishing a single list of all the people and organisations that members might want to contact, or links to other directories such as the above . Plenty of contributors raise questions about how and who to contact, helpful organisations, alternative (free) phone numbers.

thanks for the link to ceoemails. Could be very useful in the future.

You are welcome. I am always telling friends about it. Just heard from a friend in US she used it against Avis after I gave it to her

I agree that Which? should continue to work hard to uncover cases where customers are cheated, misled or otherwise abused. It seems difficult, then, for it to act as other than a pressure group. It can help members with information in pursuing claims, but does it have the resources to do more for individual members? Presumably Which Legal is the place to go, for those who subscribe.

We should have an effective organisation that investigates and penalises offending traders, suppliers and service providers in response to consumer complaints, whether individual or collective, when a direct approach has failed. I thought this was Trading Standards remit, but, as said elsewhere, this seems to be a pretty feeble and disconnected organisation. As Consumer Affairs Minister should we not be asking Jo Swinson what she proposes?

Malcolm – What I had in mind was for Which? to select some cases to help members pursue, in order to generate publicity about companies that are not facing up to their legal obligations. These could be selected on the basis that there are few complications or uncertainties and that the consumers are happy for details of their case to be published. Perhaps these cases could be selected from ones already being looked at on behalf of members subscribing to the Which? Legal service. The stories need to be reported in the press to bring them to the attention of the public.

It is not good that Trading Standards and regulators have a poor and probably well deserved reputation for failing to support consumers. I believe that getting retailers to comply with their obligations under the Sale of Goods Act as a potential ‘quick win’. It would help if all purchases of consumer durables included brief information about consumers’ rights and where to find detailed information.

wavechange, Which? does help individuals through their legal service and publishes outcomes. However I agree that taking on more widespread issues in this way would be helpful – by that I mean dealing with a company that has caused a number of members problems. It does seem to just publish the company response to criticism but not take any further action. (Is that not so? I might be being unfair)

I’d like to see all consumers helped, not just Which members. So an effective Trading Standards type of body might be an answer, but in this, as in Sale of Goods Act issues, consumers need to be helped with information on how to get redress – and indeed incentivised to take action in the first place. A leaflet with each purchase is a good idea, but it will need an effective system to back it up.

What I have in mind is rather more extensive publicity, including TV coverage if possible.

I very much agree that all consumers need to be helped. Our Which? subscriptions give us access to product reviews, but a commendable amount of useful information is freely available to everyone.

I had a very positive experience when I called Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline earlier this year. They relayed all the relevant information to Trading Standards, which then took no action. I have no idea if the Consumer Helpline will provide advice about rights if they have a product that has failed outside the warranty period.

It is important that consumers know the extent of their rights and, for example, don’t expect to be given a free TV if they take back one that has died after five years, or if they have abused it.

Not everyone is comfortable about consumers’ rights, but another strategy is to push for ‘goodwill’, a common way of supporting customers who have problems with cars outside the warranty period. You have given us plenty of examples of what can be achieved by being courteous, Malcolm.

I have found that the most effective strategy is to go to a shop when it is not busy, have something in writing about the faulty item, brush up on my rights and dress smartly. On several occasions I have gone back when a different shop manager was on duty and it was worth the effort. I try to avoid asking to speak to a senior member of staff, because that can be taken as an insult, but look round the store to decide who to approach.

Thanks NFH. You are doing a grand job in providing us with useful links.

From my reading, the EU directive seems to allow for problems to be resolved free of charge to the consumer unless the lack of conformity is minor. On the other hand, under the Sale of Goods Act, the retailer can make a charge for the amount of use the customer has had before the fault occurred when a product beyond its guarantee period.

If you paid for your iPhone on a credit card, you could do a Section 75 claim via your card issuer. I did this when I had a problem with Apple, and American Express were fantastic. My case was simple because I bought my iPhone from Apple. If you acquired your iPhone from a mobile network (funded by the monthly charge for service), then you will have to claim instead from the mobile network under Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

My youngest son bought a pair of Dune shoes online and wore through the sole in 6-7 months. They had not been heavily used. They asked for the shoes to be sent back for examination – quite reasonably – but his case was they should not have worn out in such a short time. He made a complaint and cited the Sale of Goods Act requesting a refund and a timely response. To Dune’s credit they met his request in full.

So keeping shoes in a cupboard without much air causes them to deteriorate ! I think my reply to the assistant would have been “perhaps you keep your brain in the same sort of place”. Why on earth do these people think they can fob people off with such ridiculous excuses. Not only are the goods unfit for purpose, the people selling them are just the same. Keep spreading the bad news – the more people who react to poor service, the greater the chance of manufacturers and sellers having to sit up and take notice – and if they don’t, then they deserve to go out of business.

