The biggest shake up of consumer law in a generation

I forgot to mention the link in the introduction does not work.

Now the link has disappeared. 🙁 Here is a link to the press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-overhaul-of-consumer-rights-in-a-generation

Here is a link to the Consumer Rights Act 2015: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/pdfs/ukpga_20150015_en.pdf

John, that’s 11000 (unproductive) jobs lost 🙂 .Perhaps if they were redeployed in Quality control some of the remaining 170 million hours might also be saved.

I think the 190 million hours quoted in the intro was the time spent by consumers but it is probably roughly matched by staff time in the companies we deal with – so a massive drain on our productive capacity. I wonder how that statistic was calculated. It will be interesting to see how this figure changes under the new law.

Presumably an under-employed goverrnmernt department used stop watches to come to this statistic John? Personally, I would rather we spent the hours making products more reliable and simplifying the ways consumers can get redress when a product fails before it should.

Another useless statistic is that those wasted hours represent £1.235 billion at the minimum wage rate. That would pay for around 19 000 000 appliance repairs or fund around 10 000 000 small claims court cases (or give 13 million people free subscriptions to Which?).
😀

dt, I have a draft recently downloaded. It’s still online – search for “draft consumer rights bill”.

And that is why I know the Act as signed off is not available : )

Good point, William. The Consumer Rights Act cannot protect us if we deal with off-shore traders. Sometimes there is no alternative, but the risks should be made better known and if they are advertising in UK media [including the internet], or trading on a platform like Amazon marketplace, there should be a clear warning that normal consumer rights do not apply.

I think a good reason if going abroad to go to the EU as there is a nascent system for cross-border resolution AFAIR.

Too right, Beryl. Personally, I cannot believe there isn’t going to be a continuation of the usual dialogue: “you broke it”, “you left it running too long”, “it’s a toaster – it’s not meant for muffins”, “you set the temperature too high”; and, ultimately: “at that price, what do you expect?”.

As well as consumers being made more aware of their rights, it is essential that retailers and their staff should be made completely aware of their customers’ rights.

We also need to make consumers aware that the company has rights too. Many people do misuse or otherwise abuse their products, often unintentionally, and that is not covered by warranties or the Sale of Goods Act. Nevertheless, I believe that products should be designed to withstand minor abuse, appropriate to they type of product. For example most people occasionally drop a mobile phone but not a TV.

If consumers are aware of their rights that will help them and the retailers.

There is good evidence that retail staff need compulsory basic training in consumers’ rights.

This page has contact numbers for Sky: contactus.sky.com/uk

Ah, I see, they’re not displayed by default you need to click on the prefer to speak to us option. I still think that should be changed.

Thank you anyway.

Too many companies on the internet make it very difficult to find their contact details especially their phone numbers and email addresses.

Customers should have an easy choice of how they wish to contact the company and not be just presented with their online form to fill in.

Web-forms have replaced email addresses for many companies, making it difficult to keep track of correspondence.

Phone numbers have been hidden or even disappeared from websites now that companies cannot use numbers that generate revenue for customer services.

It is only recently that I have appreciated that the CEO contact details are in fact the new Customer Services. 🙂
http://www.ceoemail.com

I think you’ll find that you haven’t bought the content, only the non-transferable right to access it. It’s probaby buried away in the terms & conditions. Although it’s well known, and I have seen many articles about it, the sellers don’t exactly draw it to purchasers’ attention. Don’t forget also that VAT is payable on e-books whereas paper versions are exempt. It would be difficult to stop you handing over your Kindle to somebody else together with your passwords.

I agree with you in principle but this is a difficult topic to get right. When you buy a book, you don’t actually own the content; only the medium on which the content is printed, i.e. the paper and the ink. With digital content, you are typically allowed to make copies for personal use. I think that the law should be changed to allow you to give away your copies of the content to someone else (whether you sell it or give it for free it doesn’t matter), just as you are free to give or sell a book you’ve owned. Of course, the content owner needs to be satisfied that when you’ve transferred your digital purchase to someone else, you’ve also deleted all copies of the content from all of your devices. I think the technical difficulty in ensuring this is done is what is preventing the digital content sellers from allowing you to treat digital content like a traditional book or CD. I don’t think this difficulty is insurmountable, and I hope one day we will indeed be able to use digital media just like a paper book or CD. Until then, I refuse to buy any content that is protected by DRM.

I suppose it might be possible for transfers [and inheritances] to be handled through the publisher/supplier with simultaneous recall [or disablement] of the original content; however, I can’t believe there wouldn’t be an administration charge making it unviable.

The 30 day period is the time allowed to reject faulty goods. Giving this figure is a considerable improvement over what we had before, which was ‘a reasonable period’ or some similarly unhelpful statement.

If a product breaks down, we have the warranty to protect us, provided that the fault is not caused by misuse, abuse or fair wear and tear. Unfortunately, what constitutes fair wear and tear is still not defined as far as I am aware. With a mechanical appliance such as a washing machine it would be easy to include a washing cycle counter and put information about the designed lifetime on the same label that shows energy ratings etc.

