Brief cases: faulty smartphone

A lot of positive changes start with people having a dream. Imagine if everyone were a member of ?Which/Legal and systematically fought all the chancers out there…

. . . and if only access to justice was not so expensive and complicated. Even the ‘free’ routes via regulators, ombudsmen, Citizens Advice, and trading standards are not exactly straightforward.

Which? Legal, newspaper columns and individuals win Consumer Rights Act cases [mostly before court action] but it doesn’t seem to make much difference to the behaviour of retailers generally. What’s the answer? Naming and shaming might be one way of changing the culture.

They dont dream about it in America Sophie they get together and start a class action. Also they have solid support from the US Administrative Departments in enforcing legal action against actionable “hurt ” to the American public . Unlike here . If we are good enough to buy goods from big US companies surely we deserve the protection that American citizens have when their legal rights are broken otherwise we are just another Third World Country, in reality.

Does the USA have the equivalent of our Consumer Rights Act, Duncan?

This case concerned a UK retailer selling the product and service of a UK company. The customer eventually got satisafction but it was clearly a struggle and he had to involve Which? Legal. How would an individual in a similar situation get on in America [either against Vodafone or a US cellphone company]?

Vodaphone sold its 45 % stake in America,s telecom wireless business to Verizon Communications for $130 Billion as it was not getting its own way in the USA and if you check out it isn’t getting its own way in Australia. I will check into other US cell-phone providers John .

The USA is fairly complex in terms of Consumerism. Individual States have their own laws, there are also Federal laws and the Federal Trade Commission is established to protect consumers.

https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection

Don’t do a lot of research, Duncan. I was just wondering whether you might know how the same scenario set out in the Intro to this Conversation would play out if it happened in the shop of a cell-phone operator in America and they messed the customer about in the way that Vodafone did here.

Thanks for that link, Ian. I like the very direct language used on the FTC website.

The USA seems to have very good top-level policies and enforcement agencies dealing with major commercial misbehaviour. I am not sure how much support an individual citizen gets when their rights are being ignored or denied – it’s not always possible [or economically worth while] to undertake a class action process as so many cases are unique and if they have to be dealt with under the particular state jurisdiction that makes it harder to get widespread support.

I presume day-to-day enforcement of consumer rights is left to the County Sherriffs’ offices or the state administration according to the relevant state’s legislation. None of the people I know in the United States seems to have any direct experience and if they have a problem they take it up with the trader concerned accepting the outcome as par for the course. America is generally more litigious than the UK and seems to rely more on contract law for obtaining relief than on public statutes.

I should watch Judge Judy more perhaps.

Thats why they sold out to Verizon John , apart from the competition , US customers answered back and didnt take no for an answer , too much adverse publicity and ,as you know , in the USA everything is publicised especially if its an American citizen having a hard time from authorities. Although the US is a massive country the built in mind-set of the whole nation is decidedly parochial, clannish, neighbour next door, good ,ol boys type of thinking so just imagine small village thinking where is one person has a problem 5 minutes later its known at the other end of the village . Americans are VERY vocal.

I have been pursuing the valuable (in principle) protection offered in law by the concept of “durability” ( a product should last a reasonable length of time, given its cost – my words) , both in these Convos and directly with Which? Which? have never shown any real interest in promoting durability as a basis for claims – at least, not in response to my enquiries of them. Yet I have made 3 successful claims where products have not lasted the reasonable time that should be expected. And all three were dealt with fairly easily with the supplier/retailer, including Hotpoint.

Whilst we would all (I presume) like more realistic warranties/guarantees, they are showing no sign of being generally offered. Yet we have a law that gives us all protection for up to 6 years. Why do not Which? put some focus on this and help us use it?

Until Which? or another organisation looks at the durability issue I expect it will just be people like ourselves who put in effort who will succeed in making claims outside the guarantee period, though many who know nothing about the legislation have been given discounts against the cost of replacement products. Many have received goodwill payments when their cars have needed expensive repairs.

An increasing number of products are available with longer guarantees or affordable extended warranties and provided that the terms & conditions are reasonable, these offer a simple and practical solution for those who are not up to facing up to unhelpful company representatives. I wonder if Which? mentioned that Samsung washing machines were sold with 5 year guarantees for a long period or that John Lewis gives a 5 year guarantee on all TVs.

I’ve found Hotpoint helpful too. As manufacturer rather than retailer they obviously have no legal obligation but large manufacturers are keen that you buy their products again.

@afrench, Adam, are Which? prepared to publicise the “durability” requirement of the CRA and advise consumers how they might use this? It seems to be given no prominence in the CRA guidance.

I have often thought about what would be fair to both the consumer and to retailers. When my car was nearly four years old it developed its first fault, an intermittent problem with the headlamp adjuster. I hoped that the dealer would sort out the problem when the car was in for service, but was just told what the problem was and what it would cost to have the control replaced – about £140, if I recall correctly. Had the engine or gearbox died I would certainly have made a claim, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect every part to carry on working for six years, the limit of my statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act. Likewise, I would not expect every part of a washing machine to continue to work faultlessly.

The Consumer Rights Act is not a guarantee, but I would expect to be able to pursue a case successfully if a product was not economically repairable and had not been abused.

The CRA overrides guarantees. Durability is related partly to cost – a cheap product should not be expected to last as long as one the retailer has charged considerably more for. The main thing with your headlamp adjuster is that although out of guarantee it was replaceable – unlike the parts in some domestic appliances. This is another are Which? should look at, at the very least advising us in their product reviews as to what can and cannot be replaced and the likely cost. My daughter has an Indesit dishwasher – came with the new-build house. After 2 years the heater failed; fortunately she had covered it with insurance. Now it is said the motherboard has failed and apparently is not replaceable, or not economically. The insurance provides a replacement machine. But what a waste.

On my Renault the headlight self leveller is linked by an arm to the suspension. The connection came apart – a ball joint I think – so my mechanic at the time fixed it. Otherwise it required a complete unit, costing around £200. Garages these days don’t seem to think of fixing anything, just bunging in a complete new unit at a cost.

To be strictly accurate, guarantees are in addition to your statutory rights. As it happened, when the main dealer investigated my headlamp adjuster they accidentally fixed the problem, despite quoting me for the job. Over Christmas I watched a family member sort out a faulty headlamp self-leveller on his expensive estate car and he added a protective shield to protect the mechanism from salt and grit. Replacing parts provides more certainty that a fault will be cured, making the need for a second visit less likely, which is one reason that car and washing machine repairers replace rather than repair parts. As I have suggested before, all white goods should come with a minimum of a five year guarantee. If the manufacturer was responsible for the cost of repairs during this period, that would lead to better quality products because the cost of one repair would more than negate all the profit made on the sale. Legislation is needed.

I recall manufacturers claiming that you would void your guarantee if you used third party ink cartridges. That’s fair enough if a (separate) print head is blocked by third party ink or damage is caused by leakage, but not reasonable if – for example – there is an electronic fault or other problem unrelated to the use of compatible ink cartridges.

I have some sympathy with the manufacturer being concerned about third party repairers, who could cause damage by dismantling products and the only fair solution is to have an independent expert give their view.