Simone – Thanks for letting us know about the shop assistant’s explanation of the problem with your husband’s shoes. It is one of the most amusing anecdotes I have read for a long time.

I wonder if the instructions mention that shoes need plenty of fresh air and exercise. 🙂

I am now on my 10th pair of hotters
fantastically comfy shoes – the best ever, good arch support
but the soles keep on splitting right across the ball of the foot
some within 2 weeks of wearing them
to be fair they keep on replacing them
last time I was pursuaded to go for a different sole style – and they too are splitting
never had a sole split on me in my previous 50 or so years

And I have had the Same experience with Clarks shoes – does anyone know a good make of really comfortable shoes that actually last?

Hi, I work in hotter customer service and do hear some stories of deteriorating soles, if you post the shoes back to hotter head office explaining what has happened with the shoes, with your proof of purchase, they will replace the shoes or offer vouchers up to their value of the shoes. Even if the shoes are out of their warranty period

I generally pay by credit card because this offers protection for goods that cost over £100, but what would be the position if I had paid by debit card or cash?

You are right to pay by credit card wherever possible, as the card issuer has joint responsibility for the transaction, meaning that if a trader goes bust, the card issuer is liable and should issue a refund on a valid claim. However, if you pay by cash, cheque or debit card, you have no comeback if the seller goes bust. Your only recourse then might be to approach the manufacturer, who might not wish to risk possible negative publicity and offer a satisfactory solution, probably on a goodwill basis (to disassociate themselves from any legal liability).
What is very worrying, however, is that after companies go bust, the directors can all too easily start up the same line of business, using very similar company names if they like – and have no liabilities for their previous companies and their responsibilities. I’m not saying this happens in all cases, but a lot of this goes on and some of these directors are known to repeat the process over and over again – usually in services trading rather than retailing. I would like to see legislation to tighten this up and protect the public from those who keep on doing this and have no intention of trading fairly.

Thanks for confirming my understanding, AQ. What worries me most is when car dealers go out of business. In view of the amount of money involved, hopefully the manufacturers will offer some goodwill in the event of major problems.

Small Internet traders often don’t last long. I would like to know if Amazon will take responsibility for goods sold by Marketplace traders via the Amazon website.

AQ

There is protection when goods are purchased with a Debit Card, most card providers participate in a “Chargeback Scheme” whereby, if you dispute a transaction that’s been made on your card, you can ask your bank to ask the trader’s bank to reverse the transaction and refund the money back into your account. This gives you extra protection if your card is used fraudulently and also if you have a consumer problem with faulty goods.

Normally there is usually no minimum or maximum limit to the claim.

Thanks. I will make a note of this in case I use a debit card to avoid credit card surcharges.

There is probably a cooling-off period to allow customers to inspect the terms & conditions of the freezer warranty. 🙂

That’s just a bit garbled, but the meaning is obvious. I spotted ‘independantly’ at 1.31 in the video, so maybe Which? staff are doing a taste test on gin.

Amazon has fulfilled its obligations regarding the steam cleaner, but providing a free vacuum cleaner is a generous gesture and beyond their obligations.

You are justifiably a satisfied customer, but what about all those who have been shabbily treated when their Kindles have failed just after the warranty period?

I hope that Amazon is setting standards for customer care, but one significant problem is that they don’t seem to take much responsibility for goods sold via their Marketplace traders. These traders are getting business on the basis of Amazon’s name, but Amazon should deal with problems if the Marketplace trader fails to deal with problems.

Forcing Amazon to comply with the Sale of Goods Act for failed Kindles would be a good way for Which? to lead a SoGA campaign. Is there a barrier to them doing this? What usefully came out of that conversation?

A Which? campaign covering rights under the Sale of Goods Act could be accompanied by extensive public involvement and hopefully news coverage.

Focusing on a product such as the Kindle with a high failure rate and plenty of evidence of the retailer not fulfilling their responsibilities would be a good start.

Another approach would be to encourage us to go back to retailers if we have an item that has developed a major fault outside the warranty period (and this has not been caused by abuse). Perhaps leaflets explaining the key points could be made available, for example in libraries and GP surgeries.

Large manufacturers do produce products with design faults and weaknesses, even if most of their products are of satisfactory quality. This has always been the case. At one time, only the companies and those involved in doing repairs would be aware of the problems but thanks to the Internet, the public may gain an insight.

Although your rights lie with the retailer it may be worth contacting the manufacturer, though from what I have read on websites, Sony was unhelpful to many people who had problems with flat-screen TVs a few years ago.