Outside the warranty period I expect we will still have to argue our case with retailers that deny that they have any responsibility for faulty goods. My view remains that we should be looking for products with better warranties because it is generally fairly easy to get a repair or replacement in the warranty period, in my experience. It would be a great help if Which? would tell us the length of the warranty for each product it tests, alongside the other information provided.

I would strongly support this, Beryl. I particularly like the idea of having a stated MINIMUM lifespan because that provides an encouragement to offer something better, and a collaborative effort is the way to go forward.

I suggest that kitchen appliances we should be working towards a ten year warranty. Car manufacturers have moved to warranties of three years or longer, and there is a lot more that can go wrong with a car than any washing machine or fridge.

If a manufacturer has to foot the bill for repairs then the common practice of making goods that are difficult to repair and contain substandard components will have to cease for companies to remain profitable. It has been said that products with a ten year warranty would be much more expensive. I am not convinced that this is the case. If goods last longer any increased cost will soon be recovered.

That is quite true and in a properly working market economy not everyone will wait until their appliance has got old or packed-up before they get a new one; many will still want to upgrade to a a new model with better features or more economical performance. Short warranties [coupled with denial of SoGA rights] aimed at forcing people to replace prematurely or ripping them off for repairs is a bad business model. One of the problems these days is that manufacturers and retailers feel no shame at being exposed in Which? or the media.

Couldn’t agree more Beryl.

If a government website stated minimum life spans for products, there would be less disputes with retailers. Most retailers have the internet in their shops these days.

Beryl – I have just had a look at the John Lewis website. All the electrical goods they sell have a minimum of a two year warranty except TVs, which have five year cover. They currently list 70 kitchen appliances that have a five year warranty, either as standard or by registering them after purchase.

I had a bad experience with JL a couple of years ago, when they lost an order. Recently I had a very frustrating experience, but at least I now have a laptop with a three year warranty rather than only one year cover. It is not a good start but I will probably buy from JL again to secure better warranties.

I believe the time is right to push for MINIMUM warranties, which would make it unnecessary for retailers to offer additional cover.

There is not much point in having a long warranty for smartphones because the technology is advancing so fast.

I think that is a practical way forward Beryl. However, I think there needs to be room in the system for products that meet a market need for cheapness or short life-cycles. Landlords, for example, who include white goods in their lets would probably not be interested in ten-year warranties. My mother wanted a cheap and simple washing machine for light use so she got the most basic one from Argos. Frankly if our kettle blew up tomorrow we wouldn’t fret over it because it cost under £10 in Tesco’s and we could have a replacement in under half an hour.

John – I have a friend with rental property and between lets he often replaces furniture and appliances as well as redecorating the property. We are also frequently told that a substantial proportion of appliances at council recycling facilities are still in working condition.

While acknowledging that many make no attempt to claim under the Sale of Goods Act for goods outside warranty and even replace appliances that are still in good working order, isn’t it time to become more responsible for the environmental consequences of our lifestyle?

I can understand that a single elderly person does not require a washing machine capable of the demands that a large family might put on it, but my answer is to keep the warranty the same but limit the number of cycles covered by the warranty.

Yes, I go along with that. I think the overall principle is worth aiming for and a bit of fine tuning will make for a practical scheme. A Retail Warranties Bill should be a priority in the new Parliament.

Our local council organises electrical goods disposal days when they encourage people to bring along unwanted electrial appliances, in any condition, for reuse and recycling and they have a sophisticated system for either reconditioning and passing them on to a charity for resale or dismantling them and recovering all their components for recycling. I believe similar action takes place at the permanent waste disposal and recycling centres. Unfortunately a lot of smaller appliances go straight in the wheelie bin because it’s not worth making the journey to the disposal point and a lot of charity shops won’t take them. Incentivising durability has to be a prime objective and longer warranties is probably the only way to do it.

Off-topic but some charities will take electrical goods these days, inspecting and PAT-testing them before resale. A local charity shop said they were short of computer leads, especially mains leads. I was able to round up a boxful and it had not even occurred to me that they were of any value.

I would like to see people using recycling facilities put a label on electrical goods indicating what – if anything – is wrong with them. Reuse is better than recycling.

Perhaps products should be graded according to their life expectancy. Then there would be a market for cheaper products.

Beryl – I would prefer to have a decent manufacturer’s warranty, rather than leaving this to the retailer. If retailers are offering different warranties, it is harder to compare prices. Both manufacturers and retailers can go out of business, but manufacturers seem more durable. 🙂

If a kettle or a toaster breaks during the warranty, it is now more common to receive a new one than a repair, simply because many modern products are not designed to be repaired. For example, the element of a modern kettle is part of the base of the kettle rather than an exchangeable part.

For a more expensive product, hopefully we can expect a repair. If the model is obsolete, we might be offered a partial refund, which could be no more than the secondhand value of the product – and much less than it would cost to replace.

Having read the relevant part of the new Act, the consumer could still be offered a paltry payment if goods fail after the warranty has expired but within the period covered by the legislation. If a spare part was not available, the retailer could discharge their liability by offering the secondhand value of the goods, as set out in 4(a) below. Don’t forget that there is no requirement for companies to hold spares for their products.

23 Right to repair or replacement
(1) This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).

(4) Either of those remedies is disproportionate compared to the other if it imposes costs on the trader which, compared to those imposed by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a) the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract,
(b) the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c) whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

As consumers we tend to think about legislation as being there to protect us, but a company will see the same legislation as being a way of limiting their liabilities.

Beryl – Apologies for not agreeing with you about the need for more consumer protection for an INHERENT FAULT.

I believe that multiple reports of premature failure due the same problem should be taken as possible evidence of inherent faults. Many of us are familiar with reading reports of problems on websites. To confirm that a product has an inherent fault, all that is needed is for an expert to look at multiple samples and establish (1) that most failures have been caused by the same fault and (2) confirm that misuse/abuse is unlikely to be a factor.

The Consumer Rights Act in not effective yet but it still needs to be updated. 🙁

If you are a Which? member it might be worth using the services of Which? Legal.

“Reasonable person” does not state they need to be qualified to assess the product. A reputable brand of washing machine, mid-priced, that failed in 3 years of normal use would, I believe, be judged as not durable by a “reasonable person”.

We need facts to back up claims under durability. I believe this is one of the most important elements of this law that we need to make proper use of. That needs Which?, its sister organisations, or other competent consumer organisations, to do the ground work to assess what reasonable durability should be for different groups and price categories of common products. Not a qick job, but unless we tackle it we will make no progress. Then we will have firmer grounds to deal with retailers.

Of course longer warranties would relieve the need to think of using the law, but they are not here (yet) and we need to pursue our rights for redress in the meantime. Come on Which? As the consumer’s champion should this not be one of your priorities?

The new Consumer Rights Act does not help us much with goods that are outside warranty period. I feel we should be pushing for longer warranties. Which? did a good job in alerting members and the public to the excessive cost of extended warranties. Maybe Which? can help here by encouraging us to look for products that do have longer warranties and making us aware of retailers that offer longer warranties at no extra price.

I will ask again for Which? to tell us about the length of warranty when testing products. Manufacturers might offer a warranty promotion or retailers could give longer warranties, but knowing the standard warranty is useful information when choosing new products.

Thanks for doing the digging wc.

“Reasonable person” IS old law English and specifically used as it rules out “experts” .

That’s quite right. Reference was sometimes made “to the man on the top deck of the Clapham omnibus” meaning an ordinary person who is not gifted with special knowledge or attributes but is capable of applying common-sense reasoning to an issue. The courts have usually supported the concept of the reasonable person’s approach to a case and ruled against commercial language or practices that seek to limit liability through technical complexity or expertise. They won’t support frivolous, vexatious or extremely prejudiced claims though. The unfortunate fact is that hardly any SoGA claims came to court and it is unlikely that many CRA claims will arise now that the cost of litigation is prohibitive for the ordinary man or woman in the street. I really would like to see some sort of “durability” framework drawn up using consumer organisations, trading standards, trade bodies, and others, and then find a test case in which it could be exercised.

Thanks to the three of you. I have long been unsure about the term ‘reasonable person’. Can either of you find a link that we could use in future discussion?

I would like to establish whether an owner can be regarded as a reasonably person or does it have to be someone impartial. For example, in a motor accident, the opinion of a passenger carries less weight than an independent witness.

I think we should keep pushing until Which? gives us advice on how to pursue claims for goods that fail outside the warranty period. It would be good to see some test cases that we could relate to. The goal should be to help the public understand when they have a reasonable claim.

I suppose that if a dispute under the Consumer Rights Act over the failure of goods outside the warranty but within the reasonable life of the product actually came to court the judge would decide what a reasonable person would consider to be appropriate durability. That might or might not correspond with the view of either party to the action.

There is some information in the Which? consumer rights guidance on using the small claims procedure:
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/when-should-i-use-the-small-claims-court-

The term “reasonable” is used in several places without definition so it all comes down to the view of the mediator or judge if a dispute proceeds to that stage. There is also a slightly worrying section there about getting an expert opinion to support the claim.

Personally, as a starting point, I consider that a durability claim on a domestic article should be perfectly reasonable over a period upto double the length of the warranty. I see the warranty as the manufaturer’s way of saying that this is the period over which we are prepared to take total [but not necessarily undisputed!] responsibility for anything that might go wrong with this product as a result of defective design or manufacture; beyond that we will consider what is reasonable having regard to the nature of the fault. Which is where the argument begins. Most manufacturers would take the view at the outset that the warranty is conclusive and the absolute limit of their liability, but if the case went to a legal claim they might get over-ruled and forced to concede. That is the consumer’s gamble.

With most appliances some parts will last almost indefinitely if used correctly; other parts will wear out or just fail. The manufacturer presumably bases the warranty period on the likely lifetime of the most vulnerable part. If the plastic switch on a kettle breaks off, the kettle is useless whereas the rest of the appliance could give years of useful service. It probably wouldn’t be worth while going to law over an ordinary kettle but a top-of-the-range model could cost over £100 to replace if it broke down prematurely. Until there are a number of claims going through the judicial process, rather than being settled out of court, we can only speculate.