This goes to show that despite the excessive amounts of EU legislation, consumer protection isn’t included and just does not compare to what we have in the UK. There is a mistaken myth that the Brits are not as good at complaining as our continental cousins – well don’t believe it. In France, in particular, consumers accept shoddy goods and shoddy services – as if these standards are normal – and just do not complain. A friend of mine in France bought a cordless telephone, which failed after a few months. On returning it to the shop where he bought it, he did manage to get a replacement, but the assistant then repacked the defective unit and put it back on the display shelf for some other unsuspecting victim to buy it – probably anticipating that a French person would buy it and just throw it away when they found out that it didn’t work.

Most people will take back faulty goods, so I don’t know what the shop was expecting to achieve by reselling a faulty product as new.

I recall pointing out that the local Currys had dozens of expired print cartridges on sale a couple of them nearly a year out of date. I reported this but nothing had happened next time I visited, so I took a handful of them to the customer service desk and pointed out the expiry dates. They had been replaced on the display next time I visited. I went back to customer services. On my next visit there was a basket of date-expired print cartridges on offer at discount prices.

A case where Which? could surely be helping – collating specific product faults, publicising those that then show an inherent weakness will help individual consumers bring claims against either the retailer or the manufacturer. Just as with Kindle – except no apparent successful outcome as yet – where is SoGA there?

Like I said – this was France, where French people expect and regularly receive poor service. The shop would sell the product again, probably with no comeback – it happens all the time there. In fact the French equivalent of “Which ?” – Que Choisir has reported that service standards are improving since the influx of Brits, who will, rightly, complain (though they often think they have the same rights in France as they do in the UK – which they don’t).

Which? will pick up some of these faults during product testing and by other means, such as their car surveys.

It is not quite as easy as it may seem to collect useful information about product faults. To give an extreme example, it may not be obvious whether a faulty laptop has a hardware or software fault. Then there is the complication that the user may have caused the problem, even if they are unaware of mistreating the product. This is a huge problem with small portable devices such as mobile phones.

I’m conscious of how many extra things we suggest Which? should take on each month, Malcolm. 🙂

Perhaps it would be possible to have a facility for Which? members to log in and give brief details of problems so that unreliable items can be identified. Using this information in conjunction with the knowledge that many products on sale differ only cosmetically, it should be possible to collect useful information.

I certainly don’t want to damage the reputation of large manufacturers that usually provide us with safe and reliable goods most of the time, but we also need them to face up to their mistakes.

Let’s hope that Which? does pursue the Kindle problem and give us the satisfaction of a win for consumers. I was considering buying a Kindle as a gift, but that is out of the question until I know the durability has been improved.

Absolutely right. We get a lot of information on brand reliability, which goes a long way to help consumers focus on which brands to aim for, or to avoid. However, sometimes a reliable manufacturer will produce a duff product which sells in volume because of the brand reputation rather than known or proven reliability of the new product. The sooner buyers report back the problems experienced the quicker we could all be warned. Well spread adverse publicity would slow down or halt sales, thus forcing manufacturers to deal with the issue.

If a product is outside warranty, the consumer may be required to provide an expert’s report that indicates that the fault was present at the time of manufacture for the retailer to take action. This is difficult and expensive to do. A fault may not be present but the failure has occurred because a small component is not of adequate specification. That is very common problem with mains operated electronic goods, where cheaper components have been chosen to make the manufacturing cost lower. For example, a smaller transistor could save a matter of pence but significantly affect product reliability.

I would like to see multiple reports of a fault being acceptable evidence of a design fault as an alternative to providing an expert’s report. The cause of Kindle screen failures may not always be the same and some of the devices have probably been abused, even unintentionally, but it is very clear that there is a problem with lack of durability.

SoGA, it seems to me, has a requirement of “durability” that should be independent of any initial fault. It may be generally poor quality materials or components and/or design that leads to a poor lifetime before a fault develops. Can we not make more use of this requirement? That may avoid the cost, trouble and likely inconclusiveness of an expert’s report. We could help claims by setting down what reasonable life, or durability, should be for various types of product.

Extracted from the guide to SoGA;

“Under the Sale of Goods Act, when you sell something to a customer you have an agreement or contract with them. A customer has legal rights if the goods they purchased do not conform to contract (are faulty). The Act says that to conform to contract goods should ……..
• be of satisfactory quality
quality of goods includes …….
– durability

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.

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.”

My own view is that much of our consumer protection laws have been instigated by the EU. Take delayed flight compensation, bank charges, mobile phone call costs, unfair contract terms, product safety, product description, unit pricing. The two year guarantee period originated in EU law.

It would be really good to have a bit of input from the Which? team, maybe after the Christmas break.

The reason I became interested in consumer rights was because a sales assistant in Rumbelows was trying to fob me off over a problem with a reel-to-reel tape recorder still under warranty, over 40 years ago. I’m not convinced we have made a great deal of progress over the years.

How right you are. Unfortunately the ASA does not do much by itself as it is not pro-active, it’s remit is more to respond to complaints made about advertisements – it does not vet adverts beforehand (it would need to be resourced to much higher levels to do that). If advertisements are misleading or in poor taste, then they will intervene, though this is usually following public complaints. Trading Standards would not normally be able to act on referrals from the ASA, because unless a product’s advertising showed it to be dangerous (unlikely), Trading Standards (Local Authorities) get involved when customers complain about the product, which can be about its effectiveness, durability, safety etc. There are certainly some instances when manufacturers ought to invest more attention to these aspects of their products than on the heavy advertising to try and shift them on to the public.

I very much agree with these comments about ASA. It disappoints me that many adverts are full of misrepresentation, when what we need is honesty.

In defence of ASA, they do manage to get advertising changed and it is easy to find what claims have been approved or rejected. The website for the local Trading Standards does publish brief information about cases, but not all do. And we know nothing about the number of people that try to pursue their rights under the Sale of Goods Act.

I’m not sure about blanket dishonesty, but being economical with the truth seems to be a way of life for many organisations (and people). You need to be somewhat cynical and have your wits about you to get by.
I was recently made an offer by a reputable organisation that I could change my subscription to a scheme ( currently costing me £57 a year) to a half-the-normal price offer of £43, but, on enquiring, after year 1 it would go to full price £86. I’m not suggesting for one minute any dishonesty, just that you need to look beyond the immediate “headline”. (I hope the reputable organisation doesn’t now change my current arrangement!).

I assume you meant an LG smart TV – never heard of JG. If this kind of spying is in fact going on via smart TVs, it is indeed worrying, though given that a smart TV is best thought of as an extension to your computer, then it is perhaps not very surprising. As you say, this needs a thorough investigation by Which?, so that we can all find out exactly what is going on, what the implications are etc. Also – this is too big an issue to confine the information to Which? readers, it needs much wider publicity.

Amazon show a telephone number for this company – listed under tradedirect.me details

The distance selling regulations certainly do apply – and you do not need to deal with Asus, the manufacturer. Your contract for the transaction was with the seller, Trade Direct UK. There should have been a packing note supplied with the laptop when it was delivered, showing their details, but after all this time, it has no doubt been mislaid, but you should be able to track them down, perhaps through the payment record, via your bank. Trade Direct will certainly have a record of the sale and if you paid by credit card, then the card issuer has equal responsibility for the goods purchased. Good luck.

If you made the order online via Amazon did you not get a confirmation email of your order/invoice.

Fully synthetic oil is better for your engine than mineral or part synthetic, part mineral. It will cost more of course, but it offers the best protection. Of course, you need to ensure you buy the right grade, as recommended by the car manufacturer, but most now recommend fully synthetic. It is, however, surprising that Halfords would not exchange the oil, just because it was a different branch.

Well done, and thanks for reporting this encouraging result. It might encourage others to take action.

I think it a perfectly reasonable approach. I suspect that too many people have little knowledge of their consumer rights and therefore do not pursue these issues with sellers, ending up being fobbed off by sales staff, who are either poorly trained for the job, or could be deliberately misleading their victims. Consumer protection legislation needs to be equally applicable to retailers buying from manufacturers, so that the buck does not just stop with the seller, but goes back to the manufacturer. We would then have an increased likelihood of products being fit for purpose and having better durability.

I don’t agree – Apple store train their staff to follow Apple policy and refuse point blank to acknowledge my legal rights.

You are absolutely right. Your contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer, so they cannot abrogate their responsibilities.

Being probably the world’s largest on-line retailer, it would be utterly unforgivable for Amazon not to know about consumer rights, though individual staff members may well be poorly trained (if at all), thus resulting in the wrong response. Their returns policy may well be time limited, but that may well be for returns where people have simply changed their minds (where there is no redress in law). However, your case is not about returns, it is about a defective product and the obligation is with Amazon to deal with it directly, as your contract of sale was with Amazon, not the manufacturer and it lasts a “reasonable” amount of time – 12 months or more – and is definitely not restricted to a mere 2 months. You might need to refer the case up the line, or to customer complaints, but they are at fault and you have every right to have your camera repaired, replaced or cost refunded, without incurring any cost yourself – not even for the cost of returning it. Good luck.

Absolutely right – the very act of trying to abrogate your legal obligations in this area is a criminal offence in itself. Trading Standard (part of the Local Authority) should be tasked to prosecute such breaches. Offering a credit note is fine in cases where a customer changes their mind or has bought the wrong size (where it is the customer’s fault), but faulty goods require replacement or full refund (customer has the choice).